Sarah Everard Murder - Consequences

[AlterEgo]

Care workers in England have to be double vaccinated by November 11th if they wish to retain their jobs, regardless of why they are in that position. (Bear with me, this has relevance to what I'm about to propose.) The police in England and Wales now routinely take DNA samples from anyone aged ten or over who has been arrested in connection with any recordable offence: no consent is sought, and a 'no' will be ignored in all but the most limited of circumstances. Until relatively recently, these were not disposed of in cases where a person was found not guilty/charges were dropped etc.

My proposal might be considered rather radical, illiberal or another word of that sort, but I believe they are not only highly desirable but completely necessary if trust in the police is to be regained, particularly by women and city dwellers. It is that every individual, male, female or other who attains the position of Police Constable has, as a condition of employment, to have their DNA taken in a controlled environment, to be stored on a separate database linked to the national DNA database, and kept for an agreed number of years, beyond the period of their likely employment. Any refusal to comply would render their employment in the role null and void, as there is no legitimate medical reason for non-compliance. If any police forces still take on officers straight to a higher rank than Constable, then it would apply to them as well. The DNA, once sampled, would have to be compared to the general national database, which might well both prevent some unsavory types being taken on and, no doubt, some previously unsolved crimes being solved. The requirement would apply to BTC, Ports, Atomic Energy forces etc too.

That's my idea: I somehow foresee it being torn to bits by some, maybe many, on here but I regard it as having merit. Please forgive me if I take a little while to come back, but my best friend died at the weekend and I have to go into hospital for a procedure within a few days too. Just wanted to float it before I go to bed.

Don’t they already have to give elimination samples and prints? Or is that not done across all police forces?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Who caught the murderer?

So they caught the horse after it had bolted.
Wouldn't it have been better if they could have caught him beforehand? I don't know, maybe for the incident of indecent exposure literally just days before the murder?
Or maybe they should have looked into why he was nicknamed "the rapist" before either incident even took place!
I'm not sure giving the met a round of applause for actually doing their job is the best look to be honest. Shouldn't that the minimum of what we expect? Especially given it was the failure of the force to do that job that meant he hadn't been dealt with earlier before and so had the chance to escalate like he did.

We can't trust Doctors after Harold Shipman?

Except that after Shipman there were wide ranging reforms to the sector in an attempt to prevent the same from happening again.

If there was the same recognition from the police that similar reforms had to take place in their ranks then I wouldn't have as much of a problem as I do.
Maybe if reforms were actually made then the next police officer who earns a nickname of "the rapist" or gets multiple indecent exposure accusations won't be allowed to keep their badge and handcuffs to then use in an actual murder.
But sadly, as usual, the bad apples are helped by their mates until they do someone so bad that nobody can continue to stand with them. And even then, his mates were still giving positive character references for his defense even after he had pleaded guilty.

 

[the sniper]

I don't know if I've missed something, but none of the articles I have read mention or speculate why he did it ?

It wasn't because he was in the Police?

My proposal might be considered rather radical, illiberal or another word of that sort, but I believe they are not only highly desirable but completely necessary if trust in the police is to be regained, particularly by women and city dwellers. It is that every individual, male, female or other who attains the position of Police Constable has, as a condition of employment, to have their DNA taken in a controlled environment, to be stored on a separate database linked to the national DNA database, and kept for an agreed number of years, beyond the period of their likely employment. Any refusal to comply would render their employment in the role null and void, as there is no legitimate medical reason for non-compliance. If any police forces still take on officers straight to a higher rank than Constable, then it would apply to them as well. The DNA, once sampled, would have to be compared to the general national database, which might well both prevent some unsavory types being taken on and, no doubt, some previously unsolved crimes being solved. The requirement would apply to BTC, Ports, Atomic Energy forces etc too.

While I can see a logic for DNA testing on entry to check against historic offences (in general), maybe even a one off check of everyone already in, I'm not sure what purpose your ongoing database serves. Presumably your angle is that every time there's a sexual offence going forward, every Police officer in the land should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. At least we'll be able to rule out a rather niche, unlikely portion of potential suspects, where DNA has actually been left... I may well be wrong, but I get the impression in this case, had your 'solution' been in place, it wouldn't have actually made any difference?

Why not have the entire population's DNA on record? It'd help solve exponentially more sexual offences, if you're serious about tackling it.

So they caught the horse after it had bolted.

