UKC

Met Police Not Heavy Handed

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/30/police-handling-of-sarah-everard-vigil-appropriate-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I await the formal apology from Priti Patal, and Sadique Khan, and everyone else who jumped on the band-wagon...

26
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Don't suppose they actually said what heavy handed would have looked like? Being a sensitive soul, if that wasn't heavy handed I am worried about what it might actually be? Baseball bats, rubber bullets?

25
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

Dunno - but not that. 

I though it was interesting that the report found that:

“After reviewing hundreds of documents, body-worn video from police officers at the vigil and other media, and conducting interviews with the police, vigil organisers and politicians, the inspectorate found that: police officers at the vigil did their best to peacefully disperse the crowd; police officers remained calm and professional when subjected to abuse; and police officers did not act inappropriately or in a heavy-handed manner.”

And that:

“Condemnation of the Met’s actions within mere hours of the vigil – including from people in positions of responsibility – was unwarranted, showed a lack of respect for public servants facing a complex situation, and undermined public confidence in policing based on very limited evidence." (Ring any bells, UKC-ers?!!!)

But that:

“The media coverage of this incident led to what many will conclude was a public relations disaster for the Metropolitan police. It was on a national and international scale, with a materially adverse effect on public confidence in policing.”

In other words; even when The Met do the right thing, they get loudly condemned by people who don't know what they're talking about.

And, even when they've been vindicated, they are still on the losing-side of a public relations disaster, with all of the consequences that this entails.

Quite literally damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't!

Post edited at 15:22
10
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I think what concerned many, including me, was how the dispersal decision could only really end in women taking part in a vigil being man handled by Police officers.  Yes, that phrase is wholly inappropriately appropriate here.

Given the actual context of the action being taken, the pictures as presented did seem to show heavy handedness.  I do agree it was a very difficult situation for the officers present though who were issued a dispersal order to follow. 

27
 elsewhere 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

FROM THE GUARDIAN LINK:
The report clears police of being heavy-handed and says inspectors “found that the Metropolitan police was justified in adopting the view that the risks of transmitting Covid-19 at the vigil were too great to ignore when planning for and policing the event”

------------------------------

FROM THE SPECTATOR:
Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, told MPs that risks from outdoor transmission are very small:  ‘It’s difficult to see how outdoor gatherings lead to spikes.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was-the-clapham-common-vigil-unsafe-a-look-at-the-data 

------------------------------

FROM THE GUARDIAN LINK:
It continues: “We heard the Metropolitan police’s response to events described as ‘tone deaf’; we acknowledge that a more conciliatory response might have served the force’s interests better.”

------------------------------

Other forces weren't tone deaf and were more conciliatory. It probably served their interests better.

Post edited at 16:12
9
 fred99 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

> I think what concerned many, including me, was how the dispersal decision could only really end in women taking part in a vigil being man handled by Police officers....

Do you not think that it is entirely possible, if not highly probable, that those women both knew that and planned for it - with the intention from the very start of causing trouble for the Police.

19
 1philjones1 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

> I think what concerned many, including me, was how the dispersal decision could only really end in women taking part in a vigil being man handled by Police officers.  Yes, that phrase is wholly inappropriately appropriate here.

So how would you suggest male officers arrest female offenders then?

> Given the actual context of the action being taken, the pictures as presented did seem to show heavy handedness.  I do agree it was a very difficult situation for the officers present though who were issued a dispersal order to follow. 

So despite the independent review, after reviewing all the available evidence, concluding they weren’t heavy handed, you are sticking with the view that they were, based on a couple of pictures you’ve seen in the media? 

5
In reply to Wainers44:

> Given the actual context of the action being taken, the pictures as presented did seem to show heavy handedness.

I thought the footage showed quite considerable reluctance to get heavy-handed. I also saw 'woman handling', with two female PCs, fending off a woman in a fur coat, who seemed intent on forcing herself at them, without a mask, even though there was about five metres of free space behind her, to which she eventually returned, apparently without further incident.

The footage of the woman with the red hair being restrained on the floor was shown widely. The other footage, of her being walked away from the scene, in handcuffs, without being 'manhandled', and apparently neither injured nor distressed, was less widely shown. Shown quite a bit today, though.

The run up to the demonstration is maybe something that needs further investigation; Reclaim These Streets claiming that the police refused to discuss arrangements to ensure it could take place in a covid-safe manner. Though, frankly, even if that claim is true, I think things would have ended up the same, regardless of any such mutually-agreed arrangements, or 'official' end to the vigil.

I did note the Reclaim These Streets spokesperson today refusing to comment on the behaviour of the protesters, because she wasn't there, whilst being quite prepared to comment on the behaviour of the police.

4
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> So despite the independent review, after reviewing all the available evidence, concluding they weren’t heavy handed, you are sticking with the view that they were, based on a couple of pictures you’ve seen in the media? 

Well, quite!

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't...despite that fact that 'the report appears to be a significant if not total vindication of police actions at the vigil' there are still those who seek to heap-on the criticism!

3
 MNA123 30 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Do you not think that it is entirely possible, if not highly probable, that those women both knew that and planned for it - with the intention from the very start of causing trouble for the Police.

This ^

7
 MonkeyPuzzle 30 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Do you not think that it is entirely possible, if not highly probable, that those women both knew that and planned for it - with the intention from the very start of causing trouble for the Police.

Why would it be highly probable?

5
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> FROM THE GUARDIAN LINK:

> The report clears police of being heavy-handed and says inspectors “found that the Metropolitan police was justified in adopting the view that the risks of transmitting Covid-19 at the vigil were too great to ignore when planning for and policing the event”

> ------------------------------

> FROM THE SPECTATOR:

> Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, told MPs that risks from outdoor transmission are very small:  ‘It’s difficult to see how outdoor gatherings lead to spikes.’

The police are obliged to follow the law, not an article written after the event in the Spectator, and not the Chief Scientific Advisor.

The law may well be an ass, until it's changed, the police have to follow it.

Unless you'd rather they adopted a more pick-and-mix approach, much like the police services in parts of the developing world.

> ------------------------------

> FROM THE GUARDIAN LINK:

> It continues: “We heard the Metropolitan police’s response to events described as ‘tone deaf’; we acknowledge that a more conciliatory response might have served the force’s interests better.”

If, after all of the screaming and hysteria, 'tone deaf' and 'not sufficiently conciliatory' are the most egregious allegations the report levels at The Met, they really don't have much to worry about.

How should we describe the people who were rioting?, if the police officers being pelted with missiles, spat at and racially abused were 'tone deaf'?

Interesting to note that the most important people in all of this, the Everard family, have been extremely supportive of the police, and have condemned the protestors.

> ------------------------------

> Other forces weren't tone deaf and were more conciliatory. It probably served their interests better.

Actually, Greater Manchester Police and Avon and Somerset police have both had this allegation levelled at them on account of their handling of demonstrations held on their turf.

It remains to be see if these will be proven....but as ever many people have already jumped on the bandwagon.

As far as I can tell, 'tone deaf' is the allegation that anti-police factions level at the police when they've given up trying to prove 'Police Brutality' and 'Heavy Handedness', but they still want to complain about something.

I must say, if I was stuck in a police van while a rioter set it on fire, I'd probably be pretty tone-deaf myself...

Post edited at 18:47
5
 Albert Tatlock 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

If you thought that was heavy handed policing at the vigil ( hijacked demonstration), you have obviously not been to a demonstration policed by the SPG in the 1980’s

1
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

Thanks to  all those who replied to me,  mainly with very valid points and I said that the whole situation was difficult to manage.  But.. 

So it now seems that the demo might not actually have been illegal anyway? OK, covid public safety is vitally important but was there really a reduction in risk to all concerned by giving the officers there a dispersal order so requiring their close and personal contact with the demonstrators? With the purpose and the reason for the vigil in mind, wouldn't a simply contain and then defuse policy have been better?

Maybe all that was tried, but it still reached a point where someone decided that pictures of women being dragged away outweighed the covid risk of allowing the women to stay there ( the women who by that time had been close to each other in terms of covid anyway?).

And I do agree that some of the women will have expected the reaction they got. I'm just not sure the leadership for the Police involved here thought about the outcome sufficiently carefully. 

18
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

> If you thought that was heavy handed policing at the vigil ( hijacked demonstration), you have obviously not been to a demonstration policed by the SPG in the 1980’s

You are probably right. SPG was the name of someone's pet dog wasn't it??!!

3
 Albert Tatlock 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

> You are probably right. SPG was the name of someone's pet dog wasn't it??!!

More like a pet pit bull terrier 

 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Or was it the name of Vivian's hamster in the Young Ones??!

1
 grump gnome 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

Correct.

 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

You could of course read the report, where they dissect the decision making and rationale that you appear to be agonising about....

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/inspection-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-vigil-commemorating-sarah-everard-clapham-common/

3
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> You could of course read the report, where they dissect the decision making and rationale that you appear to be agonising about....

Yes, thanks will do. So far only seen the beeb. 

Your views on the report would be valued?

 abr1966 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

> I think what concerned many, including me, was how the dispersal decision could only really end in women taking part in a vigil being man handled by Police officers.  Yes, that phrase is wholly inappropriately appropriate here.

Its a provocative phrase...sadly also used by the Guardian in earlier reports.

There were plenty of female officers also involved.

Ever been involved in crowd dispersion or control? It's very difficult and when people actively resist the only way is to man(woman) handle!

4
 Wainers44 30 Mar 2021
In reply to abr1966:

> Its a provocative phrase...sadly also used by the Guardian in earlier reports.

> There were plenty of female officers also involved.

> Ever been involved in crowd dispersion or control? It's very difficult and when people actively resist the only way is to man(woman) handle!

No I haven't.  Must be awful. 

That phrase is probably the wrong one and isn't a sign of me being anti police.  I am very much the opposite. 

Enough "agonising " from me as off duty rightly put it. View expressed,  I will read the report. 

1
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> ---------------------------

> Other forces weren't tone deaf and were more conciliatory. It probably served their interests better.

I thought this was done to death in the last thread. I and others said that your comparison didn't hold water, because London (and the Met) had different pressures, particularly at Clapham, and other protests didn't escalate requiring the tactics used in London.

I wonder that the HMICFRS thought:

"We established (mainly from news articles) that vigils also took place in Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Humberside and Nottingham. These appeared to be much smaller affairs that generally went without incident. Because of their apparent scale and character, close comparisons between the policing of these events and Clapham Common would be inadvisable.

Furthermore, other police forces in England and Wales tend not to attract the consistently high levels of national and international attention that the Metropolitan Police attracts. And they may be less likely to be confronted by charges of inconsistency in the way they approach gatherings and protests."

