Forum menu
I don’t think there’s any case law on whether consent with someone who pretends to be another is still consent
I think the Court of appeal have judged on a decision not to prosecute such a case Madeline and Jim Boyling which is the closest I’ve read to it(Ianal!)
With regard to sexual predators.
The undercover officers could be considered sexual predators as it is alleged they / some of them picked vulnerable women to “groom” and that they also used information from reporting by other undercover officers on women’s likes, dislikes emotions etc to weedle their way into women’s affection
…and it means absolutely nothing more in that legal sense.
What has the "legal sense" got anything to do with anything? No one has said laws have been broken, they are pointing out that there looks to be a problem that needs addressing. It needs addressing because otherwise it erodes trust in the police.
I'm not sure what your problem is, to be honest. I think you are perhaps just one of the "look away, obviously nothing to see here" types who are part of the bigger problem.
The undercover officers could be considered sexual predators as it is alleged they / some of them picked vulnerable women to “groom” and that they also used information from reporting by other undercover officers on women’s likes, dislikes emotions etc to weedle their way into women’s affection
We can argue about words all day but once these kinds of men were known as womanisers, bounders or shits, etc.
As things are today we seem determined to inflate away the value of certain categories.
We can argue about words all day but once these kinds of men were known as womanisers, bounders or shits, etc.
Come into this century and have a look around.
i_scoff_cake
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.
where women end up suffering you get the same effect whatever the perceived cultural basis is - its unhealthy, unhelpful and damaging to the organisation. you don't need to set out to be a misogynist to result in misogyny.
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.
Quite impressively the stupidest analogy I've seen on STW for years.
I’m not sure what your problem is, to be honest. I think you are perhaps just one of the “look away, obviously nothing to see here” types who are part of the bigger problem.
I have a horrible feeling that i_scoff_cake may actually be a cop. With a bit more denial of there being a problem, they have the potential to make it to chief constable.
Apparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
Some of the responses have been astonishing. I mean, astonishingly bad. What next, she was probably asking for it?
I do wonder / hope that, when the dust settles, some good might come out of this. A proper ground-up reform of the Met. Something like the Sophie Lancaster Foundation to raise awareness that victim-blaming is the action of a douche-canoe.
From the BBC link:
The comments provoked an angry reaction on social media prompting Mr Allott to reconsider.
He tweeted an apology, withdrawing his remarks.
"I would like to wholeheartedly apologise for my comments on BBC Radio York earlier today, which I realise have been insensitive and wish to retract them in full," he said.
He realised they were insensitive, he doesn't admit they were wrong, and now he wants the attention to go away.
I'm seeing a lot of late contenders for Shitbag of the Day today. I thought Kirstie Allsopp had it in the bag.
where women end up suffering you get the same effect whatever the perceived cultural basis is – its unhealthy, unhelpful and damaging to the organisation. you don’t need to set out to be a misogynist to result in misogyny.
Which was my point. In the same way, the fire service isn't sexist or misogynist (in the common-sense understanding) because its fitness test disfavored women.
I'm basically resistant to these explanations which seek to taint institutions in a total sense with nebulous cultural failings. As I said before, the tendency for an organisation to protect its own is quite adequate to explain why Wayne Couzens wasn't properly investigated, although there could be more particular failings in terms of the reported indecent exposures. As for some broader assertion that Wayne Couzens was 'created' by 'misogyny' or 'toxic masculanity', this is nonsense.
As I said before, the tendency for an organisation to protect its own is quite adequate to explain why Wayne Couzens wasn’t properly investigated
Protect him in what way? That is the point. If there is a culture of accepting or excusing misogyny, then that is institutionalised misogyny. In that environment people can be kept in a post when they should not be, including people who are dangerous to the public because of the power their place in the organisation gives them. If that is the situation here with the police, then it needs addressing to rebuild trust in the police. Do you agree?
That is the point. If there is a culture of accepting or excusing misogyny, then that is institutionalised misogyny.
As I said, misogyny defined as a set of beliefs need have nothing to do with it. We are at risk of conflating the reluctance to either report or investigate a serving officer (if that was the case) with a conscious approval of whatever it was they may have done.
Stating that that nature of the problematic behaviour is irrelevant is the dumbest thing you could possibly say at this point.