Ignoring the context of the conversation, you miss the point I was making.

Wouldn't it have been better if they could have caught him beforehand? I don't know, maybe for the incident of indecent exposure literally just days before the murder?

Doesn't that go without saying... As I've said though, personally I wonder whether he knew his time was up after that, too much of a coincidence. It'd be enlightening for us to see more details of what happened beforehand, both then and pre Met, who knew what and when. I wonder whether the repercussions of what happened three days before had yet to play out, depending on the circumstances. While he should undoubtedly have been done for any offences, as seems highly likely now, he was guilty of, and kicked out of the Police, who knows whether it would have prevented him going on to kill. I can imagine it wouldn't, but it's hard to get into the mind of animals like this.

Or maybe they should have looked into why he was nicknamed "the rapist" before either incident even took place!

I know of someone who has been jovially given that label by some after they were falsely (and admittedly, rather ludicrously) accused of said crime, which had been investigated by the Police. Not condoning that clearly, but I'm not sure you can use it against them as a character reference. Investigating people based on rumour and innuendo can be rather dubious. It would also rely on the nickname being known, outside of a small circle.

I'm not sure giving the met a round of applause for actually doing their job is the best look to be honest.

F*** 'em all. Do you feel better now? Does having that perspective add anything to the conversation?

And even then, his mates were still giving positive character references for his defense even after he had pleaded guilty.

Could you clarify what you're on about here?

Except that after Shipman there were wide ranging reforms to the sector in an attempt to prevent the same from happening again.

If there was the same recognition from the police that similar reforms had to take place in their ranks then I wouldn't have as much of a problem as I do.
Maybe if reforms were actually made then the next police officer who earns a nickname of "the rapist" or gets multiple indecent exposure accusations won't be allowed to keep their badge and handcuffs to then use in an actual murder.
But sadly, as usual, the bad apples are helped by their mates until they do someone so bad that nobody can continue to stand with them. And even then, his mates were still giving positive character references for his defense even after he had pleaded guilty.

I'm not sure what reform could prevent such an unusual crime from occurring again. Even eliminating the Police entirely, the crime could still have easily occurred. I don't doubt there'll be changes though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Ignoring the context of the conversation, you miss the point I was making.

The point that you were making was that because the police caught the murderer then they deserve to be trusted (and cannot be seen as protecting their own).
I disagree entirely for the reasons I said in my earlier post - namely that they had ample opportunity to deal with him before he used his status as a serving officer to help him murder someone and had they actually taken previous incidents more seriously then this poor woman would likely still be alive.

Doesn't that go without saying... As I've said though, personally I wonder whether he knew his time was up after that, too much of a coincidence. It'd be enlightening for us to see more details of what happened beforehand, both then and pre Met, who knew what and when. I wonder whether the repercussions of what happened three days before had yet to play out, depending on the circumstances.

I mean given he had exposed himself to women in the past too and nothing happened I somewhat doubt he thought "his time was up". I suspect he thought he could escalate his behaviour and still get away with it. Had the police actually dealt with the indecent exposure incidents then maybe he would have realised he couldn't get away with it.

While he should undoubtedly have been done for any offences, as seems highly likely now, he was guilty of, and kicked out of the Police, who knows whether it would have prevented him going on to kill. I can imagine it wouldn't, but it's hard to get into the mind of animals like this.

But the very fact he was a serving officer was fundamental to the murder her carried out. You can't just ignore that.
Whilst yes he may well have murdered regardless, I am sure had she not believed he was acting as a genuine police officer then him doing so would have been much harder and maybe some of the witnesses who saw him persuaded him force her into his car would have reacted differently.

I know of someone who has been jovially given that label by some after they were falsely (and admittedly, rather ludicrously) accused of said crime, which had been investigated by the Police. Not condoning that clearly, but I'm not sure you can use it against them as a character reference. Investigating people based on rumour and innuendo can be rather dubious. It would also rely on the nickname being known, outside of a small circle.

Surely the combination of the legitimate accusations against him alongside his nickname should have been combined together as some kind of a red flag though?
Personally I'd be absolutely horrified that a serving police officer was not investigated despite those two things even if they didn't kill someone. Maybe I just have higher standards for law enforcement than you do!

F*** 'em all. Do you feel better now? Does having that perspective add anything to the conversation?

Where exactly did I say that?

Could you clarify what you're on about here?