5
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to abr1966:

> There were plenty of female officers also involved.

Interesting you should mention that:

"One female officer’s statement recorded:

“During the incident, I distinctly remember multiple women coming up to me throughout the incident, wishing I was raped, with one female saying words to the effect of: ‘I hope you get raped, so you know what it’s like’. Another woman also said words to the effect of ‘I hope you get murdered and that your face is all over the news once you’ve been murdered’…”

The officer described being shocked and disgusted but also sad that:

“… women, who were protesting to end violence against women, were then wishing severe/fatal harm come to other women.”"

2
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to Wainers44:

> Yes, thanks will do. So far only seen the beeb. 

> Your views on the report would be valued?

I've just heard that Reclaim the Streets say it's a demonstration of institutional sexism within the Met and HMICFRS.

So there's that ...🤷‍♂️

3
 elsewhere 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Funny I don't remember any burning vans at Clapham. Surely you're not trying to dishonestly conflate things?

9
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Oh, all-right, then.

If I was a female officer who spent hours at Clapham, being pelted with missiles and being told by protesters that they hoped I would be raped and murdered and my face published by all the papers....I'd probably be tone deaf.

Better? 

Post edited at 20:25
4
 nastyned 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Yet again after the police behave badly the inquiry exonerates them. Sadly I can't say I'm surprised.

27
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to nastyned:

> Yet again after the police behave badly the inquiry exonerates them. Sadly I can't say I'm surprised.

Its almost as if, when it's looked at objectively, they haven't actually behaved badly...

3
In reply to off-duty:

I just read a junk of the conclusions A very odd style, almost like a leading article in a paper, lots of generality and broad assertions but little detail or links to specifics. Not what I would expect from such a report at all.

Post edited at 21:54
 THE.WALRUS 30 Mar 2021
In reply to MG:

If people aren't going to accept the findings of an independent review (unless it supports their own conclusions, obvs), there doesn't seem much point in having one. Might as well just stick to Twitter!

From your analysis of the all of the CCTV, BWV and your interview with the protagonists, what conclusions did you draw concerning police conduct?

And what of the protestors? 

4
In reply to fred99:

You just don’t get it do you... 

so many police sympathiser’s on this forum. It speaks volumes really 

Post edited at 22:42
23
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to jcoup:

> You just don’t get it do you... 

> so many police sympathiser’s on this forum. It speaks volumes really

Yep it does. Perhaps not in the way you think, though.

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 30 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I'm just glad no bones were unbroken or lungs uncollapsed in the process. Nasty business that.

9
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I'm just glad no bones were unbroken or lungs uncollapsed in the process. Nasty business that.

Indeed. Just 40 assaulted and they don't really matter.

https://fullfact.org/online/Bristol-police-protest-injuries/

4
 daWalt 30 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Indeed. Just 40 assaulted

so why the lie?

6
 MonkeyPuzzle 30 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

I know. Guess they didn't need to tell barefaced lies about those other bits and people would be more inclined to believe them.

5
 off-duty 30 Mar 2021
In reply to daWalt:

> so why the lie?

I've mentioned it previously. It does the police no favours.

I'm guessing it's messages badly passed on from hospital through various police officers to command.

There's even a possibility it's come straight from hospital - I've dealt with a few serious injuries/fractured skulls/etc that turn out to be considerably less serious when the morning ward staff and doctors come in.

Whilst the police should have been certain of the information they released, they've at least been transparent in correcting it - and it's not like the correction had just been surreptitiously slipped in so no-one actually knows they got it wrong.

3
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

> If you thought that was heavy handed policing at the vigil ( hijacked demonstration), you have obviously not been to a demonstration policed by the SPG in the 1980’s

Or at Stonehedge in the mid / late 1980s 

1
 THE.WALRUS 31 Mar 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I'm just glad no bones were unbroken or lungs uncollapsed in the process. Nasty business that.

Are you really? 

1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I await the formal apology from Priti Patal, and Sadique Khan, and everyone else who jumped on the band-wagon...

The article also says most of the enquiry team were former cops and they guy in charge was a former rear-admiral.  Why is it surprising that a bunch of cops and military think the cops are right.   I bet the Myanmar police inspectorate is full of ex-military who think it is fine to shoot demonstrators in the head.

In a democracy if the inspectorate think what happened was OK and the public clearly thinks it is not OK then it is a sign that the composition of the inspectorate may need to be changed to better match the views of the public. 

26
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  Why is it surprising that a bunch of cops and military think the cops are right.   

> In a democracy if the inspectorate think what happened was OK and the public clearly thinks it is not OK then it is a sign that the composition of the inspectorate may need to be changed to better match the views of the public. 

Maybe it's because they have access to hundreds of hours of body cam footage and can see exactly what happened on both sides rather than just getting outraged by a few photos and carefully cropped videos designed to paint the police in a bad light. 

4
 THE.WALRUS 31 Mar 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You're grasping at straws.

All they've done is speak to witnesses, watch CCTV footage and draw appropriate conclusions.

The process has been transparent and is open to scrutiny.

As with your political views, you're coming across as a a paranoid, conspiracy-obsessed, close-minded extremist who is impervious to the facts, reason or common sense.

To quote Mark Twain:

'No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot."

Post edited at 07:39
4
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Anybody know what happened to Georgina?

In reply to Dax H:

> Maybe it's because they have access to hundreds of hours of body cam footage and can see exactly what happened on both sides rather than just getting outraged by a few photos and carefully cropped videos designed to paint the police in a bad light. 

Maybe it is because they are cops and they have a cop's view of the world rather than, say a lawyers, or civil rights activists or normal citizen's.

They think if there's a law that says they can do something and someone in authority tells them to do it then they should go ahead and do it.   That is a military mindset not a 'public service' mindset.   

So there was a law which said the gathering was illegal, the cops told them to disperse, they didn't disperse.  These guys think at that point there's 'no choice' they've got to make them disperse.  They don't.  They could put the normal social convention of not being violent towards women above the legal authority to use force and just leave them alone.  It would cost a bit of overtime but basically very few people are going to hang about in a park all night.  If you are patient they are going to leave anyway.   And even if they did stick it out all night, who cares, it is a park.

19
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Maybe it is because they are cops and they have a cop's view of the world rather than, say a lawyers, or civil rights activists or normal citizen's.

> They think if there's a law that says they can do something and someone in authority tells them to do it then they should go ahead and do it.   That is a military mindset not a 'public service' mindset.   

> So there was a law which said the gathering was illegal, the cops told them to disperse, they didn't disperse.  These guys think at that point there's 'no choice' they've got to make them disperse.  They don't.  They could put the normal social convention of not being violent towards women above the legal authority to use force and just leave them alone.  It would cost a bit of overtime but basically very few people are going to hang about in a park all night.  If you are patient they are going to leave anyway.   And even if they did stick it out all night, who cares, it is a park.

An interesting view. Could have been improved by reading the actual report, where they address much of what you say but....🤷‍♂️

5
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I knew that was coming.  I deliberately didn't make any comment on accepting the findings or not, not least because I haven't read the report fully. Have you?

1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/1375743783871127559

The cops are getting out of control in England.  It is moving the same way as it did under Thatcher: Tory government imposing policies to please its base which are not acceptable to large parts of society and then using the police to quell dissent.

Some of the videos from Bristol and Manchester look a lot like the kind of sh*t the Spanish cops got up to in Catalonia or the way the cops used to behave in Northern Ireland.  We were getting past that era but it is moving backwards.

19
 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Whoosh

1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Living here in England I have to say it doesn't feel that way.

Obviously not like the Worker's Paradise of Alba, though.

1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> In a democracy if the inspectorate think what happened was OK and the public clearly thinks it is not OK then it is a sign that the composition of the inspectorate may need to be changed to better match the views of the public. 

I see. 'The public' in this case being “people who agree with Tom”?

So 'in a democracy' if the public clearly think the police should be breaking the arms and legs of burglars, for example, then that should be what happens?

4
 guffers_hump 31 Mar 2021
 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Mar 2021
In reply to guffers_hump:

Another thread has shown the attack by the protesters that led to at least the first clip of the person being hit with a shield, so I'm not sure we can trust that as impartial.

4
 Fior eun 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

The report is extremely problematic:

1. The evidence quoted in the section about events that evening only quotes police. Nothing from participants.

2. It does not match the accounts given by well respected journalists who were present.

3. It comments on an image that went viral, and it is quite right that an image can be ambiguous. But makes no mention of the earlier footage showing the same woman being peaceful and much other footage as linked above showing a disproportionate response, both of which informed public opinion.

4. It does not address the comparisons made with the policing of other contemporary large gatherings such as the Rangers' gathering. It only considers other vigils which were much smaller.

5. It suggests that the Met Police attracts extra attention than other forces, which is why it is more heavily criticised. This is very poor analysis, and completely inappropriate to include in the report, when the reason for the vigil was the alleged murder of Sarah Everard by a Met Police Officer. Who allegedly was allowed to continue policing after exposing himself. Who allegedly tried to abduct women using his Warrant Card in the weeks before the murder. 

As others have mentioned, many women have had very difficult experiences when reporting crimes to the Police. This report reduces the trust much further.

11
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The cops are getting out of control in England.  It is moving the same way as it did under Thatcher: Tory government imposing policies to please its base which are not acceptable to large parts of society and then using the police to quell dissent.

Hang on.  Which policies are we talking about?  

The issue here wasn't that there was a demonstration that the government or even the police didn't approve of (Cressida Dick had publicly supported its aims).  It was about the temporary measures restricting pubic gathering because of a medical emergency.

The police could clearly see that it was a sensitive situation, and an application was made to the court for clarification on the legality of the demonstration.  As others have already said, the police don't get to decide which laws they enforce, especially when the infringement is as public as this and where it actually constitutes a threat to life.

I think the majority of population clearly do support anti-COVID measures.  They don't like them, but they understand the need for them.  You can't just break up anti-lockdown demonstrations and tolerate far larger ones just because you have sympathy with their cause. 

     

Post edited at 09:16
4
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to MG:

> I just read a junk of the conclusions A very odd style, almost like a leading article in a paper, lots of generality and broad assertions but little detail or links to specifics. Not what I would expect from such a report at all.

Maybe try reading the whole report then, if you want the detail. The conclusions will naturally be a summary of the detail presented throughout the report.

1
In reply to Fior eun:

'many women have had very difficult experiences when reporting crimes to the Police. '

Have you, personally?

11
In reply to 1philjones1:

> Maybe try reading the whole report then, if you want the detail. The conclusions will naturally be a summary of the detail presented throughout the report.

