Is sexual abuse Police officers crime of choice?
Discussion
bmw535i said:
eccles said:
To be fair, that is a pretty crap article, and you could say it undermines your argument.
The important word in that article is 'accused'. Just like anyone in authority dealing with vulnerable or under aged people it's a risk of the job to be accused of stuff to try and get off or to blackmail.
So despite all those accusations, the lines "Despite the large numbers, there is evidence that only 40 officers or staff have been dismissed for abusing authority for sexual gain in a similar period." would point to a lot of false allegations.
Just like scout masters, teachers or sports coaches, being a police officer will carry the risk of accusations.
Are you really suggesting that victims of abuse are accusing police officers of further abuse to try and "get off" (what exactly?) or blackmail them?The important word in that article is 'accused'. Just like anyone in authority dealing with vulnerable or under aged people it's a risk of the job to be accused of stuff to try and get off or to blackmail.
So despite all those accusations, the lines "Despite the large numbers, there is evidence that only 40 officers or staff have been dismissed for abusing authority for sexual gain in a similar period." would point to a lot of false allegations.
Just like scout masters, teachers or sports coaches, being a police officer will carry the risk of accusations.
How many haven't been dismissed, but received warnings?
How many have abused but not even been accused?
Surely the ratio of those dismissed to those accused shows how many are meritless.
As for your last question I would suggest to you it's an unanswerable question, and you know it.
Edited by eccles on Sunday 29th January 12:58
eccles said:
No,I'm suggesting by the very nature of their job, a police officer will be subject to more false allegations than say, a bin man.
Surely the ration of those dismissed to those accused shows how many are meritless.
As for your last question I would suggest to you it's an unanswerable question, and you know it.
1. Ok, I must have been mistaken regarding the blackmail Surely the ration of those dismissed to those accused shows how many are meritless.
As for your last question I would suggest to you it's an unanswerable question, and you know it.
2. I don't know. Do you have figures for internal disciplinary proceedings?
3. Yes unanswerable, but still concerning. I'm sure you can imagine that it is far more difficult for a victim to accuse a police officer than, lets say, a bin man?
eccles said:
No,I'm suggesting by the very nature of their job, a police officer will be subject to more false allegations than say, a bin man.
Surely the ration of those dismissed to those accused shows how many are meritless.
As for your last question I would suggest to you it's an unanswerable question, and you know it.
That is where the problem lies.Surely the ration of those dismissed to those accused shows how many are meritless.
As for your last question I would suggest to you it's an unanswerable question, and you know it.
The general public do not trust the Police disciplinary system.
bmw535i said:
Starting on you? Why do you guys get so defensive when a simple question is asked? I know police officers are notorious for trying to stifle debate, but you have no jurisdiction here (provided I remain legal), so just chill out and converse normally. Besides, you're retired now.
This is exactly my point, LL didn't use a specified same demographic of the general public. He just pulled a figure out his bum, did some wrong (as it turns out) maths and made an incorrect statement.
If he had made a comparison with the same demographic i.e. 2 groups of exactly a mix of the same age, sex, race, qualifications etc but the only difference being their jobs (police/non police) then I'd see it as a fairer test.
I'm sure you know what I'm getting at, you just don't like criticism of the police. Unfortunately there always will be should they continue to fall below their own standards.
place on
I notice nobody cared to comment on the article I posted in which the HS and some police officers conceded there is an issue.
You suggest I am one of 'you guys' when I am not a police officer and merely a scribe. But there is an example of a police officer on this very thread whom, one would assume, you class as notorious for stifling debate when the point of my post, which you chose to ignore, is that he is overwhelmingly polite and does not stifle debate. Indeed he seems to thrive of pointing out those criticisms of the police which are unfounded and poorly worded. This is exactly my point, LL didn't use a specified same demographic of the general public. He just pulled a figure out his bum, did some wrong (as it turns out) maths and made an incorrect statement.
If he had made a comparison with the same demographic i.e. 2 groups of exactly a mix of the same age, sex, race, qualifications etc but the only difference being their jobs (police/non police) then I'd see it as a fairer test.
I'm sure you know what I'm getting at, you just don't like criticism of the police. Unfortunately there always will be should they continue to fall below their own standards.
place on
I notice nobody cared to comment on the article I posted in which the HS and some police officers conceded there is an issue.
I was just suggesting that the thread has descended into an attack on what LL posts. It's the way police officers are required to respond to such people. But I am not a police officer so there is no such obligation on me.
I also pointed out that there has been no evidence that sexual abuse is the crime of choice of police officers, which is the point of the thread.
Derek Smith said:
You suggest I am one of 'you guys' when I am not a police officer and merely a scribe. But there is an example of a police officer on this very thread whom, one would assume, you class as notorious for stifling debate when the point of my post, which you chose to ignore, is that he is overwhelmingly polite and does not stifle debate. Indeed he seems to thrive of pointing out those criticisms of the police which are unfounded and poorly worded.