The problem here is toxic masculinity, end of. No ifs, no buts. Until there is a profound shift in some males attitudes to females then this will not change.
That needed adding. What happened here is ****ing horrendous but blaming all men is ridiculous and entirely unhelpful in the wider debate.
I feel so sorry for Sarah’s family and for the offenders wife and kids. Can’t even imagine what they are all going through.
There are some clear failures on behalf of the Met and hopefully some wide reaching reforms will be made as a result of this. The problem here is a sick psychopath who managed to gain a position of power and then thoroughly abuse it. Did the ineptitude or misogynist attitudes of some fellow officers help enable him to commit the crime? Possibly, even highly likely from reading some news articles. Let’s wait and see what happens. Anybody that did ignore signs or overlook his behaviour should have the book thrown at them.
“Not all men”, doesn’t need saying, and can also come across as “not my problem”. We can all do more. We all know a lot of other men, and make decisions all the time about how to respond to the attitude of friends, contacts, coworkers and strangers towards women.
Was expecting that answer and it makes a lot of assumptions and is quite frankly patronising. On a par with that ridiculous Gillette advert from a couple of years back. That’s for a different thread though. It’s not just a problem for men, it’s everyone’s problem, societies problem. Like I said, different thread though. This isn’t the place for it.
I was probably wrong to post it on this thread but too late to edit now.
Your edit added a lot. My reply was made when all you had said was basically “not all men”. All your added comments I agree with.
Edit: but not your new comment about that totally harmless, but obviously cringy, advert. If that bothered you enough at the time that you still reference it now, in this thread, I do find that a bit odd.
We can all do more.
You're free to do what you want but don't make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
We can all do more.
You’re free to do what you want but don’t make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
Non-sequitur.
Fair enough - I just found it utterly patronising. Not really surprising considering toxic masculinity is being discussed and some media basically worshipped an advert. You know, something explicitly designed to sell a product. Find it as odd as you wish. Just like I find the post I commented on rather odd too.
Non-sequitur.
Not at all, unless you're talking about a narrow criminal responsibility.
The suggestion is that I'm responsible - in some way - for some nebulous culture of or 'structural' misogyny, or even worse, for some Gramscian meets Critical Theory notion of misogenistic hegemony.
Who said your were responsible? If you can find ways to help change things, do so. If you really think there’s nothing you can do, carry on. Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways and times I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “out with the lads”. Actively trying to do better, but I am a bit of a coward, and a lover of the easy life and the path of least resistance, so often fail still.
Not at all, unless you’re talking about a narrow criminal responsibility.
It really is, unless you there's nothing you want do to reduce the problem, and you'll reach for some Big Words to justify inaction to yourself.
The suggestion is that I’m responsible – in some way – for some nebulous culture of or ‘structural’ misogyny, or even worse, for some Gramscian meets Critical Theory notion of misogenistic hegemony.
Oh.
Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “our with the lads”. Actively trying to do better, but I am a bit of a coward and lover of the easy life and path of lease resistance, so often fail.
This, mostly. I can certainly think of times I've let stuff slide in the past.
You’re free to do what you want but don’t make me responsible for rapists and murderers just because I have a penis.
The point you're missing quite spectacularly here is,
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. It's not good enough to sit back and go "well, I didn't rape her." It's that sort of bullshit attitude which allows and empowers people with nicknames like The Rapist to act in the way they do. It legitimises it.
I used to think #notallmen too. Then I spoke with people - mostly women - and I learned some things. I'd recommend it.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.
Would you have said that to Irish people during the IRA's mainland bombing campaign?
Personally, I’ve lost count of the ways I’ve turned a blind eye to behaviour and language in past jobs (not in my current role at all) and when “our with the lads”.
Glad you don’t in the current role and more power to you. I’ve pulled up folk for shitty behaviour before and once lost a job for slapping a coworker with a frozen chicken for being racist and sexist to another coworker.
Never had it when out with friends though. Wouldn’t be friends with people that act like that in the first place. I have the opposite problem to what you describe. Can’t help speaking up or intervening in bad situations. Actually have scars from doing it too!
Would you have said that to Irish people during the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign?
SQUIRREL!!
I know Irish people that actively worked to build bonds of trust between communities. I’d like to think I’d have done the same if I’d lived there.
If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. It’s not good enough to sit back and go “well, I didn’t rape her.” It’s that sort of bullshit attitude which allows and empowers people with nicknames like The Rapist to act in the way they do. It legitimises it.
The perpetrator of this crime was a psychopath. He didn’t need anything legitimising by anyone. His ideas of social norms and acceptable behaviours will be nothing like those of a normal, functional person.
The ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’ argument is trotted out all the time. There are a metric shit tonne of issues out there. One simply can’t be part of the solution to all of them. Not being doesn’t make you part of the issue.
The issue here is a violent, psychopathic, sexual predator. As per my previous post, was he enabled by coworkers turning a blind eye to, not reporting or being somehow complicit in his behaviour? Possibly, but an investigation will hopefully find that out. Anyone found to be an enabler will be punished in line with the law, lessons will hopefully be learned and adjustments made.
Possibly, but an investigation will hopefully find that out. Anyone found to be an enabler will be punished in line with the law, lessons will hopefully be learned and adjustments made.
I salute your optimism. I might have missed Cressida Dick’s speech on how there would be a wide ranging review with everyone encouraged to speak openly without fear of recrimination or reprisal and that the recommendations would be enacted as quickly as possible.
I only saw the statement telling women to check for ID cards and verify them as though he wasn’t actually a copper
Hence the hopefully 😕 I’m also hopeful that she’ll be forced to resign and publicy apologise for her idiotic comments.
As ever lots of comments about bad apples. As if the saying is "we just found a bad apple but everything's fine, no need to ask if there's any more" . You'd almost think people do this on purpose.
AD
Full MemberApparently women need to be more streetwise. FFS.
More of the same, former Met Chief Superintendent Dal Baba says "Women will be asking the question should I get into a car if I'm approached by a police officer who shows their warrant card? My advice would be no.". Who watches the watchmen? Their victims apparently.
Maybe we should extend that logic to the entire criminal justice system, no need for police at all when we can just address any problems with "If someone tries to mug you, my advice would be to not get mugged"
Jesus Christ! That looks like something from Brass Eye. The fact that is genuine advice is pathetic.
Feel in danger? Worried for your life? Defend yourself with these three simple questions!
I mean, do they think a police officer with an abduction planned would be unable to supply plausible answers to those questions?
I am absolutely perplexed that the advice from the Met and multiple other sources is "resist arrest." I had some sympathy for them prior, that's just ****ed up.
The perpetrator of this crime was a psychopath. He didn’t need anything legitimising by anyone.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What's that if not legitimising it?
The ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’ argument is trotted out all the time. There are a metric shit tonne of issues out there. One simply can’t be part of the solution to all of them. Not being doesn’t make you part of the issue.
Sure, it's an oversimplification. I've had to bite my tongue many times over the years, and I've often regretted it afterwards.
But not wanting to does, and rushing to shout down anyone who dares to challenge the problem absolutely does.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
I get where you’re coming from but think he’d have still done what he did either way. His prior behaviour seems to point to it. A lot of people just go with the flow to be accepted. It’s sad and kind of pathetic. I’ve been the one to speak out, a lot. Lost jobs and got in to a few crazy situations as a result. Always happy about the outcome though.
But not wanting to does, and rushing to shout down anyone who dares to challenge the problem absolutely does.
I wholeheartedly agree but think being patronising as a way of trying to get others to see your point isn’t going to help in the slightest. The ‘If you’re not part of the problem’ always comes across as an utter ****ish argument. At least to me. It just shuts down any discussion and is akin to slamming a door on any conversation. A bit like shouting people down only in a passive aggressive way. Others will be okay with it and that’s fine too.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
Those on the group who are not in MPS have been suspended, one is no longer serving. The two from MPS? Carry on lads, we'll restrict your duties but no worries. Lessons have not been learned from Tomlinson. They are a failing, corrupt organisation starting from the top and throughout all levels. It's not a bad apple its sewage mixing with freshwater and producing sewage.
Didn't intend to be patronising, sorry if that's how it came across. Point was, it's not enough to go "not me, guv" however you slice it.
Would he have done it without his rapey mates anyway? Hard to say. Might've taken longer, might've been someone else.
I rather suspect though that is all going to go a bit Savile. You don't earn a nickname of "the rapist" unless you're hanging out with a bunch of sociopaths, or people actually think you're likely to be a rapist. That's not 'banter,' it's f- messed up.
ok then. What I wrote was:
From what I’ve read about this (and that isn’t much – I’ve tried to avoid it) I would be absolutely amazed if this was the first time he’d done anything like this. I would think that discovering previously unknown victims is itself an excellent reason to try to protect him in Prison for as long as possible – from either himself or others. I’m not one of those people specifically wishing him harm in prison – but one has to be pragmatic.
His children are additional innocent victims here – and my mind just boggles when I think about what the future is going to look like for them. As well as the practical issues – how do they reconcile the fact that their dad is an absolute monster? 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.
Pffff, the whole thing is completely depressing
It seems that some of you think I am somehow blaming the wife for what he did, or claiming she was complicit. I'm not. I'd say "of course I'm not" - but apparently it's not obvious.
Mostly I was saying that people are going to be asking her questions about unknowingly living with a psychopath. I'm not saying that she "should" be questioned by police - although obviously she has been (and probably will continue to be if further crimes come to light). I'm not saying that she should be asked uncomfortable questions - just that she probably is going to continue to be.
Perhaps worth saying again that I don't think she was complicit, and my post above was written in the context of her (and the kids) being victims - and their life disintegrating. Particularly if further crimes are discovered.
I rather suspect though that is all going to go a bit Savile. You don’t earn a nickname of “the rapist” unless you’re hanging out with a bunch of sociopaths, or people actually think you’re likely to be a rapist. That’s not ‘banter,’ it’s f- messed up.
No need to apologise. It’s a very emotional subject we’re discussing.
Definitely agree with what you’ve said. The only halfway decent thing that could come out of this whole sorry situation is wide sweeping reforms of the police force and how it’s staff are managed. I really hope that happens.
I get where you’re coming from but think he’d have still done what he did either way.
Except if they had spoken up, and the matters (which apparently justify criminal investigation of his colleagues) had been taken seriously he would/should have been booted out the police so would not have had the warrant card, handcuffs etc at his disposal.
Would he still have committed this or a similar crime? Possibly (although it may have been the kick in the baws he needed to make him moderate his behaviour and realise he can’t get away with anything he chooses) - would we be being outraged that a serving police officer had used his position to kidnap the woman in the first place? No. Would women the length of the country be questioning the legitimacy of any officer who approaches them alone in the future (whether in plain clothes or not - they take their uniforms home you know)? Probably not.
Mostly I was saying that people are going to be asking her questions about unknowingly living with a psychopath.
I understand -now- what you're saying I think. A better phrasing might've been "she's going to be hounded."
But you said yourself, "unknowingly."
Hey, what was it like?
I didn't know.
Er... nice weather for the time of year?
I really hope it doesn't come to this. I really hope that whatever our equivalent of the National Enquirer is doesn't come a-knocking wanting to run a "My Life With A Serial Killer" headline. I really hope that the poor cow will be left alone with her kids after what she's survived through.
Sadly, nothing would surprise me any more.
Yet, he was active on an internal WhatsApp group, sharing unpleasantness. No-one called him out. What’s that if not legitimising it?
Being a police officer is a fairly stressful profession. What to some is unpleasantness, to others is dark humour. I can't believe that if any of them had actual genuine concerns about him they wouldn't have done something, rather than just thinking he was odd and potentially keeping an eye on him. I personally find the investigation of the other officers private whats app conversations worrying as there should be some expectation of privacy, and it'll potentially isolate those with problems even more. It won't do anything to help change the attitudes of those who are misogynistic, they'll just be more careful to do it where they're not recorded.
I would like to know why he was still a policeman considering the issues of flashing and apparently his nickname was rapist really a police officer.
Quite. Some severe failings led to Couzens not being correctly investigated and thus still a police officer, which enabled him to commit this horrific act.
This needs to be be investigated, and the people / systems responsible for the failings bought to account.
It begs the question...what else is hiding in plain sight?
Now then, now then. Can you tell what it is yet?