Forum menu
Oh I dunno - maybe we should have a chat with his colleagues (who were presumably also in the police) about why his nickname was “the rapist”?
Might not be important I don’t suppose
For the record, what I said was:
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
I have friends, feel sorry for the wife if she only has fiends.......
No problem in questionning the colleagues but asking the family...... why? think they were involved??
No problem in questionning the colleagues but asking the family…… why? think they were involved??
Are you so desperate for an argument?
Read what I said, it’s clear
no ta, just wondering what grounds you think this
"I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight"
have a nice day, off out for a pedal now 🙂
People hide things from their spouse. Simple. Not everyone knows everything about members of their family or social group. Of course family and friends will be questioned and will probably ask questions of themselves, why didn't they see this coming? But do you not think that his wife's world has been has been totally destroyed too?
Add to this, the blind eye turned to undercover sexual predators in the police spies scandal, which not only undermines trust in the police but also validates misogyny, as well as undermining Democracy itself. Massive win for all women, thanks to the tireless efforts of Kate Wilson.
The undercover police officers didn't rape anyone though. The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences...a bit like many relationships in other words.
On the face of it, it looks like the police did a piss poor job of investigating one of their own here. I prefer that explanation to some nebulous 'culture of misogyny' or 'toxic masculinity' which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
The undercover police officers didn’t rape anyone though
No one but you mentioned rape, they were sexual predators. They can be one without being the other.
The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences…a bit like many relationships in other words.
Really? You can write that, and the complain about labelling men with "nebulous" theories...have a word with yourself chap
I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
...and trivialises the horrific act of the monster.
I've read exactly what you said. Perhaps you think it says something different from what you wrote but several people have read what you wrote and all seem to conclude that you think its right that the police, her friends and her family all question what she knew (and presumably why she didn't tell anyone) and in particular "extremely uncomfortable questions"?
Probably the only question any of them should be asking is "Are you OK?" or "Can we do anything the support you?".
Any questions from the police relating to the murder will already have been asked, whereabouts, behaviour etc, where she will likely have been questioned as a witness. Given its post conviction there's absolutely no reason for the police to be asking her questions.
No, not blaming his wife at all – calm your farm.
In the context of my post: that this bloke didn’t just suddenly turn into a psychopath overnight. I think anyone that new him – but in particular those people that knew him the best/longest (and even lived with him) would be being asked some difficult questions – particularly if a longer period of offending is uncovered.
What are these questions?
The only people who have those sort of questions to answer are his police colleagues (a number of whom are now under investigation for misconduct and/or communication act offences) and the entire chain of command that seemed to employ someone that those in the service recognised was a bit dodgy. Now rather than emphasising how they will improve vetting or what they will do to make sure that officers with dodgy associations are thoroughly investigated, supervised and if necessary removed from the service* and that its easy for any other officer to highlight concerns about colleagues without being perceived as a grass or a troublemaker they are telling women to check the ID of people who stop them (despite the fact that all officers including this one would have valid id), nor are they talking about how they remove a toxic masculinity from the Met (and likely other police services), despite the fact its headed by a woman.
Could she have known he was likely to attack people? Possibly. But many a psychopath has duped or manipulated people close to them into believing they would never do anything like that, many insist they are innocent even after hearing the evidence and many a victim has been convinced by their partner that anything they think is odd is them making it up or overreacting, or done out of love, or their fault. I'm sure that women has been through hell and back - lets not suggest that she should have to go through more.
*whilst I'm generally a big advocate for innocent until proven guilty and employment rights I think if you are part of the judicial process (from police to prosecutors and judges) if there's enough murmuring about something that it creates an impression of a problem it would be prudent to remove those people to safeguard the reputation and perception of the rest.
On the face of it, it looks like the police did a piss poor job of investigating one of their own here. I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
But is that not exactly why they did a piss poor job? Because "it ok, its just banter, its what men do" or "he's one of us, best not look too hard or we'll find loads like him".
No one but you mentioned rape, they were sexual predators. They can be one without being the other.
In what way were they predators?
But is that not exactly why they did a piss poor job? Because “it ok, its just banter, its what men do” or “he’s one of us, best not look too hard or we’ll find loads like him”.
Same reason officers may be reluctant to report or investigate one of their own for corruption or assault or whatever. It's doesn't all have to flow from some alleged 'culture' orientated around an ism.
Anyone put the title in to what three words?
Really? You can write that, and the complain about labelling men with “nebulous” theories…have a word with yourself chap
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
The undercover police officers didn’t rape anyone though. The women willingly slept with them albeit under false pretences…a bit like many relationships in other words.
