Police officer attacks woman and keeps job

[Happinessisawarmcervix]

No words.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/drunken-duty-police-officer-25-23759044

@alwayslucky

Having spent a long time researching false memory therapies and psychological therapies for sexual offenders it is my provisional hypothesis that;

1. Rapists and child abusers will undertake any therapy offered to them with enthusiam if they think it will help them to get out of jail sooner / avoid jail. This has nothing to do with whether they want to stop offending. They know how to work the system.
2. The people offering sexual therapy are a scary network of people involved in hypnosis, body psychotherapy and other strange and non-evidence based / unregulated practices, that are worse then ineffective, they are positively dangerous.
3. Wrongly convicted / innocent people will always refuse to take part in therapies to cure them of sexual perversions that they do not have.

These things result, unspuprisingly, in a situaion in which people who have refused therapy not reoffending (because they were innocent all along) and most, if not all, of those undertaking therapy reoffend again and again (because the therapies don't work and because perverts feel a compulsion to act upon their impulses).

I had a long conversation with a woman recently whose husband died in jail having been unjustly imprisoned and worngly convicted of historic sexual abuse against a child (now a mature woman).

Things have happened since her husband's death that demonstrate that the alleged victim was untruthful.

The woman told me that in prison the men convicted of non-recent CSA fell into 2 groups, one group consiting of paedophiles and the other of wrongly convicted men, many of them elderly. All the paedophiles were attending therapy, ostensibly to stop them from reoffending.

None of the wrongly convicted men attended therapy, even if they had to serve longer sentences. Attending the therapy meant taking responsibility for, and sharing details of, crimes they had not commited

Guess which group were convited of sex offences after release and which group didn't?

There are thousands of women telling their stories on Twitter alone, of being ignored or not reporting things. The heroic thin blue line trope is really not appropriate at the moment.

I would be here for days if I decided to write about all the times that I have been treated badly and let down by the police.

I have seen a lot more corrpution than most people, some from quarters you would not expect.

I have a complaint with a force at the moment that has just been reviewed and upheld by the PCC, evidence was ‘lost’ and outright lies by those that the crime was reported to.

I can't say too much as it would be outing but I have had some insane experiences similar to this recently and also I have many extremely serious concerns about PCCs in general, 2 in particular.

However I have also met some really wonderful decent cops over the years and they have genuinely tried to help me. I really appreciate that even if they are unable to help as much as I would like them to.

The heroic thin blue line trope is really not appropriate at the moment.

I just want to come back to address this.

I have felt horrified by the infiltration / astroturfing / capture of grass roots movements by dubious persons who seem set on inciting as much hatred towards the police, the NHS, teachers and other state servants as possible.

I have been really upset to see huge mobs screaming at the police that they are paedophiles, satanist, paedophile protectors, screaming "shame on you!" while spitting, throwing heavy objects, weilding makeshift weapons, setting fire to police vehicles, it is outrageous.

Of course it's brave to go out to do your job when you are outnumbered by angry mob who are throwing fireworks at you, hitting you, trying to incite you to fight back, because that it what is happening.

Whatever grievances you might legitimately have about the police, how can you say that cops facing the mob are not brave?

Ian Tomlinson

Took their numbers off and covered their faces

That says there for a ruck.

They killed a man.

Then lied and lied institutional cover up. Said loads of stuff to damage his reputation. What he was doing.

Really upsetting for his family obviously.

It was only when mobile footage came out and they were forced that they changed their tune.

Jean Charles menezes again they lied and lied and lied. And slowly their lies came out.

Again they had killed a man.

Mark Duggan. What a mess. Massively mishandled by the met resulting in an already poor relationship with the community reaching breaking point. The way they treated the family etc. Terrible.

Similar thing to the vigil/ protest in Clapham common recently. A woman abducted and murdered and a police officer arrested. Women protesting. Anyone with half a brain should have known to keep it low key. Light touch. Unsurprisingly they totally mishandled that as well.

And on and on.

The Tottenham riots didn't have to happen.

The clashes on Clapham common didn't have to happen.

The idea that things are being 'whipped up' assumes that readers have no brain. In reality people who already thought that will agree and those that don't won't.

The met has a litany of terrible stuff behind them and they just keep on doing it.

That's a message they send deliberately. Clapham common they had choices. They chose the path they took.

It was a message to the women of London. Again.

As the situation with Mark Duggan. Could have been different if handled sensitivity. Wasn't.

I can't speak for other forces but the met have been mine for more than 4 decades.

I doubt trust them, I don't like them, they make me feel nervous. And I have no idea what good they do. I assume they must do stuff. No idea what.

Sorry but this is a thing for me.

I'm a middle class white woman from a 'nice'area and if I feel like that how the fuck does anyone else feel.

Having said all that I think we need reform, different priorities. Somehow cut out the closed shop protect our own etc stuff.

Don't know how.

The import of ideas about the police, and the criminal justice system, from the USA is ridiculous.