I was just suggesting that the thread has descended into an attack on what LL posts. It's the way police officers are required to respond to such people. But I am not a police officer so there is no such obligation on me.
I also pointed out that there has been no evidence that sexual abuse is the crime of choice of police officers, which is the point of the thread.
Nobody is attacking anybody! I was just suggesting that the thread has descended into an attack on what LL posts. It's the way police officers are required to respond to such people. But I am not a police officer so there is no such obligation on me.
I also pointed out that there has been no evidence that sexual abuse is the crime of choice of police officers, which is the point of the thread.
I understand you used to be a police officer - I would imagine you still espouse the values and standards of them including a determination to attempt to refuse to allow discussion and criticism of your previous profession.
I am not specifically referring to your (police/ex police officer) conduct on here, more an observation of general policing. In my opinion, they're pretty intolerant of any opposing views - particularly criticism of the force.
bmw535i said:
I am not specifically referring to your (police/ex police officer) conduct on here, more an observation of general policing. In my opinion, they're pretty intolerant of any opposing views - particularly criticism of the force.
I'm not sure how you can suggest your comment on blocking discussion wasn't aimed at me, as well as, rather generously, at all police officers, ex and current.I think I negated the suggestion of intolerance when I mentioned LL's patience, which you seemed to accept. However, I am intolerant of prejudice, in all its forms. I make no apology for that. I have criticised the service many times on these forums, the only difference between my criticisms and yours is that mine have been evidenced based. Indeed there's a vary well reviewed book on Amazon, 4.5 stars as I write, which gives lie to your suggestion of being intolerant of criticisms of the service.
Mind you, I give praise where praise is due.
For instance, much criticism on here has been levelled at the police for what is an assumed inability to manage resources. A few years ago, 2011 I believe, Sussex Police put 25 officers on surveillance on a person recently released from prison. If nothing had come of it, I have no doubt that some posters - and I could name them - would have criticised the waste and improper use of highly trained officers. A surveillance trained officer is an expensive commodity. The operation was a success, they stopping what they feel, and everyone else who knows the offender will feel, was an attempt at a series of horrific sexual torture. He'd done it before but was disturbed - and how - before he could finish his plans, which were, perhaps, to kill the young woman.
The detective super, whose job includes management of resources, was shown to be spot on. It was a brilliant bit of policing which not only resulted in the conviction of a really nasty offender, but, some feel, saved the life of a woman.
As an aside, I was discussing the case with a serving officer earlier this week. He said: 'There's no chance that we could do the same again.' Still, we'd get lots of forensic of the body, certainly enough for a conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104947/Co...
So perhaps, when there are officers willing to make difficult decisions with regards to policing, you might see why I am irritated by unfounded accusations.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 28th January 22:04
Derek Smith said:
bmw535i said:
I am not specifically referring to your (police/ex police officer) conduct on here, more an observation of general policing. In my opinion, they're pretty intolerant of any opposing views - particularly criticism of the force.
I'm not sure how you can suggest your comment on blocking discussion wasn't aimed at me, as well as, rather generously, at all police officers, ex and current.I think I negated the suggestion of intolerance when I mentioned LL's patience, which you seemed to accept. However, I am intolerant of prejudice, in all its forms. I make no apology for that. I have criticised the service many times on these forums, the only difference between my criticisms and yours is that mine have been evidenced based. Indeed there's a vary well reviewed book on Amazon, 4.5 stars as I write, which gives lie to your suggestion of being intolerant of criticisms of the service.
Mind you, I give praise where praise is due.
For instance, much criticism on here has been levelled at the police for what is an assumed inability to manage resources. A few years ago, 2011 I believe, Sussex Police put 25 officers on surveillance on a person recently released from prison. If nothing had come of it, I have no doubt that some posters - and I could name them - would have criticised the waste and improper use of highly trained officers. A surveillance trained officer is an expensive commodity. The operation was a success, they stopping what they feel, and everyone else who knows the offender will feel, was an attempt at a series of horrific sexual torture. He'd done it before but was disturbed - and how - before he could finish his plans, which were, perhaps, to kill the young woman.
The detective super, whose job includes management of resources, was shown to be spot on. It was a brilliant bit of policing which not only resulted in the conviction of a really nasty offender, but, some feel, saved the life of a woman.
As an aside, I was discussing the case with a serving officer earlier this week. He said: 'There's no chance that we could do the same again.' Still, we'd get lots of forensic of the body, certainly enough for a conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104947/Co...
So perhaps, when there are officers willing to make difficult decisions with regards to policing, you might see why I am irritated by unfounded accusations.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 28th January 22:04
I am allowed to criticise and/or have an opinion regardless of whether you agree or not. My impression and experience of police officers in real life is that they will only discuss things to a point before saying they'll arrest you under a public order act.
On here, they can't do that - it appears to me they find that frustrating. Again, just my opinion.