I will when I have time.  However, that is not what the conclusions should be - that would be a summary.

2
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to MG:

> I will when I have time.  However, that is not what the conclusions should be - that would be a summary.

So you want them to repeat all the detail in the conclusions so that you don’t have to read the whole report? Bizarre- the report would be twice as long.

 Fior eun 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes. Several times. A couple of examples in last 3 years:

1. Sports club. It started with a man groping and commenting on my body. He got aggressive when I asked him to stop, as often happens. It then turned into stalking and harassment, including following me across a dark, isolated deserted car park. I reported to police and was met with a shrug and advice to leave the sports club. Which I'd already done.

2. Reporting a man being aggressive to me while I walked alone in a forest. Police Officer (male) on 101 refused to listen to my experience, dismissed me, and told me it was my fault. He told me off. I made a formal complaint. 3 different police officers phoned me to suggest I should withdraw it. They only stopped the pressure when I asked if they had listened to the call (they hadn't). When it was finally investigated I got a full written apology 'we completely let you down'. The Police Officer in the phonecall was highly experienced. But I had to be very assertive to get my complaint listened to.

But my comments were made on the reports of other women's experience and stories:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/institutional-misogyny-erodes-womens-trust-in-uk-police

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-officer-complaints-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault-cases-rise-watchdog-figures-a8214201.html

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

It's pointless arguing with an official report, it's findings are irrefutable. The people whinging that this might be slanted slightly  are probably the same people that were complaining that the original report (2019) into the Jennifer Arcuri affair was not the whole truth. The same bleeding heart liberals that said the only reason the investigation into Russian election meddling in the UK never found any evidence was because the security services were told not to look for it.

I look forward to the independent reports exonerating the govt of  awarding 75% of PPE contracts to Tory donors and also the report that exonerates Robert Jenerik intervening in a planning application for a Tory donor just a week after a Tory donor bunged him £12,000.

3
In reply to 1philjones1:

> So you want them to repeat all the detail in the conclusions 

No.  I expect conclusions to be conclusions.  I.e. logical findings and insights based on and specifically linked to the data presented earlier in the report.  

2
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I think the majority of population clearly do support anti-COVID measures.  They don't like them, but they understand the need for them.  You can't just break up anti-lockdown demonstrations and tolerate far larger ones just because you have sympathy with their cause. 

I agree with the anti-Covid measures but I don't agree with breaking up demonstrations in order to enforce them.    If somebody breaks Covid rules by going on a demo they are risking their health.  Bashing them with a truncheon so they need treatment or arresting them and chucking them in a cell is just increasing the Covid risk.   Brute force isn't a useful way of enforcing a public health rule.   It would be far better to tell the crowd what they were doing was illegal, tell them they were risking their health and that of others and then let them get on with it for as long as it stayed peaceful.

If the cops really wanted to book that woman because they thought she was a ring leader they could have just photographed her, identified her from social media and sent someone to her house the next day.

8
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I agree with the anti-Covid measures but I don't agree with breaking up demonstrations in order to enforce them.    If somebody breaks Covid rules by going on a demo they are risking their health.  Bashing them with a truncheon so they need treatment or arresting them and chucking them in a cell is just increasing the Covid risk.   Brute force isn't a useful way of enforcing a public health rule.   It would be far better to tell the crowd what they were doing was illegal, tell them they were risking their health and that of others and then let them get on with it for as long as it stayed peaceful.

Genuinely, read the report. The parts about consistency of approach might assist.

The Met are criticised for lack of a conciliatory approach to the organisation of the demo.

"I don't agree" - is your opinion. It's perfectly reasonable to hold it, but it lacks any insight to what went on. As demonstrated by your last sentence - you clearly haven't read the report around the efforts to engage and discourage.

> If the cops really wanted to book that woman because they thought she was a ring leader they could have just photographed her, identified her from social media and sent someone to her house the next day.

They didn't book anyone for being "a ringleader" they were trying to clear the bandstand. There's an interesting review of the bodycam of "one arrest" - which reading between the lines, might be relevant.

3
In reply to Fior eun:

That's a bit grim and I'm sorry for your experiences. Just as a matter of interest, did you report the sex pest to the sports club? I have no idea what the legality or their obligations are, but they have to have responsibility for maintaining a safe and welcoming environment, don't they? It might be awkward for them but that's their problem.

5
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

> The report is extremely problematic:

> 1. The evidence quoted in the section about events that evening only quotes police. Nothing from participants.

The report has been produced to review police decision making and actions taken.

> 2. It does not match the accounts given by well respected journalists who were present.

> 3. It comments on an image that went viral, and it is quite right that an image can be ambiguous. But makes no mention of the earlier footage showing the same woman being peaceful and much other footage as linked above showing a disproportionate response, both of which informed public opinion.

It makes a comment on the image. The report is based on body worn footage and other footage. The report itself describes both a peaceful vigil prior to escalation and peaceful groups on the outskirts even when people were being arrested at the bandstand. It describes comments to the effect it was like two different events going on at the same time.

> 4. It does not address the comparisons made with the policing of other contemporary large gatherings such as the Rangers' gathering. It only considers other vigils which were much smaller.

I'm not sure what would be gained by comparison to different events (in a different country!). It does make mention of the Met police requirement to be consistent and details numerous other protests that they have policed in London during this period, eg BLM.

> 5. It suggests that the Met Police attracts extra attention than other forces, which is why it is more heavily criticised. This is very poor analysis, and completely inappropriate to include in the report, when the reason for the vigil was the alleged murder of Sarah Everard by a Met Police Officer. Who allegedly was allowed to continue policing after exposing himself. Who allegedly tried to abduct women using his Warrant Card in the weeks before the murder. 

I'm not sure of your point here. Other than a lot of allegedlies. 

> As others have mentioned, many women have had very difficult experiences when reporting crimes to the Police. This report reduces the trust much further.

I think it's appalling when women have poor experiences with the police when reporting crime (as with the issues you've had that you raised later).

I also think it's pretty sad when journalist and those with a clear anti-police agenda (as were a significant minority of those involved in hijacking the vigil) - get involved and detract from the fact that there was a tireless investigation into the murder of Sarah Everard, and that is coupled with the media storm around the policing of one protest and the arrest of one non-compliant protestor - regardless of how photogenic the image - as it isn't a true reflection of the day-to-day work of the police on domestic abuse, violence against women and girls and rape investigations.

One bad experience cast ripples far wider than many pieces of good work, and that hold true for policing just as with many other jobs.

4
In reply to off-duty:

'Genuinely, read the report. '

That doesn't seem a a lot to ask. Otherwise you're operating in a Trumpian/Johnsonian/CRG fashion where you insulate yourself from the possibility of ever evolving your views by writing off other sources without ever evaluating them for yourself: 'False Facts! False Facts!' 

1
 Fior eun 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's a lot more than 'a bit grim' but thank you for your condolences.

Yes, I reported it to the sports club. It was treated with an awkward silence, nothing was done and the man is still playing there. There remain hardly any women playing. Some of his aggressive behaviours were in front of other people (all men) but ignored. I miss my sport (it was the only opportunity locally). My understanding from other women's stories is that this is a familiar tale.

I thought about including this info in my original post, but decided not to as it feeds into 'the responsibility lies with the women victim to take action' narrative, rather than the responsibility being on all of us to get the culture changed. I also felt it would be derailing the thread.

 fred99 31 Mar 2021
In reply to jcoup:

> You just don’t get it do you... 

> so many police sympathiser’s on this forum. It speaks volumes really 

I'm certainly not someone who "rubber stamps" everything the Police do, and the same goes for many who have replied IN SUPPORT of this latest incident.

 You have to ask yourself the question; Why are so many people in support of the Police here, and NOT in support of the "poor little girlies".

4
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> That doesn't seem a a lot to ask.

I wonder how many of those announcing it has exonerated the police have done so?

 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

I'm pretty concerned about the lack of action in both cases. It sounds like the second case did get dealt with (eventually) but not very well.

The first case is worrying if that behaviour is not addressed by either the club or the police. Harassment is a crime - and certainly in my experience is always investigated, so there is no excuse for that.

In relation to the reports you linked to, I am conscious that there is a persistent view that there is higher proportion of domestic abuse In the police and that we don't do anything about it. The suggestion that it is higher than the rate in the general population is, as far as i am aware, based on US studies of US police from around 20 years ago.

I have no doubt it happens in policing. I've dealt with several cases. In every case a police suspect is dealt with, with no element of discretion. You can pretty much guarantee they will be getting arrested or interviewed under caution even if it is thought that the victim wouldn't support a prosecution to court. A parallel disciplinary and misconduct investigation will also take place.

There isn't any excuse for behaviour like that and I think all cops would happily see domestic abuser locked up and thrown off the job. Unfortunately - as policing is basically a reflection of society we aren't immune to.its problems, despite our efforts.

I think it's a sign of how well we are doing that we are now having to use the term institutionalised misogyny, because it is difficult to argue that the police is an entirely male-dominated work force any more. We aren't brilliant, but we are doing a lot better than many organisations. Given our starting point of "Life on Mars" style neanderthal machismo, that's a fairly long way.

Post edited at 11:17
3
In reply to mondite:

I haven't yet because I'm trying to do my day job. I will though.

 Fior eun 31 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

The second case was only dealt with because I was very persistent. It is appalling that 3 officers phoned me to try and get me to withdraw the complaint. It was this year by the way.

The reports I linked to were about problems with police not investigating women's complaints properly. Your post suggests they were about domestic abuse within the Police.

Going back to the topic, I remain deeply concerned that there is a real problem with the Police and their handling of women's complaints in this country. I don't see any evidence of improvement. The poor quality HMICFRS report and the reaction to it is not helping to resolve this problem.

The reason people have been critical of the make up of the HMICFRS report authors (over 50% ex Officers plus military) is that when you are in the system, or have had a strong stake/experience in the system, it is very difficult to be objective. Diversity in leadership roles isn't just for show; it leads to better outcomes. 

3
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

> The second case was only dealt with because I was very persistent. It is appalling that 3 officers phoned me to try and get me to withdraw the complaint. It was this year by the way.

Yes I agreed. It's appalling. I'm glad it was finally investigated and I hope the apology included addressing the actions of those officers.

> The reports I linked to were about problems with police not investigating women's complaints properly. Your post suggests they were about domestic abuse within the Police.

I may have misread, but the first article refers to the super complaint submitted about police officer perpetrated domestic abuse, and the second article appeared to spend some time criticising actions taken against police involved in issues such as abusing their position for sexual purposes.

> Going back to the topic, I remain deeply concerned that there is a real problem with the Police and their handling of women's complaints in this country. I don't see any evidence of improvement. The poor quality HMICFRS report and the reaction to it is not helping to resolve this problem.

