Sexual abuse and exploitation by Police officers of vulnerable people

[Hastings gull]

hat on earth are you talking about. If i worked with someone, friend or not and I witnessed or knew for a fact they had harrassed or abused a vulnerable person or a woman at work there is no way I would stick up fr them. End of. You may have wavering morals, mine stand firm my man.[/QUOTE]

What pompous rubbish. You must know that there are various levels of alleged harassment, and what is seen by one person as "harassment" is seen by another as banter. I was quoting a specific example of where a "vulnerable" person had spat at, sworn at, and abused a police Officer, who had then retaliated in the heat of the moment by saying they were a xxxx, and you would be there, with your phone, to capture the moment of "harassment" to put it on Youtube and feel so good in yourself, because you had reported a Police Officer doing wrong. And your morals would have stood firm, of course.

 

[The Clamp]

hat on earth are you talking about. If i worked with someone, friend or not and I witnessed or knew for a fact they had harrassed or abused a vulnerable person or a woman at work there is no way I would stick up fr them. End of. You may have wavering morals, mine stand firm my man.[/QUOTE]

What pompous rubbish. You must know that there are various levels of alleged harassment, and what is seen by one person as "harassment" is seen by another as banter. I was quoting a specific example of where a "vulnerable" person had spat at, sworn at, and abused a police Officer, who had then retaliated in the heat of the moment by saying they were a xxxx, and you would be there, with your phone, to capture the moment of "harassment" to put it on Youtube and feel so good in yourself, because you had reported a Police Officer doing wrong. And your morals would have stood firm, of course.

Gibberish.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Gibberish

Can someone call the men in white coats please? The Clamp, by his own admission, has lost it.

 

[The Clamp]

Can someone call the men in white coats please? The Clamp, by his own admission, has lost it.

Not really I just think you were expecting a bit more support for your views but they got called as as being a bit out of touch. Rightly so.

 

[marlowe]

........but how many of us could really say, albeit on a much lower scale of seriousness, that they would not "bend the truth" to protect their mates, with whom they have to work and possibly socialise?....

I would hope I would have the strength of character and moral awareness to refuse to be complicit and supportive of such behaviour. There have been situations I have found myself in where it would have been easier for me to condone and support the unacceptable behavior of certain individuals against others but I chose to act according to my own values and not be dictated by the questionable values and behaviour of others. As soon as you do that you are on a long slippery slope. It's basically moral cowardice. It's also a very distorted way of looking at things. Surely the individual who is behaving in an unacceptable manner should be the one who feels under pressure to not upset or alienate his work colleagues rather than the individual who would prefer to not condone such behaviour. Unfortunately that is often not the case. Surely one of the prerequisites of being a police officer is having a certain strength of character. Isn't it about time some of them started showing it?

 

[grummitts gloves]

The total number of allegations equates to 0.2% of the Police service for the whole of England & Wales and they are just that, allegations. No figures appear to be available to confirm how many of those allegations have been proved or are malicious. These officers have the same rights as everyone else. They are innocent until proven guilty.

I agree that even if one allegation is proved, then that is one too many, but Police Officers are human and have the same character flaws as everyone else. You can have all the vetting and testing you want, but it's not full proof.

As for 'cover ups' I can assure you the Department of Professional standards or whatever they are called in various forces, are a lot more on the ball than in days gone by i.e. 70's 80's 90's. I've known officers be sacked and put before the courts and quite rightly so, for sexual assaults, domestic violence, drink drive, theft and drugs abuse.

Because of the problems of days gone by, no force wants the whiff of a scandal or coverup. Even some officers who have been cleared by the criminal courts have still been sacked by internal discipline without any pay offs or pensions. Officers lives both in and out of the workplace are scrutinised heavily for anything that can lead to corruption or gross misconduct, but as I said, no system is full proof.

Sadly, the way this matter has been reported has the usual bias and media slant to make those who can't be bothered to check the facts, get all heated about how bad the Police are. If all 300 are found guilty in a court of law, then I have no sympathy and neither will their colleagues.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

This concept of a vulnerable person concerns me. It's a phrases that is batted about with increasing regularity. Obviously they exist but it seems the phrase is being used to make a perceived victim even more of a victim.

On this thread alone people have referred to a victim of burglary being visited, perhaps more often than necessary. Someone in a wheelchair has also been mentioned. Is a victim of crime automatically vulnerable? Is someone in a wheelchair vulnerable across the board or just to specific things? I imagine a male or female in a wheelchair is more than capable of rejecting unwanted advances from somebody if they are verbal. Obviously if there is an element of force, that may be more difficult.