My criticism here is that police officers commit sexual abuse - there is evidence to suggest that is true. I also share the views of TM insomuch as I expect there's a lot more of it goes on than we think/know.
bmw535i said:
Derek, brevity!! Your posts always start off fairly succinct and then suddenly become endless essays.
I am allowed to criticise and/or have an opinion regardless of whether you agree or not. My impression and experience of police officers in real life is that they will only discuss things to a point before saying they'll arrest you under a public order act.
On here, they can't do that - it appears to me they find that frustrating. Again, just my opinion.
My criticism here is that police officers commit sexual abuse - there is evidence to suggest that is true. I also share the views of TM insomuch as I expect there's a lot more of it goes on than we think/know.
Have you been arrested? I am allowed to criticise and/or have an opinion regardless of whether you agree or not. My impression and experience of police officers in real life is that they will only discuss things to a point before saying they'll arrest you under a public order act.
On here, they can't do that - it appears to me they find that frustrating. Again, just my opinion.
My criticism here is that police officers commit sexual abuse - there is evidence to suggest that is true. I also share the views of TM insomuch as I expect there's a lot more of it goes on than we think/know.
bmw535i said:
I never even checked the figures as he said once before he is never wrong!! Just goes to show eh
Where did I say I'm never wrong? I never have, you're lying, or at the very best, mistaken. I expect the the former. The demographic is irrelevant when drawing the comparison as the comparison was for police / non-police. It's not hard to comprehend since being offended against by someone who is ineligible for the police doesn't matter.
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
I never even checked the figures as he said once before he is never wrong!! Just goes to show eh
Where did I say I'm never wrong? I never have, you're lying, or at the very best, mistaken. I expect the the former. The demographic is irrelevant when drawing the comparison as the comparison was for police / non-police. It's not hard to comprehend since being offended against by someone who is ineligible for the police doesn't matter.
We will have to agree to disagree on the other point I'm afraid - it appears derek understood me though.
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
My apologies, I should have said you'd said you'll "never get caught out".
I don't believe I've ever said that, either. You may have to water it down another level. La Liga said:
I'm going to try the emoticon reply when I get caught out. Although that'll never happen 
Some of us have better memories than others I guess. I would have thought attention to detail and capacity to recall things said should and would be better amongst police officers than none officers. 
bmw535i said:
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
My apologies, I should have said you'd said you'll "never get caught out".
I don't believe I've ever said that, either. You may have to water it down another level. La Liga said:
I'm going to try the emoticon reply when I get caught out. Although that'll never happen
Some of us have better memories than others I guess. I would have thought attention to detail and capacity to recall things said should and would be better amongst police officers than none officers. The reply contains an emoticon, a not-too-subtle (well, for most) indication that it wasn't serious. As I literally said I would use one to reply if... and then did... Never mind. I guess the binary military training doesn't see beyond the literal. Taking orders rather than thinking and all that
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
My apologies, I should have said you'd said you'll "never get caught out".
I don't believe I've ever said that, either. You may have to water it down another level. La Liga said:
I'm going to try the emoticon reply when I get caught out. Although that'll never happen
Some of us have better memories than others I guess. I would have thought attention to detail and capacity to recall things said should and would be better amongst police officers than none officers. The reply contains an emoticon, a not-too-subtle (well, for most) indication that it wasn't serious. As I literally said I would use one to reply if... and then did... Never mind. I guess the binary military training doesn't see beyond the literal. Taking orders rather than thinking and all that
Completely irrelevant when you used it and your attempts to now pass it off as flippant - you said you didn't say it at all a minute ago.
I didn't think it'd be long before my job was mentioned - it often happens on here by the police posters.
I know the true story. There's no 'memory' on your part. You've had a post-it note stuck to your monitor for several months along with the topic saved in your favourites - revenge is a dish best served cold, you told yourself. You've read it over and over again, thinking, "If only I didn't tell someone they were wrong when, ironically, it was me who was wrong! Why didn't I realise I had no idea what I'm talking about?".
A zero too many in La Liga's calculator and his fate was sealed. He was no longer safe from a misrepresented comment, ripped out of context. No one messes with 535i!
A zero too many in La Liga's calculator and his fate was sealed. He was no longer safe from a misrepresented comment, ripped out of context. No one messes with 535i!
bmw535i said:
I didn't think it'd be long before my job was mentioned - it often happens on here by the police posters.
If you make silly generalisations about someone's occupation, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 
It's ok just to say you were wrong you know. It's another thing I can generalise about the police - they can never admit mistakes. Like you say, you never get caught out. It's quite ironic that's the very statement that caught you out
I actually don't mind generalisations/criticisms of the army - a lot of them I see on here are correct - it just seems a little childish in the way it's often done. Why not just start a thread criticising it/them and we can discuss on there rather than using it to try and insult? (That's what I assume you intended to do)
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 29th January 12:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff