That's the issue really. As I say the idea isn't practical.@diarm , I don't think anyone here thinks we should keep the status quo, and yes, we all agree that his identification showing he's off duty might deter him, maybe, but in practice, he still would be allowed to arrest her when off duty.
Now, maybe there are specific situations where they "shouldn't" be able to arrest off duty, but where do you draw the lines?
Ok, you say she's a woman walking home by herself, but what if she's just stabbed someone? What if it's not a young lady, but an adult male with learning difficulties? And how would the general public know which crimes mean you can be stopped by a plain clothed, off duty cop?
I don't know whether your app idea would have any affect on someone I'll enough to do what he did. At most it'd delay them a while.
Have you ever been stopped and searched? I have loads of times, and some of the reasons they've given me were absolute bullshitIf someone has just stabbed someone, they can expect to be stopped by a police officer.
If someone is walking home from their friends house, they should be able to ask the police officer for proof of identity, purpose and the fact that they are on duty.
I honestly don't think it's as complicated as is being made out here.
There were people who saw this arrest happening. Had Sarah been able to ask to see proof of what he was doing here, she might have been able to alert those people and save her life. Just the possibility of that would quite possibly have deterred him from doing what he did in this way.
The fact they’ve had 6 months since she was murdered and that’s the best they’ve been able to come up with us concerning. There needs to be reform from top to bottom, not just of the Met but of police forces across the U.K. Sadly in a week this will all be forgotten and little will change.The only advantage I can see to a phone ID would be if every time it opens it gets logged back as an action along with time and location. In practical terms though, I don't think it would have stopped Couzens. By the time he cornered her he was in position to overwhelm her. The only thing that would have helped at that stage would be intervention by a third party. Even if someone did query it, would they really get close enough to know the difference between a screen capture of a badge and an actual active app.
That said, the trouble with everything I've heard so far from senior police etc has been utterly useless, or as this chap suggested:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It seems pretty simple for this proposed app to have a feature where you can log yourself in to become “on duty” if you need to act in the manner of such.I'm just telling you that you can make arrests on or off duty so having an app as you described would be pretty pointless.
That guy should be out of a job immediately. There's been a lot of tone deaf and idiotic takes from senior policing figures in the last few days, but that came across as unbelievably heartless. Indefensible.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Utterly tone deaf.
Sadly as an elected politician all he can do is resign.That guy should be out of a job immediately. There's been a lot of tone deaf and idiotic takes from senior policing figures in the last few days, but that came across as unbelievably heartless. Indefensible.
You're whole attitude in this discussion is a bit baffling to be honest. You seem to be taking personal offence at the suggestion of anything that might hold police officers more accountable.
I can't explain myself any clearer than I have. If you still want to take the wrong end of the stick and try to hit me with it, that's up to you.
I haven't ever suggested having an app might have caused Couzens to do anything. I'm suggesting that had there been an identification app on his phone that the murdered girl could've asked to see, which would be a simple improvement on the identification card which already exists, she might have been able to alert the people nearby as to the fact that something was wrong.
That you seem to think this is the most offensive thing that could ever be imposed on a poor and embattered police force is on you.
What you’re doing here is arguing a semi false point and using two things that don’t exactly follow the same narrative.And I'm saying it wouldn't be if you brought in legislation to protect members of the public from being harassed, intimidated, raped or murdered by off duty police officers.
You seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm advocating an app as the only addition to the unfit for purpose status quo.
Feels like a pretty facetious argument to be honest. Par for the course with you.
Yeah sure why not. You're supposed to book yourself on duty anyway in circumstances like that. I think I was more querying the suggestion of powers being revoked off duty which in my opinion would be impractical.It seems pretty simple for this proposed app to have a feature where you can log yourself in to become “on duty” if you need to act in the manner of such.
Then any off duty officer who activates themselves to on duty status in order to carry out an arrest has an hour (or whatever is a suitable timeframe) to present themselves at the station with their detainee.
Yeah, I mentioned this a few pages back, a lot of them are utterly clueless and have no concept of reality. They’re the kind of people who’ve unfortunately been around the force for too long.The only advantage I can see to a phone ID would be if every time it opens it gets logged back as an action along with time and location. In practical terms though, I don't think it would have stopped Couzens. By the time he cornered her he was in position to overwhelm her. The only thing that would have helped at that stage would be intervention by a third party. Even if someone did query it, would they really get close enough to know the difference between a screen capture of a badge and an actual active app.