As soon as the word "vulnerable" is used, there is an automatic assumption that they are incapable. I recently saw an article about a missing person. The family stated said person was "clearly vulnerable" despite them being over 18, having no health issues and no history of disappearing. Why is that person clearly vulnerable?

Just for clarity, I'm not suggesting this doesn't happen or that its defensible if it does.

 

[Murray 17]

I would hope I would have the strength of character and moral awareness to refuse to be complicit and supportive of such behaviour. There have been situations I have found myself in where it would have been easier for me to condone and support the unacceptable behavior of certain individuals against others but I chose to act according to my own values and not be dictated by the questionable values and behaviour of others. As soon as you do that you are on a long slippery slope. It's basically moral cowardice. It's also a very distorted way of looking at things. Surely the individual who is behaving in an unacceptable manner should be the one who feels under pressure to not upset or alienate his work colleagues rather than the individual who would prefer to not condone such behaviour. Unfortunately that is often not the case. Surely one of the prerequisites of being a police officer is having a certain strength of character. Isn't it about time some of them started showing it?

I think what Hastings gull is saying is that sometimes the police may tell a 'white lie' in some situations.

For example, if someone has been spitting, kicking and swearing at another officer, who then may use excessive force to arrest that person, the witnessing officer may say the arresting officer used necessary force. The person being arrested has committed a serious offence, and whilst excessive force may have been used, the accused cannot suddenly complain about how he was arrested considering his behaviour.

Covering up serious misconduct, is of course, indefensible.

 

[Hastings gull]

I would hope I would have the strength of character and moral awareness to refuse to be complicit and supportive of such behaviour. There have been situations I have found myself in where it would have been easier for me to condone and support the unacceptable behavior of certain individuals against others but I chose to act according to my own values and not be dictated by the questionable values and behaviour of others. As soon as you do that you are on a long slippery slope. It's basically moral cowardice. It's also a very distorted way of looking at things. Surely the individual who is behaving in an unacceptable manner should be the one who feels under pressure to not upset or alienate his work colleagues rather than the individual who would prefer to not condone such behaviour. Unfortunately that is often not the case. Surely one of the prerequisites of being a police officer is having a certain strength of character. Isn't it about time some of them started showing it?

Yes, you are right, totally. But of course life is not always like this, as the many cases that have come to light in the Police, NHS and Church, to say nothing of football clubs, have demonstrated. It may well be moral cowardice, as you say.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think what Hastings gull is saying is that sometimes the police may tell a 'white lie' in some situations.

For example, if someone has been spitting, kicking and swearing at another officer, who then may use excessive force to arrest that person, the witnessing officer may say the arresting officer used necessary force. The person being arrested has committed a serious offence, and whilst excessive force may have been used, the accused cannot suddenly complain about how he was arrested considering his behaviour.

Yes, whilst we are all safely tucked up at night, the Police are out there dealing with the utter dregs of society, who have no respect for them or indeed much else. Considering that they are often drunk and/or drugged up, capable of extreme violence in some cases, these people are liable to cause injury. In these highly charged situations, you cannot reasonably expect police officers to behave with total professionalism at all times, and go through the rule book, when they are understandably concerned for their and their colleague's safety. As you say, serious misconduct is entirely different.

 

[Hastings gull]

The total number of allegations equates to 0.2% of the Police service for the whole of England & Wales and they are just that, allegations. No figures appear to be available to confirm how many of those allegations have been proved or are malicious. These officers have the same rights as everyone else. They are innocent until proven guilty.

I agree that even if one allegation is proved, then that is one too many, but Police Officers are human and have the same character flaws as everyone else. You can have all the vetting and testing you want, but it's not full proof.

As for 'cover ups' I can assure you the Department of Professional standards or whatever they are called in various forces, are a lot more on the ball than in days gone by i.e. 70's 80's 90's. I've known officers be sacked and put before the courts and quite rightly so, for sexual assaults, domestic violence, drink drive, theft and drugs abuse.

Because of the problems of days gone by, no force wants the whiff of a scandal or coverup. Even some officers who have been cleared by the criminal courts have still been sacked by internal discipline without any pay offs or pensions. Officers lives both in and out of the workplace are scrutinised heavily for anything that can lead to corruption or gross misconduct, but as I said, no system is full proof.