I think we are all concerned. I'm not sure where you are looking to see improvements but I'm pretty sure you are unlikely to see it in the pages of the Guardian.

> The reason people have been critical of the make up of the HMICFRS report authors (over 50% ex Officers plus military) is that when you are in the system, or have had a strong stake/experience in the system, it is very difficult to be objective. Diversity in leadership roles isn't just for show; it leads to better outcomes. 

There is no love lost between Policing and the HMICFRS.  It's a shame that the focus has been on Tom Winsor and Matt Parr to call it biased whilst overlooking Zoe Billingham and Wendy Williams (edit to add - not that any of them have a policing background, and only one has a military background).

Post edited at 11:48
4
In reply to Fior eun:

'Diversity in leadership roles isn't just for show; it leads to better outcomes. '

The Met is led by a woman who also happens to be gay! And the Tories want to see the back of her asap; people should maybe reflect on that.

5
 Fior eun 31 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Both articles are about a lot more than you describe.

1
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

> Both articles are about a lot more than you describe.

Yes, I wouldn't disagree. Though the second article is a bit unclear - it starts out talking about complaints about dealing with sexual offence/DA cases and then seems to combine that with officers committing those offences. 

 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

>  You have to ask yourself the question; Why are so many people in support of the Police here, and NOT in support of the "poor little girlies".

Interesting and rather telling use of phrase there. 

3
 Andy Johnson 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

The inspectorate report is a joke, just like the one today from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Both were pretty clearly written to a pre-determined conclusion.

I'm getting increasingly worried by the growing authoritarian tendencies of the police over the last decade - particularly since the 2010 student protests. I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects popping up here to defend them though.

12
 fred99 31 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Interesting and rather telling use of phrase there. 

I used that phrase for the very simple reason that I believe that the "protesters" took the view that they would (ab)use their femininity deliberately to imply the Police were all "nasty men" attacking "nice women".

Or would you suggest that the male officers should have been in the Police Station drinking tea, whilst every female Officer in London had been called up for this "protest". Then think of what might happen if a female was attacked elsewhere in London that night, and there hadn't been any female Officers to deal with it.

4
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> The inspectorate report is a joke, just like the one today from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Both were pretty clearly written to a pre-determined conclusion.

"Clearly"

> I'm getting increasingly worried by the growing authoritarian tendencies of the police over the last decade - particularly since the 2010 student protests. I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects popping up here to defend them though.

You do understand the added complexities of COVID19 impacting on the right to protest don't you?

Without an international global pandemic and the fact that the government introduced legislation specifically restricting public gatherings, the policing of some of these events would look very different.

6
 fred99 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

..... I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects popping up here to defend them though.

What about the usual "Police bashers" who have turned to what you might call "the dark side" ?

5
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

> I used that phrase for the very simple reason that I believe that the "protesters" took the view that they would (ab)use their femininity deliberately to imply the Police were all "nasty men" attacking "nice women".

So why the use of girlies? You dont think that could be better phrased? Good to see you blaming the women alone then and not including any of the men there.

> Or would you suggest that the male officers should have been in the Police Station drinking tea, whilst every female Officer in London had been called up for this "protest".

I have no idea why you think this is relevant but heyho.

5
 THE.WALRUS 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

I think the problem with the HMICFRS report is that there is small a proportion of people who simply won't accept the conclusions unless they support their own pre-determined ideas.

Regardless of access to evidence, impartiality etc, if it doesn't say what some people want it to say, it's lies.

Theres not much point engaging with people with such entrenched and immovable views, the more effective option is to sideline them. Which is exactly what's happened.

8
 LukeEllisWorn 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I await the formal apology from Priti Patal, and Sadique Khan, and everyone else who jumped on the band-wagon...

Why would Priti apologise for doing what her electorate wants her to do ?

2
 Yanis Nayu 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> The inspectorate report is a joke, just like the one today from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Both were pretty clearly written to a pre-determined conclusion  

Or not, depending on what your own pre-determined conclusion was. It could well be argued that they are a refreshing move toward looking at facts and less at looking at the emotional and entrenched arguments of vociferous voices on Twitter.

> I'm getting increasingly worried by the growing authoritarian tendencies of the police over the last decade - particularly since the 2010 student protests. I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects popping up here to defend them though.

We’re coming out of lockdown to control a infectious disease that has caused widespread misery and damage. Any protest in these circumstances, whatever the cause, is plain irresponsible. This will of course have an effect on the way they are policed. 

4
 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I think the problem with the HMICFRS report is that there is small a proportion of people who simply won't accept the conclusions unless they support their own pre-determined ideas.

Is there anyone disagreeing with it who you don't lump into that bracket?

> Regardless of access to evidence, impartiality etc, if it doesn't say what some people want it to say, it's lies.

You appear to have an amazing window into strangers' thoughts and motivations.

> Theres not much point engaging with people with such entrenched and immovable views, the more effective option is to sideline them. Which is exactly what's happened.

And there we have it.

8
 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

>  You have to ask yourself the question; Why are so many people in support of the Police here, and NOT in support of the "poor little girlies".

It's literally the same people who were on the other thread and were absolutely fine with whatever the police did in advance of the facts. That tells us precisely nothing.

3
 Andy Johnson 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Are you aware that there were also vigils on the same day in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield? The police didn't intervene and they happened peacefully.

Are you also aware that a thousand people marched on Parliament Square the day after the Clapham Common incident and the police didn't intervene?

How do you account for that? Was it inappropriate to not use force at these other events? Do you feel let down by the police?

What do you think of the government advice that covid transmission is very unlikely to occur outdoors? This is the same advice that allows us go out climbing in groups this week.

Post edited at 19:17
7
 Andy Johnson 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I think the problem with the HMICFRS report is that there is small a proportion of people who simply won't accept the conclusions unless they support their own pre-determined ideas.

> Regardless of access to evidence, impartiality etc, if it doesn't say what some people want it to say, it's lies.

> Theres not much point engaging with people with such entrenched and immovable views, the more effective option is to sideline them. Which is exactly what's happened.

So the purpose of the report is to sideline dissenting viewpoints? Are you aware of how arrogant you sound?

Post edited at 19:22
7
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> Are you aware that there were also vigils on the same day in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield? The police didn't intervene and they happened peacefully.

> Are you also aware that a thousand people marched on Parliament Square the day after the Clapham Common incident and the police didn't intervene?

> How do you account for that? Was it inappropriate to not use force at these other events? Do you feel let down by the police?

> What do you think of the government advice that covid transmission is very unlikely to occur outdoors? This is the same advice that allows us go out climbing in groups this week.

Are you aware that your comments, particularly the first paragraph, clearly demonstrate you haven't read the report?

Post edited at 19:22
3
 MeMeMe 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Whilst this does not relate directly to this report it does bring into question the independence of the HMICFRS somewhat - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/31/police-watchdog-accused-of-skewing-report-to-back-protests-clampdown

But don't worry the whistleblower's accusations about the HMICFRS are being thoroughly investigated by....the HMICFRS, so there should be a report clearing them of any wrong doing in a few weeks or so.

5
In reply to Andy Johnson:

Stop being so pathetically adolescent and predictable. 'Arrogant' - that's the sort of word Trump would use to describe someone who knew what they were talking about.

4
 Wilberforce 31 Mar 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I think the problem with the HMICFRS report is that there is small a proportion of people who simply won't accept the conclusions unless they support their own pre-determined ideas.

> Regardless of access to evidence, impartiality etc, if it doesn't say what some people want it to say, it's lies.

How do you know that HMICFRS are truly impartial? What's your view on the below piece in the Guardian?

Personally I think it's pretty difficult for anyone to be impartial on these issues and that taking any source as gospel is foolish - be it an official enquiry or a post on social media. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/31/police-watchdog-accused-of-skewing-report-to-back-protests-clampdown

3
In reply to off-duty:

> There is no love lost between Policing and the HMICFRS.  It's a shame that the focus has been on Tom Winsor and Matt Parr to call it biased whilst overlooking Zoe Billingham and Wendy Williams

Is Tom Winsor the bloke with no police or military experience whatsoever, but who insists on wandering around in some pantomime uniform with more silver lanyards and shiny buttons than Herman Goering?

 Andy Johnson 31 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Are you aware that your comments, particularly the first paragraph, clearly demonstrate you haven't read the report?

Yes I read the report, and I'm aware that it only considers the events at Clapham Common. Is that your point?

I mentioned the other vigils to illustrate that other forces took different approaches to policing protests that also occurred within the context of the covid, and they managed to avoid using violence against the public.

Post edited at 19:50
6
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to MeMeMe:

But then I’m not sure the whistle blower, Ms O’Keefe, is entirely credible if you believe the paragraph in the article you link copied below. Hardly the position of an independent inspector. 

“Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.”

Those who have been been subject to HMIC (as was) inspections, will tell you there is no love lost between the police and the Inspectorate and that, especially during the tenure of Tom Winsor, they are very happy, some (me) may say eager, to criticise Policing Uk whenever they get the opportunity.

2
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> Yes I read the report, and I'm aware that it only considers the events at Clapham Common. Is that your point?

Is that apart from the section that deals with the vigils in other parts of the country?

2
 Yanis Nayu 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

On the last point, I agree that it isn’t, but the rules in place at the time were highly restrictive of small numbers of people meeting up outdoors. Take a low likelihood and multiply it by a few thousand and you’ve got cases you wouldn’t have had otherwise.  
I’m certainly aware of a vigil in Leeds because my daughter was there and I saw her on a video on the Daily Mail🥴 website!

3
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> But then I’m not sure the whistle blower, Ms O’Keefe, is entirely credible if you believe the paragraph in the article you link copied below. Hardly the position of an independent inspector. 

Thats a statement by HMICFRS so possibly not entirely neutral.  I am also not sure why it would discredit her statements about the earlier reports?

2
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

I doubt they would have named her and stated her views publicly unless it was true. That way lies a law suit.

I would say that it undermines her credibility because she appears to have preconceived views without considering the facts, based on the report you linked.

3
 abr1966 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Ridge:

Same one I'm sure....think he has some previous career in railways! Likes his uniform for sure....plenty of tat on it!!!

 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> Yes I read the report, and I'm aware that it only considers the events at Clapham Common. Is that your point?

> I mentioned the other vigils to illustrate that other forces took different approaches to policing protests that also occurred within the context of the covid, and they managed to avoid using violence against the public.

Thats literally discussed in the report.

3
 Andy Johnson 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> Is that apart from the section that deals with the vigils in other parts of the country?

