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

[ScreamingMeMesaur]

Sorry I can't do share tokens on my phone. Hopefully someone who can will come along.

"The police force accused of failing to properly investigate an indecent exposure allegation against Sarah Everard’s killer told a woman who reported a flasher that the man had committed “no crime” because she did not see his genitals.

Nicola Hall, 33, was at work in a Kent shopping centre in September when she claims a man lunged at her, unzipped his trousers and exposed himself when no other customers were around."

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

You don’t have to memorise details of the penis but you do have to see the exposed penis ( vomit) for that particular offence.

@SoItWas

"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)?

Yes they definitely get ground down. I worked for them some years ago in a civvie role. What grinds them down IME is the tiring shifts, the awful admin (I believe this would drive any person to despair) and often the organisation itself make it hard for them to do their job (having to jump through hoops-often duplicating tasks) and demonise them for small mistakes. IME they don’t treat their officers very well - they treat them like objects. Eg not relieving them for meal breaks or not caring whether toilets are available. That sort of treatment does lead to a certain mentality. We should know this by now.

The fact that the police see flashing as trivial full stop (see SE case) has nothing to do with this officers reaction obv.

I had no idea that eg a man sitting in a park when children walking home from school with obvious erection he's wanking under loose clothes is totally legal. Even with hand down pants presumably. As long as they can't see any skin.

@NiceGerbil

The fact that the police see flashing as trivial full stop (see SE case) has nothing to do with this officers reaction obv.

I had no idea that eg a man sitting in a park when children walking home from school with obvious erection he's wanking under loose clothes is totally legal. Even with hand down pants presumably. As long as they can't see any skin.

It’s not “totally legal”. The common law offence of outraging public decency would apply where no exposure took place.

There are news stories about such instances such as the one below:

www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-appeal-after-a-man-outrages-public-decency-on-train-before-assaulting-off-duty-officer/

Oh that's good news!

Does there need to be someone there other than the victim?

Our criminal justice system requires that for a person to be convicted of a crime, it must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' that they committed it. The reason for this is to prevent innocent people being punished, e.g. in cases of mistaken identity or malicious allegations. The accepted view (and quite rightly) is that it's better for a criminal to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be punished.

To convict a person of indecent exposure it must be proved that he/she exposed his/her genitals. In a case like this, with only one witness (the complainant) and no corroborating evidence, it would be necessary for the complainant to be certain that the male exposed his penis. She isn't expected to have taken a good long look at it, or to be able to describe it in detail. But if she can't be sure that he exposed his penis, there's absolutely no chance of him being convicted. And in that case the police/CPS can't charge him because to do so would be a waste of time and money - it'd simply be thrown out of court.

This is an unfortunate consequence of our criminal justice system but it's better than the alternative, i.e. people being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Or flashing not been seen as trivial so usually not bothered with. Rather than investigating possibly linking to other incidents. Flashers are usually prolific. And it's been known for decades that escalation is not uncommon. So really dangerous men could be stopped before they got that far. Like ooh off the top of my head two murderers recently I can think of who had been carrying out sex offences. Sorry! Trivial crimes with side scope for vindictive women to ruin men's lives. Forgot. Yes the police do the right thing with their approach.

In this case, doing in a shopping centre and lunging is pretty bold. Would expect to ring alarm bells. At least check CCTV see if known.

We can only speculate as to the adequacy of the police investigation. Without knowing the facts I'd be hesitant to form an opinion.

What even after what the police said and did after the complaint?

That's a really interesting take. Thanks.

There's no excuse for this.

Some years ago I read of a man who pretended to flash a woman but was actually exposing a Greggs sausage roll. Action was still taken against him and if I remember correctly he was convicted.

Why has this not happened here? Sounds like an issue with Kent police or these individual officers.

And how would you 'describe' a penis, anyway?

After criticism of the handling of this complaint -

'Since Kent Police was approached for comment, Hall has been contacted again, had a statement taken and been given a crime number. Chief Superintendent Samantha Price said: “Following this report, the circumstances were assessed by an investigator and a crime report for indecent exposure was created. However, during the initial assessment it was established that no exposure had been witnessed and the investigation was filed pending further lines of inquiry coming to light. Officers have since reviewed the circumstances and while no further evidence of an exposure has been identified, an investigation into an alleged assault without injury has begun.”'

There are always posters though who take the line that swisscheeze did in their last two posts.

The specific matter I've addressed is the reason why the man wasn't charged with indecent exposure, as there seem to be some misconceptions around this.

I don't have any opinion on whether the investigation was flawed because I don't know anything about it. Unfortunately I can' t read the article because of the paywall.