Met Police officer revealed as one of Britain’s worst rapists - Telegraph

[inkjet]

uk.news.yahoo.com/serving-met-police-officer-revealed-111217785.html

Comprehensive article in The Telegraph.

Based on the length, frequency and content of his posts, I actually think @Felix125 is some sort of internal police press/PR type of guy.

Whether this is the case or not, the fact that he thinks now is an appropriate time to come to this board and argue with women, tells you everything you need to know.

Not assume anything just because its the same person making a complaint and the last 5 reports didn't go anywhere

how? HOW? do you not see that if one person has 5 separate complaints of rape against them it needs examining with a fine tooth comb? Too busy reading twitter in case a woman put up a sticker? eating doughnuts? engaging in bantz about the new female officer on WhatsApp?

You see, there is a pattern here. Couzens. This guy. It is almost as if it's all right under your snouts (deliberate) and you don't want to scrape away the grime for fear it will bring you all down.

Whether this is the case or not, the fact that he thinks now is an appropriate time to come to this board and argue with women, tells you everything you need to know.

well, unlike the police, i know when i see someone make the same bullshit claims over and over again. So i measure what F says here against the statements that F has made elswhere and conclude that F is a wannabe-cop and wind-up-merchant.

He's maybe a special

A public inquiry already labelled the Met Police institutionally corrupt under her leadership.

pattihews
You're doing a great job of confirming that the police will always protect their own, Felix. I'm sure your colleagues will be grateful for the fight you've put up here.

By saying - I have not, will not and do not protect any officer who I know is corrupt or a criminal or has misogynist views or similar discriminatory views

How am i protecting our own then, since your accusing me of doing it?
How am i protecting the likes of Carrick?

Brefugee
And if its one word against another - you will never be able to prove its unfounded.
So what would you do then........
bloody hell it's like pulling teeth. You. Investigate.

I am saying if its been investigated fully and it ends up as one word against another - no other evidence exists - what do you do then? Its filed and exists to be looked at at any time - but it remains as one word against another - what do you do then.

how? HOW? do you not see that if one person has 5 separate complaints of rape against them it needs examining with a fine tooth comb?

Which is what i am saying - every cases needs to be investigated fully. We can not assume just because its the same person making a complaint (or different people making it) and the previous cases have gone no where - we can not assume its just a false allegation.

Each case needs to be investigated

if you can prove its a false report - fine, prosecute the individual on that specific case

But if they make a new complaint - it has to be investigated fully again - we can't just assume this one must be a false complaint too because the last one turned out to be false. We can't just simply 'join the dots' and write it off

Each reported needs to be fully investigated

And how does this show me "protecting our own"?

Someone else is going to have to take over. It's like smacking my head against a brick wall every day and expecting that i won't end up with a headache.

So what don't you agree with in my last post?

I am saying if its been investigated fully and it ends up as one word against another - no other evidence exists - what do you do then? Its filed and exists to be looked at at any time - but it remains as one word against another - what do you do then.

There's a difference between criminal law and employment law. And a difference again with vetting.

The vetting department should have looked at those 9 allegations and said "this person isn't suitable for higher clearance"

The HR department should have looked at those 9 allegations and said "this person isn't acting in line with our employment standards".

Because you are insisting that he could only be dealt with if it was proven to a criminal standard that he'd abused multiple women, you are upholding the system where some men exploit the power that comes with being a police officer to abuse women.

Are you seriously;y suggesting that because its 5 people making a complaint, it should be investigated fully - but if its one person making 5 reports about the same person the police should take it with a 'pinch of salt' if the previous cases have gone no where? - joint the dots as you say

No - each report needs to be investigated fully

People in domestic abuse relationships will make numerous complaints against their abuser. Each one needs to be investigated fully. We can't simply write off cases because the previous ones didn't go any where.

AdamRyan

I'm not saying that at all - and the vetting should have kicked him out very early on.

I'm saying that each case should be investigated fully and prosecuted where possible. And HR law should have suspended him at the start

The argument is that if the same person is making multiple complaints about an individual which don't go anywhere - the police should join the dots and assume the complainant is a serial complainer making constant false reports.

i am saying we cannot assume this and each report needs to be investigated fully.

Well maybe we are talking at cross purposes.
The problem with Carrick appears to be that the incidents weren't investigated fully.
If you are genuinely a police officer you also know that corroboration is evidence. So if multiple unconnected women over 20 years reported a pattern of behaviour, that should have been treated more seriously. It wasn't. Because the police are too quick to write off an allegation of sexual violence as a woman lying.

Exactly - and its wrong and it should have been done properly.

Each case investigated fully so none are just written off at source - if its the same person reporting and the previous cases have gone no where. It doesn't matter, each new one should have been given a full investigation for that victim.

If this had been done at the start, then he would have been stopped a lot earlier and jailed. This would have prevented numerous victims and shattering peoples lives.

And I'll say again - I have not, do not and will not protect any officers likes this or remotely close to it.

I have not, do not and will not protect any officers likes this or remotely close to it.

You're doing it now.

AdamRyan

It wasn't. Because the police are too quick to write off an allegation of sexual violence as a woman lying.

Exactly - and it should not happen. Each report needs investigating properly.

Which is why this scenario:

So again for the hard of thinking i think this is how it goes when you get a report against KJK
1st report. Investigated. Nothing untoward
2nd report. Investigated. Nothing untoward
3rd report. Investigated. Nothing untoward
ad nauseam ad infinitum
at no point does anyone go "hmmmmmmm i wonder WHY she keeps being reported." and then checks to see if there is something connecting the reporters,

Can not be played out and used to ignore the reporting person if they report something again.

Each report needs to be investigated and done so properly.

How am i protecting him exactly?

I have said he should have been sacked a lot earlier - indeed not even to be allowed in the force in the first place.

Each case should have been investigated properly and used against him to protect future victims

How is this protecting him...?

I think its because you appear to be starting from an assumption that Carrick was investigated properly, when the evidence is he wasn't.

This happens all the time to women who report DV/sexual assault

As per Shania grice, gracie spinks.

I think that because of the nature of the job there tends to be a strong sense of camaraderie amoung the police, a feeling that the others will have your back no matter, what similar to the armed forces. This leads some to feel instinctively that it is dangerous or wrong to speak out against another officer, no matter what.
The more everyone else turns a blind eye the harder it is for an individual person to speak out.
(Caveat, I seek to explain not exonerate)

The police have proven they’re incapable of solving this problem, so you’re really not in a position to be telling us how it should work. It’s like letting a bunch of rapists decide how rape should be prosecuted. The arrogance is almost funny.

Exactly, Naunet.

AdamRyan

no - I'm saying its clear that he wasn't and he should have been

Naunet

So i'm saying it should have investigated properly from the start.
I'm saying that proper vetting should have be done and he shouldn't have been accepted to join in the first place

Each case should have been investigated properly

How do you think it should have been done then, if it differs from the above?

Yeah, yeah, and lessons should be learnt too right?

Not interested in your lip service. The police cannot be trusted to deal with this, they’ve proven it time and time again, sorry.

Anyone who wants to understand how police officers get away with rape, sexual assault and corruption need only read @Felix125's posts.🤨

Sorry for the very minor off topic.
Can anyone point me in the directions/rules of how mumsnet treats the posting of details about another user please?
I think some in this thread might be very interested in learning some details. I know I enjoyed a good laugh when I found out.