This is the section titled "Vigils in other parts of the country"?

It basically says that other vigils happened, they were smaller and subject to less media attention, force was not used by the local forces, comparison is "inadvisable" (for reasons not given).

What's your point?

Post edited at 20:41
5
In reply to off-duty:

Out of interest, are the police allowed to publish their body cam footage? I know there are various police shows that do but I believe they have to get consent from all involved and often blur faces.

Everyone is quick to grab phone footage of the police and slap it up everywhere online to prove how awful the police are.

I would love for the police to be able to post their own footage in rebuttal. It would be a massive eye opener for a lot of people when they see saint Timmy who was unjustly arrested and restrained by 3 coppers throwing half bricks ant said coppers 30 seconds earlier. 

3
 off-duty 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Dax H:

It does get published occasionally - typically post conviction. Occasionally seen it to illustrate disorder and the scenes faced by attending officers. West Mids Twitter seems pretty good at getting body can out quite quick.

For whatever reason seem to see more body cam released via twitter, in comparison to mobile phone footage which seems to be facebook.  

Post edited at 21:04
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> I doubt they would have named her and stated her views publicly unless it was true. That way lies a law suit.

Naming her is easy enough. If the paper,as seems to be the case, goes to them and says we have x,who is willing to go public, saying this then there are no whistleblower issues for them. Obviously if the paper didnt name her then they are in a world of shit and basically anything they say should be considered suspect for sheer incompetence.

Its going to be messy anyway if she is whistleblowing on them so some strategic undermining might actually help.

> I would say that it undermines her credibility because she appears to have preconceived views without considering the facts, based on the report you linked.

Considering her complaint though is about preconcieved views its rather convenient to say she is guilty of what she is whistleblowing on.

I certainly wouldnt be saying it undermines her credibility until her accusations have been tested.

2
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Thats literally discussed in the report.


The problem is what the actual report is addressing vs what some peoples complaints are seem to be two rather different things. There is lots of focus on the lead up to it and the various political arguments but it then goes weak on the primary interaction with the protestors/vigil keepers/whatever you want to call them. It seems especially weak on pulling in anything other than the police view at that stage so its not surprising there is pushback on it.

3
 MeMeMe 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> But then I’m not sure the whistle blower, Ms O’Keefe, is entirely credible if you believe the paragraph in the article you link copied below. Hardly the position of an independent inspector. 

> “Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.”

You missed some context there, the bit that seems to be speaking for her is from HMICFRS itself -

HMICFRS said: “The Clapham inspection was entirely objective as is apparent from the report just published. Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.”

I also really like the "The Clapham inspection was entirely objective as is apparent from the report just published." I mean I've no real idea how objective the report is but aren't they basically saying "our report is objective because it is" ? I don't find that a very convincing argument!

> Those who have been been subject to HMIC (as was) inspections, will tell you there is no love lost between the police and the Inspectorate and that, especially during the tenure of Tom Winsor, they are very happy, some (me) may say eager, to criticise Policing Uk whenever they get the opportunity.

Well you sound like you know more about it than me, I hope you're right, independent inspectorates are really invaluable.

Post edited at 21:51
In reply to off-duty:

Not on twitter or Facebook. I just see cretinous morons on YouTube doing everything they can to paint the police in a bad light.

I think I'm just a bit disappointed to be honest. I have made it to 49 years old and I have never been abused by the police. I feel left out. 

4
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Considering her complaint though is about preconcieved views its rather convenient to say she is guilty of what she is whistleblowing on.

 “Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.”

I would guess the key phrase is ‘by her own acknowledgement’- obviously it’s in the Guardian, so it shouldn’t be taken as gospel.

3
 1philjones1 31 Mar 2021
In reply to MeMeMe:

> You missed some context there, the bit that seems to be speaking for her is from HMICFRS itself -

> HMICFRS said: “The Clapham inspection was entirely objective as is apparent from the report just published. Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.”

Apologies, I thought that the fact it was a statement from HMICFRS was obvious from the reference to her in the third person.

> Well you sound like you know more about it than me, I hope you're right, independent inspectorates are really invaluable.

I completely agree that independent, and balanced, inspectorates are invaluable, especially in Policing. HMIC have always been fiercely independent, often highly critical of police, not always balanced. It is in this context that I feel the conclusion the Met weren’t heavy-handed carries some weight.

2
 abr1966 31 Mar 2021
In reply to Dax H:

> Not on twitter or Facebook. I just see cretinous morons on YouTube doing everything they can to paint the police in a bad light.

> I think I'm just a bit disappointed to be honest. I have made it to 49 years old and I have never been abused by the police. I feel left out. 

I grew up in Liverpool and in the early 80's the police were well known for being rough handed...I was subject to it myself.....it never made me anti police....they are criticised from every angle often by vested interests....the resources are compromised through cuts in budget. 

I had a few experiences of crowd control when o tours inNorthern Ireland....it wasn't really my job but occasionally it was all hands on deck. It was shocking how much violence we were subject to when trying to hold 2 lots of people apart hell bent on attacking each other. If it wasn't for experienced calm people around me it would have been so easy to dish it out a bit. It's so easy to criticise police from armchairs, often by people who either haven't got a clue or are so biased it's shocking.

Post edited at 22:02
3
 MeMeMe 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> Apologies, I thought that the fact it was a statement from HMICFRS was obvious from the reference to her in the third person.

Not obvious at all, it only indicates it's someone else talking for her, not necessarily the HMICFRS, that only becomes clear when you include the context.

3
 mondite 31 Mar 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> I would guess the key phrase is ‘by her own acknowledgement’- obviously it’s in the Guardian, so it shouldn’t be taken as gospel.

No the key part is that is the Guardian quoting HMICFRS.  So no one sensible would take it at face value any more than they would take her claims at face value.

She might be correct she might be wrong but to claim she cant be trusted due to a statement from the organisation she might be whistleblowing on its frankly nuts and says rather a lot about your personal bias.

7
 1philjones1 01 Apr 2021
In reply to mondite:

I agree, no one sensible should be taking anything The Guardian says at face value.

Again, I agree. I have no idea if she is right or wrong in her complaint. For HMICFRS to make up, and release to a national newspaper, a totally made up quote and attribute it to their employee, stating that she agrees with it would be very dangerous legally. I would be very surprised if their (very risk averse) legal department hadn’t reviewed and authorised the release as they would have to be very  confident in it, otherwise it will cost them a lot of money at the employment tribunal that will inevitably follow. 

 So no, I don’t think it’s nuts. Maybe it says something about your personal bias?

4
In reply to 1philjones1:

Following on from the above, this is totally baffling:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56581835

If two serving police officer can make allegations of rape sufficiently credible that they receive public funds from the CICA, yet the perpetrator doesn't even face a disciplinary hearing, let alone a criminal prosecution, then what is going on? 

 Fior eun 01 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

More examples of institutional sexism and misogyny in the Police? More example of problems with the Police investigating themselves? No signs of any actions to try and solve the problem?

That's not baffling. It's UK life in 2021 - this thread has many examples. We don't know all the info about the story but there are so many commonalities in women's experiences. 

1
 mondite 01 Apr 2021
In reply to 1philjones1:

> I agree, no one sensible should be taking anything The Guardian says at face value.

sigh. 

> Again, I agree. I have no idea if she is right or wrong in her complaint. For HMICFRS to make up, and release to a national newspaper, a totally made up quote and attribute it to their employee, stating that she agrees with it would be very dangerous legally.

Apart from if you pay attention rather than just launch a smearing campaign you might actually note it is quoting her at all but simply making a statement which covers multiple scenarios including the belief that the report would actually be prejudged in favour of the police. It also depends on what actual paper work there is to support her position.

Anyway I will leave you to your attacks. It really isnt worth wasting any more time on.

6
 elsewhere 01 Apr 2021
1
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Good news from Bristol. Protest went ahead with no harm done. No interference in a fundamental aspect of  democracy.

You can read can't you...? That's literally one of the points I've been labouring...

 "Supt Mark Edgington, of Avon and Somerset police, said on Wednesday: “We were committed to facilitating a peaceful protest in line with the Covid-19 legislation.

Before the demonstration, Avon and Somerset police said changes to the coronavirus regulations meant it was possible for peaceful protests to go ahead.

Edgington said: “Now that restrictions around protest have changed, we wanted to press a reset button, and I believe we achieved this last night. We have a long and proud history of facilitating peaceful protests spanning many years and today was a prime example of this."

Here's some more good news from Bristol.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-riots-man-detained-suspicion-5252394

Post edited at 16:23
2
 r0b 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Protests were not implicitly illegal under the previous Tier 4 regulations. As the report said:

"This is an incorrect interpretation of the All Tiers Regulations. For the reasons we have explained above, the fact that there was no exception for protests under Tier 4 restrictions does not mean that any and all protests will be unlawful, and where COVID-19 safety measures are taken, this will be particularly relevant to whether or not a “reasonable excuse” defence is likely to be available. There is also evidence of the concern for consistency between protest groups, which, as noted above, should not lead to an approach of treating all protest activity as invariably unlawful."

And

"Can protests in Tier 4 ever be lawful under the All Tiers Regulations? The answer, as confirmed by the Judgment, is yes. The fact that the All Tiers Regulations do not make protest an express exception to the general prohibition on gatherings does not mean that any and all protest activity will be unlawful. Documents we have seen from the Metropolitan Police, in which the All Tiers Regulations are discussed prior to the Judgment, show that there was a degree of confusion as to the correct legal position. That stemmed from the fact that there is no exception for protest, whereas such an exception is provided for under the restrictions that apply in Tiers 1, 2 and 3. However, as confirmed by the Judgment, the All Tiers Regulations must be interpreted in a way that protects and gives effect to human rights. The All Tiers Regulations must be read subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, and not the other way around."

So to say "changes to the coronavirus regulations meant it was possible for peaceful protests to go ahead" is factually incorrect.

2
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to r0b:

> Protests were not implicitly illegal under the previous Tier 4 regulations. As the report said:

> "This is an incorrect interpretation of the All Tiers Regulations. For the reasons we have explained above, the fact that there was no exception for protests under Tier 4 restrictions does not mean that any and all protests will be unlawful, and where COVID-19 safety measures are taken, this will be particularly relevant to whether or not a “reasonable excuse” defence is likely to be available. There is also evidence of the concern for consistency between protest groups, which, as noted above, should not lead to an approach of treating all protest activity as invariably unlawful."

> And

> "Can protests in Tier 4 ever be lawful under the All Tiers Regulations? The answer, as confirmed by the Judgment, is yes. The fact that the All Tiers Regulations do not make protest an express exception to the general prohibition on gatherings does not mean that any and all protest activity will be unlawful. Documents we have seen from the Metropolitan Police, in which the All Tiers Regulations are discussed prior to the Judgment, show that there was a degree of confusion as to the correct legal position. That stemmed from the fact that there is no exception for protest, whereas such an exception is provided for under the restrictions that apply in Tiers 1, 2 and 3. However, as confirmed by the Judgment, the All Tiers Regulations must be interpreted in a way that protects and gives effect to human rights. The All Tiers Regulations must be read subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, and not the other way around."

> So to say "changes to the coronavirus regulations meant it was possible for peaceful protests to go ahead" is factually incorrect.

Yes. I think this has previously been discussed, at length.

The Bristol superintendent should have been more clear - but as you point out the report considered the legal position carefully, in very brief essence protests could go ahead if the organiser could ensure they could be managed in a COVID compliant manner (edit to add, and with the changes on Coronavirus legislation organising a protest has got easier) and....

"The Metropolitan Police has been clear that there was not – and could not be – a blanket ban on protest. It must follow that it was possible that at some point, somewhere a gathering could be allowed to take place. This requires the police to evaluate a range of factors including whether and what risk assessments have been conducted, whether social distancing will be maintained, and what other measures may assist in managing the risk to public health.

.......

As inspectors of constabulary, our role is to offer our independent judgment on the actions of the police in this case. With strong arguments on both sides, we are satisfied that – on balance – the Metropolitan Police acted appropriately in taking as its starting point the desire to achieve consistency in the policing of mass gatherings during lockdown. But in order to adopt a lawful approach it was essential for the Metropolitan Police to go beyond that starting point and to consider the specific facts regarding the events planned for 13 March 2021 and then the events as they unfolded on the day. It is our conclusion that the thought processes and actions of the Metropolitan Police satisfied this requirement."

Post edited at 17:08
2
 elsewhere 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> You can read can't you...? That's literally one of the points I've been labouring...

I included the first link because it makes the point the legality has changed since Clapham. 

My understanding is that at the time of Clapham the non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses" no longer included "for the purposes of protest". The non-inclusion in a non-exhaustive list does not mean something was not a reasonable excuse.

The second link makes then point that at the time of Clapham the law was (and still is?) a sh#tty mess and it was quite reasonable for the public to think exercising democratic rights might be a reasonable excuse. It's a pity the Met did not think that exercising democratic rights was a reasonable excuse. 

Perhaps I should labour my viewpoint that it should be exceedingly difficult to inhibit democratic activity. The good news from Bristol is step in the right direction.

4
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Great so we agree.

Following failed negotiation the Clapham vigil became non- COVID compliant and illegal.

I appreciate the public might have thought there was a 'ressonable excuse' for protest, but you might have thought the cancellation by the organisers, the announcement by the Met ( both in advance of the vigil) might have clarified those thoughts, and the announcement by the councillor at 6pm to go home followed by police officers "engaging, explaining and encouraging" might have settled it for those who hadn't heard or read the previous announcements.

Now the legal position has changed that protest (like those in Bristol) is much more likely to have been able to be arranged.

4
 nastyned 01 Apr 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Bloody hell, on the same day it's revealed there's a rapist (on the balance of probabilities) and was a literal neo-nazi in the Met. 

6
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to nastyned:

> Bloody hell, on the same day it's revealed there's a rapist (on the balance of probabilities) and was a literal neo-nazi in the Met. 

I know, shocking isn't it. Hopefully the neo nazi will get custodial and the alleged rapist will get sacked (if the criminal investigation can't also be resurrected by right to review) 

1
 elsewhere 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Great so we agree.

> Following failed negotiation the Clapham vigil became non- COVID compliant and illegal.

> I appreciate the public might have thought there was a 'ressonable excuse' for protest, but you might have thought the cancellation by the organisers, the announcement by the Met ( both in advance of the vigil) might have clarified those thoughts, and the announcement by the councillor at 6pm to go home followed by police officers "engaging, explaining and encouraging" might have settled it for those who hadn't heard or read the previous announcements.

> Now the legal position has changed that protest (like those in Bristol) is much more likely to have been able to be arranged.

I doubt we agree as I think it's reasonable for the public at Clapham to disagree with the police about whether democratic activity is a reasonable excuse or to insist that interference with democratic activity requires a reasonable excuse.

4
 Iamgregp 01 Apr 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I note you've not managed to spell either of their names correctly.

Says it all really.

3
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I doubt we agree as I think it's reasonable for the public at Clapham to disagree with the police about whether democratic activity is a reasonable excuse or to insist that interference with democratic activity requires a reasonable excuse.

Well, you are entitled to an opinion.

That element of reasonable excuse is why they had the court case specifically about the Clapham vigil. It's encompassed by the Coronavirus legislation and Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (highlighting conditional nature of right to protest).

​​​​​​

3
 jt232 01 Apr 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I think some of the recent news hasn't helped e.g.

Police officer accused of raping two colleagues, not arrested.

Met office found to be neonazi. 

Police officer attacks woman in street and gets £500 fine. 

Police lie about injuries caused by protesters. 

Couple that with the independent report into racism which has been pretty hotly contested, not to mention the events that led up to tho the vigil itself and I think it's not that surprising to find a number of people look at the independent report and don't really believe it. 

Not saying the report is wrong but you don't exactly need to be conspiracy theory nutter to be pretty sceptical about the findings. 

10
 r0b 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Following failed negotiation the Clapham vigil became non- COVID compliant and illegal.

But given that the Met misunderstood the law how could those negotiations have led to anything other than them deeming the planned vigil/protest to be illegal?

1
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to jt232:

> Not saying the report is wrong but you don't exactly need to be conspiracy theory nutter to be pretty sceptical about the findings. 

That's why they publish the report so you can read it, digest it and then disagree with the substance, rather than a summary.

5
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to r0b:

> But given that the Met misunderstood the law how could those negotiations have led to anything other than them deeming the planned vigil/protest to be illegal?

The misunderstanding you refer to was mentioned in relation to the Gold Commanders log of events of the 13th March.

The negotiations and the legal position on the run up to the event were reviewed as per my previous post - the Met position was clear - that there was no blanket ban on protest.

The good thing about the Gold Commanders log is that it didn't just include a paragraph where the law was misunderstood, it contained a clear rationale for the actions and decisions taken - making reference to the relevant HRA articles - so that it could be seen that despite mis-stating the legal position the rationale could be seen to be entirely consistent with the correct legal powers and legislation.

"However, it does not follow that the police response to the events planned for 13 March 2021, or to the events that occurred on the day, was wrong. The Gold Commander’s log explains why the Metropolitan Police considered that, following discussions with the organisers, a large planned gathering simply could not go ahead safely:"

1
 elsewhere 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> The misunderstanding you refer to was mentioned in relation to the Gold Commanders log of events of the 13th March.

> The negotiations and the legal position on the run up to the event were reviewed as per my previous post - the Met position was clear - that there was no blanket ban on protest.

> The good thing about the Gold Commanders log is that it didn't just include a paragraph where the law was misunderstood, it contained a clear rationale for the actions and decisions taken - making reference to the relevant HRA articles - so that it could be seen that despite mis-stating the legal position the rationale could be seen to be entirely consistent with the correct legal powers and legislation.

> "However, it does not follow that the police response to the events planned for 13 March 2021, or to the events that occurred on the day, was wrong. The Gold Commander’s log explains why the Metropolitan Police considered that, following discussions with the organisers, a large planned gathering simply could not go ahead safely:"

If the public listen to Patrick Vallence and Chris Whitty rather than the Gold Commander they are probably in a better position to judge Covid safety.

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1370876375683497991

5
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> If the public listen to Patrick Vallence and Chris Whitty rather than the Gold Commander they are probably in a better position to judge Covid safety.

I don't know why I keep repeating myself but... 

The police aren't in a position to debate public health policy or scientific opinion. They are there to work based on the legislation that has been put in place.

This is the case for lots of areas. You may have a perfectly reasonable and well-argued rationale for how safe cannabis use is. The fact remains it is currently illegal.

You may well consider your skills, assessment of risk and lack of interest in your own personal safety means you are entirely happy not to wear a seatbelt. You are still going to get a ticket 

Post edited at 19:46
2
In reply to jt232:

Remind me how many people the Met employ?

Shall we compare the proportion of bad 'uns (and the colleagues that stupidly give them 'the benefit of the doubt') to other institutions... Oh, I don't know, like political parties, religious orders, voluntary youth groups, registered doctors...

I don't know how these creeps get past vetting, I don't know how they get away with it for so long, but I don't think the police are unique in having the occasional rotten egg.

3
 marsbar 01 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's what you do with the rotten eggs that counts.  

Raping 2 colleagues and basically getting away with it.  Not a good look.  

8
 elsewhere 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I don't know why I keep repeating myself but... 

> The police aren't in a position to debate public health policy or scientific opinion.

The general public are.

7
 jt232 01 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't know, like 30,000 or something? 

Of course you are gonna get 'the occasion rotten egg' and of course vetting isn't going to find them all. 

Given that, you would think when there are accusations of violent or sexual crimes you think they would take those accusations exceptionally seriously and do everything to protect the public.

The recent reports seen to suggest they do the opposite and care more about protecting officers/reputation than violence  against women. Maybe that is an unfair portrayal by the media but I think it certainly explains why people don't trust this report. 

2
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> It's what you do with the rotten eggs that counts.  

> Raping 2 colleagues and basically getting away with it.  Not a good look.  

Unfortunately it's allegedly. Civil court is balance of probabilities, not criminal level.

That presents further issues around employment law and misconduct legislation. 

I'd rather it was a criminal conviction but investigating historical allegations is difficult and CPS didn't charge.

1
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> The general public are.

Yep. But not, as I have had to remind drunken "law students", on the street having breached the law.

3
In reply to jt232:

> Met office found to be neonazi

That's why they keep mentioning stormfronts

 marsbar 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Not so much as suspended whilst investigations took place? 

Then we are back to the CPS didn't charge again.

Basically in this country rape is pretty much decriminalised in the same way as cannabis.  

Meanwhile new laws being brought in make statues more important than people.  

I'm not blaming you, I know you have a difficult job, but the bad apples need to be dealt with in your job more than others.

2
 nastyned 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Unfortunately it's allegedly. Civil court is balance of probabilities, not criminal level.

> That presents further issues around employment law and misconduct legislation. 

> I'd rather it was a criminal conviction but investigating historical allegations is difficult and CPS didn't charge.

The police did next to nothing for three years, you can't blame the CPS for that. 

4
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Not so much as suspended whilst investigations took place? 

Suspension has to take place after criminal investigation finished.

> Then we are back to the CPS didn't charge again.

> Basically in this country rape is pretty much decriminalised in the same way as cannabis.  

> Meanwhile new laws being brought in make statues more important than people.  

Decriminalised? Absolutely not. Rape can be very hard to prove. Historic rape moreso.  I have detectives working extremely hard to try and put cases together to cross a 51% burden of proof hurdle to get a CPS charge, knowing that this is likely to fall short of a "beyond reasonable doubt" test. Many times it's frustrating, occasionally you have an argumentative aggressive bully turning up at court expecting to browbeat his way out and suddenly realising he should have packed his prison bag that morning.

> I'm not blaming you, I know you have a difficult job, but the bad apples need to be dealt with in your job more than others.

I wouldn't disagree. We are in a damned do/damned don't'  scenario.  Successfully prosecute a cop for domestic abuse or rape = 'You are all domestic abusing rapists"

Screw the prosecution up, or insufficient evidence? = "You are all women hating incompetents"

2
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to nastyned:

> The police did next to nothing for three years, you can't blame the CPS for that. 

If you are going to criticise at least get your facts right. 

Investigation started 2017. CPS decision 2019.

Then you have an effectively "innocent" officer, until a successful civil claim to CICA in 2020.

Suspension and disciplinary procedures take the back seat to criminal proceedings, unfortunately that's the law.

2
 jt232 01 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Compare that to something like the Dr Bawa Garber case, intially given a 2 year suspended sentence for manslaughter for effectively a systems failure. 

It's not necessarily the police's fault, but stories like this seem to seriously undermine trust in the justice system. If there's no trust, why believe a report that says the police did nothing wrong?

3
 off-duty 01 Apr 2021
In reply to jt232:

> Compare that to something like the Dr Bawa Garber case, intially given a 2 year suspended sentence for manslaughter for effectively a systems failure. 

I'm not sure what the comparison is? One is a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter the other is insufficient evidence for a charge?

The convicted doctor was suspended for one year, the unconvicted cop is looking at a potential gross misconduct hearing.

The doctor commited the manslaughter in 2011, convicted 2015, suspended 2017.

> It's not necessarily the police's fault, but stories like this seem to seriously undermine trust in the justice system. If there's no trust, why believe a report that says the police did nothing wrong?

I'm not sure what there is to "not believe" about the report. Discuss the content, dispute the conclusions seems reasonable, but disbelieve? 

2
 Fior eun 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I wouldn't disagree. We are in a damned do/damned don't'  scenario.  Successfully prosecute a cop for domestic abuse or rape = 'You are all domestic abusing rapists"

No. No. No. This is how the institutional sexism and misogyny continues. 

Successfully prosecute a cop for domestic abuse or rape = you take male aggression seriously and you take effective action to stop it. You understand that the Police have to be treated equally under the law, and to be seen to do so. You recognise the importance of trust.

>Screw the prosecution up, or insufficient evidence? = "You are all women hating incompetents"

It's a lot more than that. You missed out: dismiss reports of male aggression; pressurise women to withdraw complaints; take pictures of dead women and circulate; fail to suspend Police Officer accused of rape; the list goes on.

The neo-Nazi case shows that the Police can take effective action against a cop. There will always be poor behaviour in any organisation and what's important is that it takes effective action. This is what we are asking for the Police to do with male aggression against women. 

5
 off-duty 02 Apr 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

> No. No. No. This is how the institutional sexism and misogyny continues. 

> Successfully prosecute a cop for domestic abuse or rape = you take male aggression seriously and you take effective action to stop it. You understand that the Police have to be treated equally under the law, and to be seen to do so. You recognise the importance of trust.

> >Screw the prosecution up, or insufficient evidence? = "You are all women hating incompetents"

> It's a lot more than that. You missed out: dismiss reports of male aggression; pressurise women to withdraw complaints; take pictures of dead women and circulate; fail to suspend Police Officer accused of rape; the list goes on.

And you've missed out the successful prosecutions of police officers for domestic related offences and rape. You've missed out the successful convictions of offenders for domestic offences and rape.  The huge amount of time spent running MARAC and MAPPA meetings to manage dangerous offenders and protect victims.  The usage of DVPN and DVPO to try and provide sufficient safeguarding to victims to persuade them to provide statements or support prosecution.  

> The neo-Nazi case shows that the Police can take effective action against a cop. There will always be poor behaviour in any organisation and what's important is that it takes effective action. This is what we are asking for the Police to do with male aggression against women. 

Do we always get it right? No. And we can always improve, but from first hand experience I know of lots of jobs where officers have gone far above and beyond to try and support, safeguard and engage with vulnerable female victims - because we have genuine fears for them, despite their cyclical behaviour in making complaints retracting them, splitting from abusive partners and then re-establishing relationships with them. 

We now have a much better understanding of controlling and coercive behaviour and we will do our best to try and provide a way out for women who are subject to this.  The partnership work with social services and other agencies means that support systems and, for example alternative accommodation can be arranged much more smoothly than in the past.

3
 Fior eun 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty

I think your original comments, and your response to my comments are deeply problematic. There remains a huge problem with women and trust in the police. Your comments continually excuse, minimise and dismiss this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/misogyny-police-domestic-abuse-b1825004.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56427167

 How would you fix it?

9
In reply to Fior eun:

Wave a magic wand? Because that's what you're asking for.

4
 off-duty 02 Apr 2021
In reply to Fior eun:

> In reply to off-duty

> I think your original comments, and your response to my comments are deeply problematic. There remains a huge problem with women and trust in the police. Your comments continually excuse, minimise and dismiss this.

Respectfully, this is exactly my "damned do/damned don't" point reinforced.

Do we get it right all the time? No. I would be the first to admit it.  Do we get it right most of the time - I would argue we do a pretty decent job within the constraints of the CJS.

We can definitely improve, and we are improving. The powers we have in relation to protecting vulnerable victims are better, the multi-agency links for supporting and managing risk are pretty well embedded in the system. Our focus on attendance at jobs has shifted from just dealing with what you are presented with to ensuring that we look for hidden vulnerabilities and safeguarding issues.

We still get it wrong. When we do it is often highlighted, and hopefully we can use this to improve.

>  How would you fix it?

I'm not sure that the label of institutional misogyny is particularly well-defined, helpful or correct. I'm not convinced that the best way to improve performance is to tell an entire organisation, male and female, that because of the uniform they wear they are misogynist. 

The comments of the retired Chief Con have been challenged by several serving female chiefs. 

How to improve the treatment of women in the CJS. There are no easy answers - the prosecution of rape is very hard.  What the police can do is ensure we provide empathetic and effective investigations, ensure support and welfare mechanisms are put in place around victims and take what measures we can to target and manage the risk of offenders, even when not prosecuted.

1
 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> despite their cyclical behaviour in making complaints retracting them, splitting from abusive partners and then re-establishing relationships with them. 

In the 'male violence' thread I was just talking about a book - "See What You Made Me Do" by Jess Hill.
( https://www.booksetc.co.uk/books/view/-9781787383685 )

On the subject of the 'cyclical behaviour' of abused women (mostly, but also sometimes men), the frustrations that causes for those trying to help them, and how and why it happens (especially in relationships involving children) you might find it an interesting read.

Post edited at 09:53
1
In reply to off-duty:

Yes, that Sue Fish is certainly enjoying her post-responsibility moment in the sun, isn't  she. I think her complaints might have carried more weight if she'd made them when she was in a position to do something about them. Was Nottinghamshire a paragon for dealing with complex issues like this?

 off-duty 02 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Cheers for the link.

Just in case I haven't been clear - I am not blaming victims for this cyclical behaviour.

I know that there are a whole variety of reasons why it happens - some have been flagged on another thread, and I've seen them myself particularly around relationships where there are issues around who is the main money earner, and when kids are involved - taking any action is going to be detrimental to not just the victim but also the children.

All I would say is that even if it's understood and catered for as best as possible, it still increases the practical difficulties in prosecuting offences. 

1
 jt232 02 Apr 2021
In reply to jt232:

Admittedly I was a but tipsy when I posted this so it's not the best comparison. The point I'm trying (infectively) to make is that when other professions make serious mistakes they feel the full force of the law but it seems when officers are accused of violent crimes the criminal justice system is entirely toothless when dealing with them.  

Back to the original point of the thread, politicians are going to try to go with the prevailing mood of the moment, and to me that mood seems that the criminal justice system is failing to protect women, at times even from its own officers. So I think if anyone is expecting a grovelling apology to the police they may be waiting a long time. 

I do have real sympathy for the police, they are on the front line taking all the abuse when obviously a lot of it is way beyond their control. Still, I'm sure no one goes into the police expecting to be universally liked and admired. 

(Edit: in reply to off duty about my comment about Bawa Garba)

Post edited at 11:13
4
 Offwidth 02 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes she was a relative paragon in her position in taking such issues seriously. Nottingham has had some disastrous community policing over the years so the change was very welcome.

1
 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Just in case I haven't been clear - I am not blaming victims for this cyclical behaviour.

I didn't think you were, but I guess some of your comments might have been misconstrued that way so it's worth making it abundantly clear.  I know we don't see eye to eye much of the time, but I've found many of your comments on this quite reassuring actually.

> I've seen them myself..

Happily for me, I haven't so some of what I've been reading there has been a bit of an eye-opener.  And some is quite alarming.  (On the subject of children, and something I had never heard of before, particularly a relatively recent trend in custody disputes where seeking to deny an abusive ex-partner unsupervised access to the kids increasingly risks a woman completely losing access herself and her ex being granted sole custody.  The author mostly describes case histories from Australia, where family courts are slightly less secretive than our own and it's a bit easier to report on them, but she also identifies a similar trend in the UK and the USA.)

> All I would say is that even if it's understood and catered for as best as possible, it still increases the practical difficulties in prosecuting offences. 

In case I haven't been clear and seem to have been demanding easy answers from the police, I don't imagine for a moment that it's easy.

 off-duty 02 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> I didn't think you were, but I guess some of your comments might have been misconstrued that way so it's worth making it abundantly clear.  I know we don't see eye to eye much of the time, but I've found many of your comments on this quite reassuring actually.

Cheers.

> Happily for me, I haven't so some of what I've been reading there has been a bit of an eye-opener.  And some is quite alarming.  (On the subject of children, and something I had never heard of before, particularly a relatively recent trend in custody disputes where seeking to deny an abusive ex-partner unsupervised access to the kids increasingly risks a woman completely losing access herself and her ex being granted sole custody.  The author mostly describes case histories from Australia, where family courts are slightly less secretive than our own and it's a bit easier to report on them, but she also identifies a similar trend in the UK and the USA.)

