Do we have a thread for the DC Rachel Fletcher misconduct hearing?

[DoneByTheFuckingRainbowUnit]

I've had a search and I can't find one. She's the chair of Police SEEN, and is up for gross misconduct, for making the following comments in the police station where she was based:

1. all men should be on a curfew
2. see, that wouldn’t have happened if men were on a curfew (in response to a reported rape)
3. all men are rapists
4. I hate men
5. trans women are all cocks in frocks.

The tribunal tweets coverage is here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/police-misconduct-hearing-dc-fletcher

"Funny how suggesting men should stay off the streets at night is "prejudicial and discriminatory""

This is a little gaslighting isn't it or perhaps a straw man argument.

A curfew is not really a "suggestion" is it"

There have been numerous examples where both men and women have been advised to stay off the streets at night and often times do so of their own volition e.g.son of Sam in new York, raol moat? on the run etc. Soldiers on duty in northern ireland etc

Amazing how so many will tie themselves in knots to make excuse sexist comments from a woman.

When I saw the quote mentioned in the Tribunal Tweets summary, I had to grab the username before someone else did 😂

I wonder how many uncalled for misogynist comments she had to hear before she finally flipped. The police don't exactly have a good reputation in that respect.

Quite.

My local force (the Met) are institutionally misogynist. If they fired every officer alleged to have made a misogynist remark, they’d have only a handful of officers left.

I have no reason to believe Northumbria have distinguished themselves by doing any better - in face the evidence trends to the opposite, given the eejit Chief Constable’s lamentable stance on opposite sex searches. She clearly gives not a shit about women.

It’s quite clear why Rachel is being made an example of.

Rachel - best of luck. I hope you wipe the floor with them. They thoroughly deserve it.

In the vein of 'Can't see the wood for the trees', I'd like to submit a 'Cant read the comments for the squirrels ' 🐿️ .
Have donated to the GofundMe for Rachel.

Baroness Jenny Jones

Given that Rachel Fletcher would have no power to bring in a curfew - and it was never going to happen - it barely even qualifies as a suggestion. Yet senior police can tell women to stay at home or only go out in pairs and that's OK with you, isnt it Walden. After Sarah Everard women had to be warned to be wary of lone male police officers - dont see anyone suggesting men should be wary of a lone female police officer. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/01/uk/london-police-advice-for-women-intl-gbr

Amazing how men will tie themselves in knots to defend blatant double standards.

I take your overall point that saying 'All men are rapists' in the workplace would be offensive.
You are holding on to the fact that the hearing believed that she said those words, although she denies that she did.

OK, but given that the fairness of the hearing is in question, you can't be surprised that many people choose, unlike you, to believe Rachel Fletcher's denial that she said 'all men are rapists', and not the hearing.

'Curfew on men' is a well-known trope: it was the subject of a play in the 1980s, a TV programme in the 2020s, and an intervention in the House of Lords after the murder of Sarah Everard, which was clarified as being 'a rhetorical device' rather than an actual suggestion.
I don't believe RF was suggesting it as a serious possibility either.

You manage to come up with a handful of cases where men have been advised to take extreme precautions when out a night. The point is that women always have to take a range of extreme precautions which men normally don't.

I would be in agreement with you that if a woman police officer was constantly saying negative things about men that they might find offensive, a superior should have a word along the lines of 'Could you have a think about how those comments are being received by the team? They aren't welcome, so give it a miss, OK?'

Just as I trust the same superior would call in any male police officer who said anything that a woman might find offensive, and issue him with the same suggestion. Are you confident that that happens to sexist male police officers, Walkden? I'm not.

But even accepting your point that a female police officer should be held to the same high standard that male police officers are held [in an ideal world], is what RF is alleged to have said in an informal context, gross misconduct?

Some examples of 'gross misconduct' by male police officers includes sending 'dick pics' to colleagues; engaging in explicit, sexual communications on his MPS mobile device with a member of the public; conducting an emotional & sexual relationship with a vulnerable woman with mental health issues.
Published items | Metropolitan Police

So even allowing for the points you make, Walkden, and agreeing that all police officers, male or female, should be held to a high standard of behaviour, accusing a woman officer of gross misconduct because she may or may not have spoken unacceptable words feels like she's being unfairly picked on.

*I would be in agreement with you that if a woman police officer was constantly saying negative things about men that they might find offensive, a superior should have a word along the lines of 'Could you have a think about how those comments are being received by the team? They aren't welcome, so give it a miss, OK?'"

You are aware that she had been required to attend "reflective practise" 2 years before and the witnesses despite being reluctant to expand on comments made commented that she often made " man hating" comments...?

We have no idea what the "reflective practise" was about. It's quite likely that she was told to stop criticising the unlawful strip search policy.

I’d be very interested to know if those witnesses also reported every misogynistic comment they heard in those two years.

There have been some extraordinarily literally-minded comments on this thread.

No, a curfew isn't a "suggestion". In pointing this out, you also inadvertently emphasise the strength of the word, which itself shows it was either intended as an earnest policy recommendation (self-evidently not the case) or was deliberately extreme to make a point (painfully obvious).

Arguing a curfew is literally intended is a bit hard to understand. By all means argue that it was, in a sense, sufficiently inappropriate to say this or whatever to justify being put on leave - but like others, I find it pretty hard to take this argument much more seriously than the other.

I mean,

• 99% of sex offences are committed by men. Women's freedom of movement is devastatingly limited as a result.
• Men in positions of authority telling women quite literally not to go out alone after dark is a responsible and rational response.
• Women on the receiving end just imagining men being told not to go out after dark is a disciplinary offence.
• Meanwhile... 99% of sex offences are committed by men. Women's freedom of movement is devastatingly limited as a result.

We have such a long way to go still.

She said all rapists are men. This is a correct statement of our law as "rape" is penetration with the penis without the person's consent ( Sexual Offences Act 2003)

Further evidence for the appeal to the gross misconduct hearing. If Baroness Jones (from the green party no less, who believe trans women are women) can make a "not entirely serious suggestion" about a serious police recommendation that women effectively curfew themselves when "dangerous men are on the loose", surely a misconduct panel can recognise a statement that is not entirely serious and born the frustration of seeing dozens of female victims of sexual assault?

Good luck with your appeal Rachel 💐 donated 👍.

26,387 raised now but hoping to get to 30k.

FellOutTheLoft · 05/08/2026 09:44

Ross Jackson, I recognised his mug from the Chronic, earlier this year. I'm glad he's off in the Big House for a substantial length of time.

Yoincks

Hi all, thanks to all those who’ve donated to the GoFundMe, it’s very kind of you and has provided me with peace of mind about paying the mortgage and feeding the kids which is the best gift I could get.

I’m really happy to see so much discussion of the allegations on here, I’m not about to try and convince anyone of my account of events save to say that the 2021 reflective practice referred to by @Walkden was because, during a conversation about Sarah Everard’s horrific ordeal, I said that all forces are institutionally misogynistic and that everyone in society is conditioned to be sexist and misogynistic including myself. A colleague disagreed that police forces are institutionally misogynistic and I said I’d seen misogyny in our office. At this point the male detective sgt said I wasn’t to say anything else as my views were offensive and then reported me to PSD. The reflective practice said I’d made sexist comments because unfortunately Northumbria police choose not to educate themselves as to what sexism and misogyny actually are, if they did they’d realise they are institutionally misogynistic and would have to address it. I said this in my hearing and it was hopefully captured by the wonderful tribunal tweets. Norpol appear to think a comment is sexist if a woman says it and it makes a man uncomfortable, it’s veracity is immaterial. Anyway I have submitted my application to appeal and my ET is scheduled for 5th November 2027. I’ve had loads of support from all over the place so am feeling very good and enjoying the last of the summer holidays mostly ferrying my kids to and from their various activities and refereeing their fights. There are plans being made for case related shenanigans in September and I’ve started applying for jobs but will intensify this once the kids are back at school.

Its a long wait for you, unfortunately, until the et, but it's good to hear you're feeling so positive.
You'll get a lot of good support on here . Good luck with it all going forward x

Best of luck, and enjoy the rest of the holiday period with your family

It beggars belief that the police service in 2026 has someone so poorly educated that they think that if someone says an organisation is institutionally misogynistic they need to report you. And that PSD then required you to do reflective practice, despite the mass of evidence against police services not just in the UK but all over the world, are institutionally sexist. As is society with plenty of evidence.

If you'd said it was institutionally racist, as the McPherson enquiry described the Met more than 25 years ago, would he also have reported you? It makes me despair that the police service has learned nothing about needing to be representative of the community it policies.

I'm glad you've been able to enjoy some time with your family after the ordeal, and that you can pay the bills until the tribunal. You have much support here.

Next November? Blimey, it's a long wait for you, but we're all rooting for you. Wishing you luck in the job front, too.