Interestingly in some other jurisdictions that would be rape. I'm not actually convinced it's not here either - I don't think there's any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent. The point is that the independent tribunal concluded that although it was policy not to do it, the behaviour was so widespread that the management chain must have been aware or were intentionally trying not to be aware. Yet no senior heads have rolled and no announcement of root and branch change to ensure it never happens again.
@i_scott_cake
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
How many women have you tricked into sleeping with you by saying you were someone completely different? Were you being paid by the state to investigate any of those women or their associates at the time?
I prefer that explanation to some nebulous ‘culture of misogyny’ or ‘toxic masculinity’ which somehow turns normal men into monsters.
I may be misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that toxic masculinity is a nebulous concept rather than a brutal reality?
Could she have known he was likely to attack people? Possibly.
**** right off.
There is no way she knew. There's no suggestion whatsoever she assisted him so to suggest she may have known is basically saying although she isn't a monster she was happy to stay with him while he did it.
If she knew what he was like she'd have been out of there like a shot, for self preservation as much as anything else. (Hindley and Brady's Cousin for instance, as soon as he found out he went straight to the police.)
There is zero possibility she knew.
I may be misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that toxic masculinity is a nebulous concept rather than a brutal reality?
Absolutely. It doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition. But this is going off on a tangent now, however, I would add that like many concepts originating from the humanities, it's hopelessly underdefined at the same time as being granted almost infinite powers of causation.
Interestingly in some other jurisdictions that would be rape. I’m not actually convinced it’s not here either – I don’t think there’s any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent.
In certain circumstances, I believe so. Bigamy possibly and pretending to be someone of a different gender.
A general deception about one's biography? Definitely not. We'd be criminalising most adulterers.
I think you may be part of the problem buddy...
Most of the country would be in jail if lying in a relationship became a crime.
most "relationships" aren't undercover cops acting illegally either with the tacit agreement by or by the negligence/ incompetence of their senior controlling officers. Those officers entered into these "relationships" knowing full well what they were doing was illegal and yet went ahead anyway, either knowing or at least on the understanding that they would get away with it, or be actively encouraged in their behavior by their superiors That can fairly be described as a toxic environment. there is nothing nebulous about it.
There was no clear leadership, no boundaries, no investigations, no disciplinary outcomes for offending.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in male attitude to females then this will not change. Check out social media, women are still being held responsible.
This ^. It's literally close to home for me - Sarah Everard's remains were found less than five miles from my home and very close to my workplace.
I am absolutely staggered that a serving police officer who had no less than three complaints made about sexual misconduct and an addiction to violent pornography wasn't flagged as a risk.
I am also troubled as to why a forumite might suggest that Couzens' wife "is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions" - that's a really shitty thing to say.
Same reason officers may be reluctant to report or investigate one of their own for corruption or assault or whatever. It’s doesn’t all have to flow from some alleged ‘culture’ orientated around an ism.
And what reason is that? You may object to labelling something as culture or putting an ism on it - but that's just nonsense semantics by people who are ignoring the ****ing problem - there's an attitude within the organisation that either says its OK or says its not OK to challenge it. When that attitude/behaviour becomes normality - people will start to refer to it as "a culture". When that culture treats one group less favourably than an other it will get badged with an "ism". Get over the labels and look at the problems - otherwise you are part of the culture that's focussing on not being too PC rather than focussing on rotten PC's!
Re this:
If you don’t trust the small boy on the tricycle, wave down an MP and demand Cressida Dick is sacked and call for a complete overhaul of police vetting procedures.
About 15 years ago, my wife (and toddler daughter) was pulled over by an unmarked police car. The policeman checked all around the car before warning her about the state of one of the tyres and letting her go. She asked to see ID, and came out of the situation very shaken up. I was pretty angry about it, but ultimately no harm came out of it, and there didn't seem enough substance to complain, but to this day I don't understand why she would have been pulled over for any genuine reason.
I am absolutely staggered that a serving police officer who had no less than three complaints made about sexual misconduct and an addiction to violent pornography wasn’t flagged as a risk.
I am also troubled as to why a forumite might suggest that Couzens’ wife “is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions” – that’s a really shitty thing to say.
I'm guessing that people might think that if you're a sexual predator in your spare time and to be known as a sexual predator in your work place, you may not be a saint at home. Maybe he was - we'll probably never know.
I’m guessing that people might think that if you’re a sexual predator in your spare time and to be known as a sexual predator in your work place, you may not be a saint at home.
Couzens' wife is a victim too. Either she was unaware of the depths of his depravity or she was cowed into silence. Either way, it's the responsibility of the Met Police to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are kept out of their ranks.