There are some awful examples in family court in the UK as well. A combination of the complications of everything being at a civil level of proof, rights of parents to have access to children, and some flabbergasting attitudes from a (very) few family court judges.

For whatever reason sticking in my head at the moment (perhaps because of a few recent jobs and a post on here) - what do you do in a situation where a wife flees her abusive husband with her kids, but he is the money earner. Taking action against him will mean he loses his job - which will directly impact on you and your kids both financially and emotionally. Failing to take action - he carries on with the next victim... 🤷‍♂️

> In case I haven't been clear and seem to have been demanding easy answers from the police, I don't imagine for a moment that it's easy.

It certainly isn't! I definitely wouldn't suggest we don't make mistakes. All I'm trying to do is provide perspective. I'm conscious that one bad experience appears to cause ripples and impact far wider than one good experience, regardless of the respective numbers of each.

 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

On the subject of Sue Fish and her policy of treating misogyny as a 'hate crime' in Nottinghamshire, I don't think Cressida Dick has actually said that she thought that was a bad idea per se, nor even that it's something she wouldn't wish to do herself.  Where she does disagree with Fish is that she doesn't think it would be an appropriate use of limited resources for the Met in that it might divert them away from "core policing".

Resources that are too limited, I think it would be fair to say, particularly after the last decade of austerity cuts and with more on the way.  While I don't think our police are perfect, I certainly don't think making tens of thousands of officers and PCSOs redundant over the last few years was a step in the right direction.

During the BLM protests last summer, I think there was some confusion with American voices calling to 'defund the police'.  Steeped as we are in American culture and American media it's easy for some of us to forget we're not actually the 51st state.  (And easy for elements of our media to conflate the aims of the BLM movement in the USA with those of the BLM movement here.)

While it may make perfect sense all over the USA, defunding the police is the last thing we need to do here.  There's been quite enough of that already, particularly as it has coincided with defunding the probation service, the courts, social services, local authorities, you name it.  Apart from the social cost, terrible false-economies have been made as cost-effective measures to deal with relatively minor issues have been cut leaving some of them to turn into much more destructive (and expensive) major ones a year or two down the line.

On the subject of protecting women, and protecting women from domestic abuse in particular, it should be a national disgrace how many refuges have been forced to close.

1
 r0b 02 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

"Defund the police" is a terrible, unhelpful, tagline for that policy (which I agree has no real relevance to the UK). What it actually means is instead of channeling all money into an increasingly militarised US police, diverting some of that money to social workers, mental health workers and unarmed police.

 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> There are some awful examples in family court in the UK as well.

It's extremely difficult for most of us to have a clue what actually goes on in family court.  Proceedings are so secret, and it's so unrewarding (even risky, legally) for journalists to report on them even in the limited way they actually could.

Obviously there are good reasons to protect the anonymity of children especially, but maybe that is something that needs to change.  It's probably not healthy for the law, even family law, to be something that happens in complete secrecy behind closed doors.

> ..what do you do in a situation..

What indeed..  it's desperately grim.

 Tringa 02 Apr 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I await the formal apology from Priti Patal, and Sadique Khan, and everyone else who jumped on the band-wagon...

Don't hold your breath.

Remember what happen to the Cabinet Office inquiry into whether Priti Patel had breached the ministerial code. The inquiry found she had breached the code but this was rejected by Boris and friends.

It is creeping Trumpism - if you are found out to have behaved incorrectly you just reject any allegations.

Dave

1
 gazhbo 02 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> It's extremely difficult for most of us to have a clue what actually goes on in family court.  Proceedings are so secret, and it's so unrewarding (even risky, legally) for journalists to report on them even in the limited way they actually could.


I think the whole secrecy of the family court thing is a bit overstated.  Case reports are published all the time and while they don’t identify individuals (which is why they’re not in the mainstream media probably) they’re fairly detailed and transparent as to how the law is applied.   You could Google some up in a few seconds.

I’ve been a family lawyer for 8 years and the situation you describe above is vanishingly rare, certainly not a trend.  I have known cases where a report of domestic abuse has led to the involvement of other agencies which has led to the discovery of other  factors affecting somebody’s ability to parent (drug abuse etc).  In very few cases you may end up with care proceedings  where the only alternative to a placement permanently outside the family is placement with a parent against whom an allegation of violence has been made.  It’s certainly not a simple as saying that raising allegations of violence exposes people to losing their children to the perpetrator.

Far more often I’ve been involved in cases where allegations of violence which did not result in convictions or prosecutions have been found proven in family cases and have had outcomes which reflect those findings.  I’ve also known far more cases in which unproven allegations of violence result in parents being totally and permanently removed from their children’s lives.

Post edited at 20:27
 off-duty 02 Apr 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

It's a tricky area to practice in!!

Reason I mentioned it was the odd case (I appreciate FAR from typical!) like this....

https://www.5sah.co.uk/knowledge-hub/articles/2020-01-23/no-means-no-jh-v-mf-2020-ewhc-86-fam-an-appeal-from-the-central-family-court

Edit to add

"Far more often I’ve been involved in cases where allegations of violence which did not result in convictions or prosecutions have been found proven in family cases and have had outcomes which reflect those findings. I’ve also known far more cases in which unproven allegations of violence result in parents being totally and permanently removed from their children’s lives."

I'd be lying if I said we didn't see allegations ranging from rape, domestic abuse to child abuse within the context of an ongoing custody dispute. Make if that what you will...

Post edited at 20:33
 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

> I think the whole secrecy of the family court thing is a bit overstated.

Ok.  It's not something I have any direct experience of (well, not since one dimly remembered hearing when I was about 10 anyway) so thanks for your perspective.

> Case reports are published all the time and while they don’t identify individuals (which is why they’re not in the mainstream media probably) they’re fairly detailed and transparent as to how the law is applied.

I had just read the following (from Jess Hill's book):

"If it seems strange that such astonishing stories rarely appear in the media, there's a reason for that.  In both Australia and the UK, publishing anything about a family law case that might identify someone - from their ethnicity to what they do for work - is a crime.  Faces can't be seen, real voices can't be heard; barely a descriptive turn of phrase is permitted.  Privacy restrictions are heavy in Australia - journalists may be fined or even jailed for up to a year.  But as long as you anonymise cases and remove identifying details, you can actually tell a detailed story.  In the UK, however, the situation is entirely different.  'You can say virtually nothing about these cases,' says Louise Tickle, one of the few British journalists who tries to report on the family courts.  'You cannot give any detail about what went on during proceedings.  The best you can say is that you are allowed to describe the general gist of a case, but we are not allowed to report any detail about what goes on [unless we have] special permission from the judge, which is often really onerous to get.'  The only British stories journalists can tell in any detail are ones where a judge has published their own judgment.  'Practically speaking, it's completely unworkable,' says Tickle, 'in terms of holding the system to account.'

The 'trend' I was referring to was the increase in accusations of 'parental alienation' directed towards mothers, as identified by a study conducted by Brunel University and reported on here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/domestic-abuse-parental-alienation-family-courts-brunel-study-a9294726.html

> In very few cases you may end up with care proceedings  where the only alternative to a placement permanently outside the family is placement with a parent against whom an allegation of violence has been made.

The accounts I've been reading also referred to many cases where allegations of violence were not made by the mother, for fear of opening herself up to counter allegations of 'parental alienation'.

> Far more often I’ve been involved in cases where allegations of violence which did not result in convictions or prosecutions have been found proven in family cases and have had outcomes which reflect those findings.

Ok, that sounds quite positive.

One of the more harrowing case histories in Hill's book was the Australian one concerning 'Alex' described in here.  (I really feel for the police the kid ran to, in the longer account in the book it seems pretty clear that they believed him, wanted to help him and eventually were able to but for several days it seems all they could do each time he turned up to the station was bundle him into a car and take him back to his father.)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/15/children-and-family-law-how-can-you-share-parenting-with-an-abusive-parent

Oh, and when off-duty mentioned that some (very few) family court judges have bizarre attitudes to things I said unlike other judges there was no way for that to come to light.  Clearly I was wrong about that in this case:
(A Guardian opinion piece by the same Louise Tickle quoted above.  Though it's easy enough for anyone suspicious of excessive wokeness to find the salient facts reported in the Daily Mail too if they like.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/05/secret-family-courts-judges-rape-evidence-sexual-assault

Oh, and here she is again last summer referring to a report commissioned into the family justice system by the Ministry of Justice.  (Brunel University again I think - is that the same research as that reported in the Independent above?  Not sure.  My brain's a bit fried now, I'll just leave the link here.)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/28/twisted-priorities-mean-cafcass-has-failed-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents

 deepsoup 02 Apr 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Ah - the same case that Louise Tickle opinion piece I linked to just now was about.  Wow.

Whether the system is working or not I don't doubt the good intentions of (most) of the people working within it.  I don't envy any of you having to try to sort this stuff out from day to day.

> I'd be lying if I said we didn't see allegations ranging from rape, domestic abuse to child abuse within the context of an ongoing custody dispute. Make if that what you will...

 deepsoup 03 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Sorry to keep piling on these links, but this one just popped up this morning and seems very relevant.  Another Guardian column concerning the family courts, this time written by Dr Charlotte Proudman (family law barrister & research fellow at Queen's College, Cambridge).  It's not a cheerful read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/03/family-courts-domestic-abuse-judges-magistrates

 marsbar 03 Apr 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

The good news is that he has stepped down from the family court, and that the appeals are happening.  It's going in the right direction.  Slowly but it's a start. 

 Andy Johnson 03 Apr 2021

In reply to

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/03/womens-anger-at-abuse-of-power-during-bristol-police-raids

"The police have been accused of an abuse of power by using anti-terror style tactics against protesters after two young women claimed they endured terrifying ordeals at the hands of male officers pretending to be postal workers."

Avon and Somerset Police, not MPS.

3
 off-duty 03 Apr 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:.

If pretending to be a postman is "undercover anti-terror" tactics, then I guess I've used then when doing fairly bog standard plain clothes warrants.

The amount of hyperbole in those accounts is laughable. 

How about:

"Police executed warrants looking for people involved in violent disorder. Flatmates shocked."

Post edited at 23:16
3
In reply to r0b:

> "Defund the police" is a terrible, unhelpful, tagline for that policy 

'Defund the police' is a terrible tagline for a political movement but 'kill the bill' is on a whole different scale of stupidity.

1
In reply to off-duty:

After 50 years I can no longer cope with the Guardian, it has become a parody of itself and a mirror image of the Express - you can write the articles on any given subject yourself, there's no wit, nuance, originality or insight. 

3

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...