Police ignored flasher ‘because victim didn’t look closely enough’

Omg, how frightening, the poor woman.

Bah I can’t read the article. At face value how can you prosecute if the witness can’t give evidence that she saw his genitals which is what is implied?

If the only witness' only evidence was that she didn't see anything, how would theybhave got a conviction? What action should they have taken?

That's a proper genuine question. There's "obviously" something wrong with the man's actions but what should/could police have done about it?

So...

Man flashes women
Woman "Stand still old chap, I have to get a good look at it or I can't claim you flashed me"
Man: Fucking excellent, double the jollies. If I ask nicely she might even give a tug, a suck while she is down there?!

Does anyone in any police force have any common sense left? Or are they all misogynists who think this is really bloody funny?

@HoardingSamphireSaurus the police have to follow the "points to prove" in regards to legislation as well as CPS sentencing guidelines to get a case to the CPS to get it to court. In the case of this offence, you have to see it to get a conviction. The police don't write the legislation.

So what should the police have done with no evidence, not even a witness sratement?

You definitely have the cart and the horse the wrong way round there.

There is no witness statement because the police officer wanted the woman to describe the penis, not the lewd act! She wasn't given the chance to report it, make a statement, get a crime reference number because the police officer made up their own law!!

It is not viewing the penis that is an illegal act. Or any woman who gets flashed at would be guilty of a crime.

It is flashing the penis that is the lewd act. The intent of the man when he chose to uncover and flash it at someone.

We used to tell young girls that when flashed they should look away and run, maybe even laugh. Now, according to this officer that would make any crime null and void!

Be fucking sensible!

Or do you think that any woman wanting to secure a conviction for a flasher should get up close and personal and have a good look, just to satisfy both pervert and police?

Here's a share token link

Police ignored flasher ‘because victim didn’t look closely enough’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-ignored-flasher-because-victim-didnt-look-closely-enough-zcls8kbxr?shareToken=e3661c9d7095293d77d7289d39779318

After being approached for comment, Kent are now following up on it as an 'alleged assault without injury'. Which presumably they could have done in the first place.

[quote Wiltshire90]@HoardingSamphireSaurus the police have to follow the "points to prove" in regards to legislation as well as CPS sentencing guidelines to get a case to the CPS to get it to court. In the case of this offence, you have to see it to get a conviction. The police don't write the legislation.[/quote]
I undertsand that but my point still stands.

A man flashes and, in order to get any hope of the police taking it seriously the victim has to further traumatise herself.

Being flashed isn't pleasant in the first place. Being told to stop and have a good look only makes it worse and, wherevetr the logic disconnect is, it is just another instance of the law not considering the effect of a crime on the victim, when the crime is exual and the victim a woman - see recent 'sex gone wrong' defences that shouldn't be accepted but hey! It's not a tattoo or facial modification, so who cares?

I don't understand why any woman can just accept this as 'the way the law is' - get angry about it FFS!

@HoardingSamphireSaurus who says I'm not angry about the way things are? But this is just another example of the media sensationalising a story when there are processes to explain why the police have or haven't taken action behind the scenes. The media don't want to explain that or enlighten anybody, so women get angry at the police (this headline is saying they "ignored" her - they've clearly taken some sort of report else they wouldn't be explaining why they can't take action for this offence) rather than at the legislators. The debate ends up being unproductive because it's focusing on the wrong things.

Sorry. The angry comment wasn't actually aimed at you. @Wiltshire90. just women in general!

And I can't help but feel that "a policeman decided that there needn't be much of a discussion or any action taken because the victim didn't look" is a conversation that needs to be had.

I can read beyond a headline, after all!

[quote Wiltshire90]@HoardingSamphireSaurus who says I'm not angry about the way things are? But this is just another example of the media sensationalising a story when there are processes to explain why the police have or haven't taken action behind the scenes. The media don't want to explain that or enlighten anybody, so women get angry at the police (this headline is saying they "ignored" her - they've clearly taken some sort of report else they wouldn't be explaining why they can't take action for this offence) rather than at the legislators. The debate ends up being unproductive because it's focusing on the wrong things.[/quote]
Have you read the piece? That seems like a very unfair characterisation of the media involvement, given that the result of the Sunday Times looking into it appears to be that lo and behold, turns out there is something the police can do.

Thanks for Share Token
This article just creates more Qs for me.

She only needed to “see” his penis; she didn’t need to “look at it” if she had indeed seen it.

(Initially I thought surely she did see his penis otherwise how would she be able to say “he exposed himself”?)