Carceral feminists in the UK are awful.... Cut and paste from USA.
With no thought.
Have these people read about the history of the USA penal system? Seen the stats? Understood the dynamics? Do they see that it's a huge part of the economy there?...

Etc etc. No.

Anti carceral makes sense in a nuanced way in the USA.
It makes way less sense here. And it's never explained what they actually want. Well. I've heard release all the prisoners with X characteristic but no reasoning.

It's so fucking lazy.

We have problems here. Read about them. Think about them. What change do WE need?

Etc etc

Not to argue hood that's how I personally feel about my force.

I understand others will feel differently.

And obviously I don't think they're all awful. I do think there are massive problems though across the met.

When people, quite a lot of people, will not hear a word of criticism. Will not acknowledge when they have been proven to have behaved badly. That worries me a lot.

Not to argue hood that's how I personally feel about my force.

NiceGerbil
I value your perspective and it is important that we can talk about the things we agree on and the things we don’t. It is only by discussing such things that we can stay thinking IMO.

And obviously I don't think they're all awful. I do think there are massive problems though across the met.

I could not agree more.

When people, quite a lot of people, will not hear a word of criticism. Will not acknowledge when they have been proven to have behaved badly. That worries me a lot.

I agree 100%. Things are always nuanced and complex.

I read an article about the Bristol riots in the Mail where they reported on comments from Andy Roebuck and Peter Fahy

I would like to examine these statements and think about them.

Avon and Somerset Police Federation chairman Andy Roebuck said some people tried to set fire to police vans while officers were still inside. 'To my mind that is attempted murder.

surely attempting to set fire to a vehicle with people inside it is not just attempted murder, it is the kind of mediaeval barbarism committed by the vile insects of daesh?

I appreciate that many people, especially in urban areas, do not trust the police. I understand that some people have very good reasons for not trusting the police. I am one of those people. However there can never be any excuse for trying to burn human beings alive. Not ever.

Roebuck also said

When the protesters started to disperse, the feral criminals took the opportunity to hijack the protest. Officers said they felt they were going to be killed, such was the level of violence. You look into their eyes and hear how their voices were cracking – they were in fear for their lives.

source:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9391323/First-eight-suspects-arrested-detectives-hunt-500-extremists-Bristol-riot.html

If those police officers were not in fear of their lives they were not paying attention. They were literally putting their lives at risk by doing their job. Would you want to work in a job where you were required to face a baying, jeering, murderous mob? Risking burns, broken bones, being crushed, beaten or burned to death? Not only that but after you finish your shift traumatised and exhausted people on social media criticise and disrespect you?

I wouldn’t want that job. I don’t know anyone who would want to be in that position.

It seems to me that we share some of the same concerns and have had some similar (although not the same) experiences. I would like us to discuss some of these issues together as I think we could make improvements in the service.

There are serious problems with policing IMO. Many good people join the police wanting to make a difference but feel stressed, unsupported and eventually burn out. Bizarrely some of the least competent, most captured cops are promoted to positions of power and authority, while some of the most sincere, caring, meticulous cops are bullied and harassed. This is important and has not escaped my attention.

There are problems with bullying, institutional capture (I will start a thread about this soon), various “isms”, corruption, low morale (understandably), under-resourcing and the fact that the police are doing the job of social services and mental health services. A primary causal factor in deaths in custody is that the police are spending much of their time dealing with very mentally unwell people who should be taken care of by mental health / social services.

Is the police service institutionally racist? Well if it’s not it is the only organisation in the country and probably on the planet that is not racist.

My personal view is that racism and other “isms” are part of human psychology, our "default mode" if you like. I do think that much racism is unconscious and that unconscious bias is a real thing. However I do not believe that the plethora of diversity training courses, leadership training courses and unconscious bias training courses are helpful. They have been used as a strategy for institutional capture for some time IMO. They also often exacerbate divisions, inflame sensitive issues and incite grievances. I will post more about this soon, as it is extremely important.

Further down in the Mail article they report on the opinions of Peter Fahy

Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, blamed the backlash from the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil, in south London, for the violence against officers.’ 'I worry that police officers in Bristol were inhibited from using necessary force to stop 'protesters' from attacking them because of the lack of support they saw the Met receive,' he said.

I would like to examine Fahy’s comment in a little more depth.

The first thing that is clear is that the police are feeling criticised and unsupported by the public. Obviously the issue of public support for the police has been something that has affected police morale since the start of the pandemic.

My own view is that we locked down too late, closed travel borders too late, squandered the advantages that being a small island granted us, and there followed an orgy of backhanders and corruption relating to sourcing PPE. Complicated and contradictory information about social distancing and mask wearing left the public confused and distrusting.

The police were, and are, in an impossible position. Whatever they did, whether robust enforcement or a light touch (as happened with the BLM protests) the police were criticised. They are caught in the middle of criticism from opposing sides of the debate.

I do not understand how anyone is left working for the police given the fact that every day they are spat on, assaulted, disrespected and criticised in real life and in the media and then, to top it all, evil people try to burn them to death inside a van. It seems to me that the police are in a double bind. They cannot do anything right.