Not sure how much there is to clarify. Even after this monster pleaded guilty to murder of a young women, some of his friends and colleagues who are still serving police officers still thought of him so highly that they were willing to give positive character references to the court in an attempt to reduce his sentence. I think that tells you a lot about the "character" of those police officers to be blunt.

I'm not sure what reform could prevent such an unusual crime from occurring again. Even eliminating the Police entirely, the crime could still have easily occurred. I don't doubt there'll be changes though.

Had he been kicked out of the police long ago like he should have been, then he would not have been able to use his status as a police officer to dupe the poor woman into getting into his car. Again as I said earlier you can't ignore the role him being a serving officer had in this murder.

 

[the sniper]

The point that you were making was that because the police caught the murderer then they deserve to be trusted (and cannot be seen as protecting their own).

That's not the point I was making... The Point is that '[the Police] are not to be trusted' as blanket statement is ridiculous, as are most blanket statements/accusations. If none of them are to be trusted, then neither are the ones who caught him.

I mean given he had exposed himself to women in the past too and nothing happened I somewhat doubt he thought "his time was up". I suspect he thought he could escalate his behaviour and still get away with it. Had the police actually dealt with the indecent exposure incidents then maybe he would have realised he couldn't get away with it.

Who knows. Should have been caught regardless though if the evidence was there to support it.

Surely the combination of the legitimate accusations against him alongside his nickname should have been combined together as some kind of a red flag though?
Personally I'd be absolutely horrified that a serving police officer was not investigated despite those two things even if they didn't kill someone.

As I said, it'd be interesting to know who knew what and when. His moving between forces will have helped his cause. I'm rather sceptical about the nickname, how widely known it was and how effectively it could have been used against him.

Maybe I just have higher standards for law enforcement than you do!

Probably not... Maybe I'm just minded towards the practicalities. There's certainly a lot to learn from this case. Maybe an overarching, better resourced and focused, single Stasi style organisation is needed in place of individual PSD in each force.

Not sure how much there is to clarify. Even after this monster pleaded guilty to murder of a young women, some of his friends and colleagues who are still serving police officers still thought of him so highly that they were willing to give positive character references to the court in an attempt to reduce his sentence. I think that tells you a lot about the "character" of those police officers to be blunt.

It would be interesting to know the context and extent of the 'supportive remarks'. I've seen it said that the Judge should clarify those remarks. I don't doubt that there would have been a lot of disbelief about what happened though, I'd be highly surprised if the vast majority of his colleagues weren't completely unaware of his history and actual nature.

Even the judge deemed him of hitherto good character.

But the very fact he was a serving officer was fundamental to the murder her carried out. You can't just ignore that.
Whilst yes he may well have murdered regardless, I am sure had she not believed he was acting as a genuine police officer then him doing so would have been much harder and maybe some of the witnesses who saw him persuaded him force her into his car would have reacted differently.

Had he been kicked out of the police long ago like he should have been, then he would not have been able to use his status as a police officer to dupe the poor woman into getting into his car. Again as I said earlier you can't ignore the role him being a serving officer had in this murder.

That he was or alternatively could have previously been a Police officer would have helped his cause, as he'd have had the knowledge to carry off his act. He also didn't need to fake a warrant card or acquire his own cuffs*. But he was hardly acting in the course of his duties. If a Police car had pulled up while he was 'arresting' Sarah, it would have been quite difficult for him to explain what he was doing, it certainly wasn't risk free. As I said, everyone should be wary under similar circumstances, as you could be easily caught out by someone playing the same role who isn't in the Police.

That he was a serving Police officer meant he was rightly sentenced more severely for abusing his actual position and undermining the service.

*Going by the sentencing remarks, even he purchased the handcuff key from Amazon.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I certainly do not trust the police!

Apparently many forces do not have 'RASSO' (rape & serious sexual offences) departments, rasso officers were moved to other departments when some forces disbanded special departments.

Just the same as with traffic law enforcement, if there is no proper structure things get neglected.

Perhaps a national RASSO force and a national traffic law enforcement force would be more effective.

 

[the sniper]

I certainly do not trust the police!

Apparently many forces do not have 'RASSO' (rape & serious sexual offences) departments, rasso officers were moved to other departments when some forces disbanded special departments.

Just the same as with traffic law enforcement, if there is no proper structure things get neglected.