Even seeing it for a millisecond would suffice for there to be evidence of this offence

However, the subsequent actions suggest that she didn’t even see his penis because, after reevaluation, Police still did not record an offence of Exposure. As the sole witness she would have to be able to give evidence (to know, not think) that his genitals were exposed. It’s not the fault of the police if the legislation requires certain points to be proved - although it does appear that all of this wasn’t explained to the complainant very well.

If no one actually saw him get his penis out, it would be difficult to prove that the indecent exposure happened to the satisfaction of a court.

Sounds like Common Assault may have been worth pursuing though. In any case, the officer should have pursued enquiries first, before CCTV overwrites just in case there was a witness who did see the act. If nothing else getting the suspect in for interview would at least make him think twice before the next time, even if no criminal action resulted.

So if someone went to punch me but missed its not a crime?
I’m sure he could have been done for attempted something or other.

Something happened to me and two friends when we were 12. An older teenager (16-18?) was standing at a ground floor window as we walked home from school, waving at us to draw out attention, and then started wanking in full view. We averted our eyes and went straight home. The police (male) visited my home but declined to do anything as, at 12, I had quickly looked away and didn't feel able to describe male genitals to them.

I wonder if you would get prosecuted for assault if you kicked him in the balls. Or would there be mitigating circumstances and you got off.

I have wondered this a few times - what would happen if when someone flashed you, you got your phone out and took a photo which included his face and genitals? Would you then be guilty of a crime - taking indecent photos or something? It would be proof though wouldn't it?

I am confused by the earlier what would you expect the police to do comments.

The poster who said there were no witnesses. She is a witness.

If someone is mugged and no other people around, the person mugged is seen as a witness.

With women and sex offences. Somehow they aren't.

Strange.

What could the police have done? I'd say-

• Have the understanding that a man in a shopping centre with CCTV, lunging and unzipping his trousers. Sounds like a man who is getting quite bold. No hiding in a bush in the park and doing it from a distance for him.

• Think hmmm. Given the circs he may have form, we might know who he is, might be someone with other reports.

• Investigate IE get CCTV and see who he is (as they have decided to do now after complaint etc).

• See if he is known/ repeat offender etc. If other reports/ done in past/ ? on probation then they can add this to the mounting evidence/ act now.

• If not. V sorry but doesn't meet threshold for prosecution. Understand disappointed and it was upsetting. We have checked and we have no matching reports.

To indicate to women and girls they need to make sure to look at the flashers cock otherwise it's not a crime is surely...

A bit dodgy?

I didn't know that.

I was on a tube fairly late at night. Most of train empty. Used to be 5 mins between the 2 stops so a bit of time.

Bloke sitting opposite me asked me time. Told him. Then looked down pointedly. Obvious erection he was stroking through his trackie bottoms. I mean you could see whole outline and v hard on.

5 mins no one else in carriage no one in adjacent ones.

I assumed that was a crime. Now I get why my report went totally unresponded to.

I only reported it because even I knew men like this escalate. It was maybe 20 years ago.

Men who don't know this and like intimidating women and girls sexually, well if it becomes widely known it's no prob to do that. Fun times.

Gerbil unfortunately “outraging public decency” (OPD) which would ordinarily cover that act, the legislation states “two persons capable of seeing the act must be present”.

However, if in doubt, they could’ve still easily used the Public Order Act or railway byelaws. And in any case if this were to happen now, should still have viewed CCTV to ensure there was definitely never anyone else present to make out the more serious offence and also to get his image.

Lack of imagination from the police/crime recorders (some of whom aren’t police but admin staff) and general laziness unfortunately.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the police have a “bums on seats” approach to recruitment and treat their employees like meat in a sausage factory whereas actually it’s an important job; officers who think outside the box, show empathy and have a can-do attitude are what is required.

"officers who think outside the box, show empathy and have a can-do attitude are what is required."

It wouldn't surprise me if many new recruits start out like this, but get ground down by the job/system over time.

Although "dirty cops" have always been an issue. I met an officer once who admitted that back in the days before CCTV, they'd knock suspected child abusers etc about a bit in the van, during arrests. Of course not ACAB, but I'd imagine even the nicest officers get sick of the shit they have to try to sort daily. I can see how it would harden a person, and maybe even normalise extreme crime in a way (because they deal with it day after day)?

So we have to memorise details of the penis if we get flashed?

I saw an unexpected naked guy just the other day (not a flashing situation) and I couldn't tell you a single thing about his dick - except I suppose that it wasn't big enough to notice. I wasn't about to stare at it.

This is male thinking, isn't it? Male thinking that takes the perspective of the flasher, at that. They're obsessed with dicks, so obviously if the woman can't describe the dick she never saw it.