Fahy’s comments about the lack of support for the Met, presumably referred to the public disorder following the Sarah Everard vigil.

It is extremely obvious to me and I think to most readers here that the vigil was infiltrated / astroturfed / captured by a network of activists who do not have women’s best interests at heart. These activists seek to create discord between citizens and state servants. They have infiltrated statutory bodies and are currently making life very difficult for any person who is genuine about wanting to make a difference and to help make our country and the world a better place.

It seems to me that, as activists, one of our primary strategies, if not the primary strategy is to stay thinking and to try to analyse what is going on, complete with valuing complexity and nuance, holding on to “not knowing” and recognising the importance of provisional hypotheses in these insane times and using evidence and only evidence upon which to draw conclusions.

It is very difficult to retain the capacity to think when under fire and when we live in insane times when we are invited to give credence to irrational theories about gender and to not notice when there are massive safeguarding red flags, but we have to try our best.

I would absolutely love to discuss policing and legislative reform with you here, if you would like to think together on these issues.

I would value your opinions as I think we both have unique perspectives and could identify some serious issues that others might not be aware of.

Only if you feel that you would like to do this of course.

There is so much more I would like to say right now but am pushed for time, later maybe? :)

As @zippityzip said. He’s a probationary officer, no way will he keep his job. That’s his career down the toilet and he’s only got himself to blame. Pathetic.

Apologies as I only just had a chanceto look at the video of the assault

The off duty cop is shouting "That's assault" and trying to restrain the female.

The news narrator is talking over the early stages of the video

Does anyone know of a longer video existing anywhere or a copy of the video without the news narrator's voice over it?

I would be very interested to see the entire thing.

It seems to me to be essential to know whether his claims of "that's assault" were based on anything happening in reality or not.

It is obviously very different that he is shouting "That's assault" rather than, for example, trying to violate the woman sexually.

@hoodathunkit Thanks for your post..
I would suggest that, starting with Parliament, every organisation is to a greater or lesser extent Sexist. Also Disablist. Also Ageist.

(See Baroness Cumbernauld on sexism in the N.H.S, Sir Trevor Phillips on how, in it's effect on peoples lives, "Disablism is worse than Racism)

I would propose that for every organisation, wide inclusiveness and new points of view are beneficial, yet ranks close. Extinction Rebellion advocates citizen jury type of introduction of new ideas. It must be "meaningful input" with an expectation it will be immediately taken into account by the decision makers.

(The side effect would be that the public, not excluded, would be more cohesive and more trusting, knowing 'real people' were involved in decisions. The 'street wisdom' would astound those in ivory towers. The helpless impotent alienated rage we all feel would be pressure valved, freed from the silly first past the post rival football teams grabbing all the power and all the money, with not even a 'none of the above' option on the unrepresentative voting form)

As to the police, I would suggest they and all other uniformed public services are assisted by a new supplementary resource. I would propose a new name, Supplementary Public Protectors.

A core of those ten thousand redundant soldiers would get it off to a good start. They would have sub-groups and specialists. But their purpose would be to back-up whenever the usual service is likely to be overwhelmed.

If new rules mean the airports can't deal with processing, tor if drunks are attacking ambulance crews every Saturday on the High Street, or a mob are attacking fire crews, or if there is a genuine protest march, liable to be used as an excuse to attack and terrorise and loot, then there is an army-style disciplined resource who can aid the regular public service personnel, being armed, but just as importantly, being willing to be polite and firm, but not expected, by the public or the force they are assisting, to accept public disorder.

That is public protection. Freedom not to be terrified by criminals, gangs or mobs, or by drunks and disease spreaders, is more important to the public than any other pretext 'freedoms' cited as justification for frightening, harming or even killing the weakest among us.

The mental health cases and the drugged people are too much for an ordinary police response, or for ordinary A and E. Supplementary Public Protectors would need to include a specialist trained unit, able to disarm quickly and safely, and remove the problematic citizens to appropriate care promptly.

The other point you raise is again about the closed ranks system, which poisons any organisation defending it's own 'tribal team', however wrongly they know other members are acting. There is already 'Crimestoppers, an anonymous system for the public to report crime. Every organisation should have a dedicated Whistle-blower line, but it should not be permitted to merely circle to the wrong-doer protection union (under any name).

The incentive I propose is a change in law to make non-reporting a major offence. A silent by-stander would be jointly and severally responsible for what could have been prevented, at no risk, by reporting. The standards could be high, including what was 'known or ought to have been known', because otherwise when everybody including the hospital cat knows about a Jimmy Savil, etc., they will each protest they were one of the three monkeys. It would lead to some unfounded or spiteful allegations, no doubt, but the more important thing is that it would be logged as a permanent record.

A power abuser would be liable to be reported by several people, or by one, but with detailed evidence. All would be anxious to ensure that if and when the villain is revealed, it will also be shown on record that they did their best to stop it by reporting what they knew or had reason to believe was happening.

(Apparently, one eminent person had a semi-formal guard system established behind his back by women staff attempting to ensure he was never allowed to be alone in a room with a woman.)