Sadly, the way this matter has been reported has the usual bias and media slant to make those who can't be bothered to check the facts, get all heated about how bad the Police are. If all 300 are found guilty in a court of law, then I have no sympathy and neither will their colleagues.

Absolutely. Every phone call alleging something must have come from a "victim", which starts the slippery slope of bias. Wasn't it a "Nick" who made allegations against Cliff Richard -doubtless he was a victim! If a Police officer is guilty of a serious breach of trust, than they deserve all they get, but let's at least avoid reporting it as if they are all corrupt, and indeed guilty.

 

[portlock seagull]

How many times do people need to be told Police come from our society and so are reflective of. Bound to be a percentage just as in schools, church, government, IT, marketing, sales...black, white, working class, middle, upper, men, woman...This reports states the bleedin obvious and anyone expressing surprise is, well. Anyway as in common in today's outrage society, let's interpret this report as ALL police are disgusting prediators. ALL should be condemned until one does a particular brace thing we're all proud of and then ALL are heroes! Remember, it's 2016 and you can only be ALL or NOTHING. No other points of view will be considered on here.

 

[portlock seagull]

Rightly or wrongly (and I think rightly) people expect peerless standards of incorruptibility from the police. They should be held to a higher (not lower) standard.

I don't think this is helped by a lot of the time when police officers are caught bang to rights in misdemeanor, they are allowed to resign and slope off into the distance with not inconsiderable pension pots untouched rather than be sacked for gross misconduct.

Except all those that go to prison as many do. But hey, enjoy Narnia where all your Police are incorruptible.

 

[portlock seagull]

Let off steam ? I've seen a copper smash a 15year old girl in the mouth with his truncheon all his mates look away , and the Inspector when confronted by the father , tell him to "f*ck off before you get the same"

Yes but we're discussing the UK. Not Hollywood or ITV.

 

[Miximate]

The majority of police are not bad/corrupt, unfortunately the majority of police will cover for those who are bad/corrupt.

Whilst this is your opinion, it certainly isn't my experience!

 

[portlock seagull]

What on earth are you talking about. If I worked with someone, friend or not and I witnessed or knew for a fact they had harrassed or abused a vulnerable person or a woman at work there is no way I would stick up fr them. End of. You may have wavering morals, mine stand firm my man.

You say that but time and time again people that trot this out when the circumstances are personal and real to them it's proved that such sentiments are complete and utter horseshit...Sorry, just saying like

 

[The Clamp]

You say that but time and time again people that trot this out when the circumstances are personal and real to them it's proved that such sentiments are complete and utter horseshit...Sorry, just saying like

Maybe with weak willed cowards. I used to work in an industry where abuse of the vulnerable was rife. I never tolerated it for a second. Fact. So please don't apply your low standards to me.

 

[portlock seagull]

Maybe with weak willed cowards. I used to work in an industry where abuse of the vulnerable was rife. I never tolerated it for a second. Fact. So please don't apply your low standards to me.

I'm fine with my standards thank you, no need to get insulting just because someone has called you out as talking bolognese. And especially as the poster you were having a pop at was rightly saying the spectrum of abuse can range vastly e.g. from inappropriate language, maybe once in forty years, unwittingly or even under extreme pressure, to what everyone immediately jumps to in their assumptions as is today's ALL or NOTHING outrage society. Which ironically you've demonstrated it would seem. Do carry on however, maybe there's room for the other foot in your mouth?

 

[spring hall convert]

Except all those that go to prison as many do. But hey, enjoy Narnia where all your Police are incorruptible.

Where did I say all police are incorruptible? I said people expect that standard. We do don't we? Or are we actively trying to recruit corrupt police?

I also said 'a lot of the time' in my second point. Of course I'm aware that some police go to prison. Many are allowed to resign or retire with pension rather than face disciplinary proceedings. Especially those in more senior positions.

 

[BadFish]

I would hope I would have the strength of character and moral awareness to refuse to be complicit and supportive of such behaviour. There have been situations I have found myself in where it would have been easier for me to condone and support the unacceptable behavior of certain individuals against others but I chose to act according to my own values and not be dictated by the questionable values and behaviour of others. As soon as you do that you are on a long slippery slope. It's basically moral cowardice. It's also a very distorted way of looking at things. Surely the individual who is behaving in an unacceptable manner should be the one who feels under pressure to not upset or alienate his work colleagues rather than the individual who would prefer to not condone such behaviour. Unfortunately that is often not the case. Surely one of the prerequisites of being a police officer is having a certain strength of character. Isn't it about time some of them started showing it?

Excellent post.