Of course family and friends will be questioned and will probably ask questions of themselves, why didn’t they see this coming? But do you not think that his wife’s world has been has been totally destroyed too?
The two are not mutually exclusive, sadly for the family. I don't think batfinks post was intended to read the way some of you have taken it.
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
This reads 100% as you're blaming his wife...
I don’t think batfinks post was intended to read the way some of you have taken it.
Very hard not to read it the way it was written...
I think his wife is going to face some extremely uncomfortable questions, both from the police and from her fiends, family and general public. This guy didn’t just turn into a psychopath overnight.
This reads 100% as you’re blaming his wife…
That's not how I read it. More that his wife is just going to get a load of shit from all and sundry.
And what reason is that? You may object to labelling something as culture or putting an ism on it – but that’s just nonsense semantics by people who are ignoring the **** problem – there’s an attitude within the organisation that either says its OK or says its not OK to challenge it. When that attitude/behaviour becomes normality – people will start to refer to it as “a culture”. When that culture treats one group less favourably than an other it will get badged with an “ism”. Get over the labels and look at the problems – otherwise you are part of the culture that’s focussing on not being too PC rather than focussing on rotten PC’s!
Firstly, a reluctance to investigate or report this officer doesn't have to flow from some kind of culture of misogyny (in this instance), it can simply flow from a general culture of not breaking rank etc. It can be the same reason that corruption isn't properly reported or investigated. This is fairly common in most organisations when it comes to whistleblowers.
Secondly, is rain culturally misogynistic if it tends to fall more on one gender than the other? A disparate outcome proves nothing whatsoever in itself.
My view is, and has been for some time, that the Police are there solely to protect the state.
Any “protection” it gives to the state’s citizens is incidental, and provided to stop society descending into anarchy, which would threaten the state.
This needs to be more widely-understood IMO.
Through this lens, it makes complete sense that the police will try and stop organised crime, immigration and protests and yet are completely useless at protecting individuals from violence or investigating thefts against people. It's all about maintaining a status quo so the interests of the ruling classes can be furthered. They don't work for you, or me, or any of us. It was ever thus since the watchmen of the Middle Ages.
So when people talk about 'defunding the police' (an unhelpful and partly misleading name IMHO), THIS is what they mean. Dismantle our society's ingrained structures that exist only to allow the ruling class to maintain their wealth.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Dismantle our society’s ingrained structures that exist only to allow the ruling class to maintain their wealth.
All has been tried before and has led to disaster each time.
Communism doesn't work.
Read what I said, it’s clear
It really isn't.
You seem to think (or expect that others may think) that he popped out for a spot of rape and murder then came home going "hey love, you'll never guess what I did today!"
It's entirely possible that some amoral shitbags might give her a hard time, yes. But she's a victim, she's not Rose West. She was either oblivious, in which case she's just seen the man she loved and (presumably) father of her children convicted out of the blue of such a heinous crime which she'll have to live with for the rest of her life, or she knew and therefore can only be a domestic abuse survivor.
Uncomfortable questions, good god, I'm surprised she's not on suicide watch.
Either way, it’s the responsibility of the Met Police to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are kept out of their ranks.
I'd expand that and say that it's society's responsibility to ensure that sadistic and violent misogynists are called out for what they are.
Secondly, is rain culturally misogynistic if it tends to fall more on one gender than the other?
I think a long hard look in the mirror is long overdue. What are your thoughts on the Incel movement? Are you going to deny that the Incel movement is a real thing or just a nebulous concept. I stand by my earlier assertion that you are part of the problem.
Uncomfortable questions, good god, I’m surprised she’s not on suicide watch.
What Cougar said.
That’s not how I read it. More that his wife is just going to get a load of shit from all and sundry.
That was my reading. And pretty much the first thing my wife said when all this broke.
I'm not sure the 'shite', will be intended badly, they'll just be curious. It will still be a nightmare.
The fact she's done an interview and stated clearly that there were no signs whatsoever was probably an effort to stop people asking all the time.
Apparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58762029
Firstly, a reluctance to investigate or report this officer doesn’t have to flow from some kind of culture of misogyny (in this instance), it can simply flow from a general culture of not breaking rank etc.
A culture of not "breaking rank" to report, investigate and act to stop misogny is institutional misogny.
Sorry if I'm pointing out the absolute basics here, it looks like it might be needed.
I mmay be wrong, but I thought the people who nicknamed him 'the Rapist' were his female colleagues.
...and ?
A culture of not “breaking rank” to report, investigate and act to stop misogny is institutional misogny.
Yes, using the most narrow legal definition.
...and it means absolutely nothing more in that legal sense.