Perhaps a national RASSO force and a national traffic law enforcement force would be more effective.

You don't trust them, why are you bothered how they're divvied up...?

 

[alexjames10]

And neither do I trust the police.

A bunch of largely useless idiots in my view.

An attitude derived from having to avoid these fools at countless football matches.

I’m a London taxpayer partially paying for these twerps. I have long taken the view that the clown in charge of them should be in jail for manslaughter: that unfortunate Brazilian bloke.

 

[WelshBluebird]

An attitude derived from having to avoid these fools at countless football matches.

Don't even get me started. I was explaining to my partner the "fun" I've had being a football fan.

The most ridiculous example I think is that South Yorkshire police wanted the supporters coaches carrying Cardiff fans travelling to Sheffield Wednesday to meet them just off junction 36 of the M1 (for anyone who knows basic geography - you may already see the issue - that is further north than you would normally go when travelling from Cardiff to Sheffield). Our coach driver was new and had never driven football fans before so either didn't realise or just forgot that you must do these stupid things when carrying football fans, so he just took the regular exit off the M1 you would (which is 33 coming from the south). We get to Hillsborough to be told by some very unhappy police officers that we have commited the worst sin in the world and must drive ~7 miles up the A61 to junction 36 to meet the police officers who were up there to then just turn back around to come back down the same ~7 miles to Hillsborough. No amount of common sense or discussion would help so we wasted ~14 miles and about an hour of time because they just have to make sure football fans are treated like crap.

Or maybe the insanity I'll have to deal with this Sunday for the South Wales Derby where the police are mandating a bubble trip (so every away fan has to travel on official club or supporters club coaches - you can't make your own way to the stadium) which is going to mean me and my old man have to leave at 7am for what should be a 90 minute at most journey for a 12.30pm kick off (basically the police want all Cardiff fans in the stadium before any Swansea fans are likely to be about outside).

 

[the sniper]

Gosh, if only we lived in a world where large groups of mostly decent people weren't judged, maligned and villainised based on the actions of a minority... The irony.

I think the thread has rather strayed from the OPs subject.

 

[Cowley]

I think the thread has rather strayed from the OPs subject.

Yes it has somewhat.
I think this one can be left here for now and we can discuss some of the wider aspects in this thread.

Your experiences of having contact with the police.

Have you had good or bad experiences? Mine have generally been pretty good although I may just have been lucky as I’ve not found myself on the wrong side of the law too often. I’ve started this up to open the discussion out further from this thread...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks everyone.

 

[Cowley]

An update on the court case:

Sarah Everard: Met Police breached rights of vigil organisers

Police forced the four vigil organisers to cancel their plans to mark the death of Sarah Everard.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Met Police breached the rights of the organisers of a planned vigil for Sarah Everard, two judges have ruled.
The group had to cancel the event after the Met said it would be illegal to stage it under lockdown restrictions.
However, hundreds of people attended an unofficial gathering on Clapham Common in south London to pay their respects to Ms Everard, who was murdered by a serving Met officer, Wayne Couzens.
The vigil, on 13 March, saw clashes between police and some of those there.
At a two-day hearing at the High Court in January, Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler argued that decisions made by the force in advance of the planned vigil amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of speech and assembly.

 

[507020]

An update on the court case:

The Met Police breached the rights of the organisers of a planned vigil for Sarah Everard, two judges have ruled.
The group had to cancel the event after the Met said it would be illegal to stage it under lockdown restrictions.
However, hundreds of people attended an unofficial gathering on Clapham Common in south London to pay their respects to Ms Everard, who was murdered by a serving Met officer, Wayne Couzens.
The vigil, on 13 March, saw clashes between police and some of those there.
At a two-day hearing at the High Court in January, Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler argued that decisions made by the force in advance of the planned vigil amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of speech and assembly.

With it only being 11 March today, how was it possible for this vigil to take place 2 days in the future?

 

[simonw]

With it only being 11 March today, how was it possible for this vigil to take place 2 days in the future?

It took place last year.

 

[Cowley]

With it only being 11 March today, how was it possible for this vigil to take place 2 days in the future?

This happened last year…

 

[507020]

It took place last year.

This happened last year…

Oh so was it just a coincidence that it was almost exactly a year ago? I thought the vigil could have been more recent.

 

[Cowley]

Oh so it just a coincidence that it was almost exactly a year ago.

Yes indeed.