That said, the trouble with everything I've heard so far from senior police etc has been utterly useless, or as this chap suggested:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thanks mate. Shamefully enough for a one-time politics graduate I assumed they were government-appointed rather than directly elected.Sadly as an elected politician all he can do is resign.
It is still unbelievable though.
I'll come back to this later. There is simply too much nonsense in there for me to unpack at the moment.What you’re doing here is arguing a semi false point and using two things that don’t exactly follow the same narrative.
You seem to be implying that officers are regularly off duty and then using their police position off duty to commit crimes. You quoted a newspaper article that listed a load of officers who’d been reprimanded for committing offences whilst off duty away from policing .
However being off duty and committing an offence (ie domestic abuse) is very different to what Wayne Couzens did. you must be able to identify this surely?
He used his powers and protective equipment off duty to commit an offence. That is very very quite clearly different to the incidents referenced in the article you posted and you must know that.
But you’re being tricky and deliberately massaging them together and then throwing around words like accountable and pretending as if I’m saying police shouldn’t be.
I’ve never once said that and if you’ve ever read my posts I’m massively for police being held accountable.
I’m just not one for clearly stupid ideas that would significantly disrupt the majority of police force from carrying out their lawful duties as well as ideas that wouldn’t make much of a difference in making people safe from shitty officers of which I’m very aware there are plenty.
I know.. says more about society tbh.And the majority of crimes are never investigated.
What's the point you want to make?It's a difficult thing to accept for middle class white people in the first world, but there are some things that you can't save yourself from.
I'm not sure why he's brought race into it but I agree with it in part. I don't think what Couzins did was preventable. He'd of done it either way. His job made it that bit easier for him but he was clearly a predator.What's the point you want to make?
What do you mean?What was his motive? Is it known?
Did he give a specific reason why he did it?What do you mean?
Other than probably being a psychopath, are you looking for a rational explanation for why he did it?
Yeah I thought that's what you meant. I find the question a bit bizarre, if I'm honest. I mean these people just get an urge to do these things, don't they? I doubt you're going to get a rational answer.Did he give a specific reason why he did it?
No he didn't. He expressed remorse (via his barrister) but gave no explanation, which is why the judge dismissed his guilty plea as a seriously mitigating factor.Did he give a specific reason why he did it?
There is nothing bizarre about my question. Motive isn't some unknown concept in criminology.Yeah I thought that's what you meant. I find the question a bit bizarre, if I'm honest. I mean these people just get an urge to do these things, don't they? I doubt you're going to get a rational answer.
Thanks.No he didn't. He expressed remorse (via his barrister) but gave no explanation, which is why the judge dismissed his guilty plea as a seriously mitigating factor.
I'm aware of the concept of motive but that doesn't usually apply in cases like this of rape and murder of a stranger, does it?There is nothing bizarre about my question. Motive isn't some unknown concept in criminology.
Maybe, maybe not. Hence why I asked if he gave a reason.I'm aware of the concept of motive but that doesn't usually apply in cases like this of rape and murder of a stranger, does it?
As I said earlier this seems like the psychopathic type offence where the urge to commit the act is motivation in and of itself.
Given the details thus far - it appears he is a sadistic predator, so his motive, sadly, would simply be his own pathetic gratification.Maybe, maybe not. Hence why I asked if he gave a reason.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is an issue in most law enforcement/authority type roles. You’ll always have some people who join for that reason.To what extent might there be a problem within the police of the not so well liked at school types who end up joining the police so that they have some authority to make themselves feel more powerful/relevant than they ever did in their youth?
Screening, and also disciplinary procedures by the sounds of it. I’m quite surprised by the stat that 50% of officers who were found guilty of sexual misconduct were then allowed to carry on in their roles. Not sure how that compares to other organisations, but it sounds high to me and potentially shows an overly lenient attitude, as it’s hard to imagine what would fall under this category and not be a serious cause for concern.It seems clear that the police's screening policies need tightening, eg people with past convictions barred, but the grim fact seems to be you're always going to get some rogue officers if we're realistic. Apparently the police has 160,000 officers with 39,000 in the Met. I know they're supposed to be the best of us, moral and upstanding, but they're also going to reflect the society from which they're drawn, so it's inevitable that scumbags and psychopaths will slip through the net. Some psychos are no doubt drawn to the police due to the power and opportunities it will give them. Beyond building an army of Robocops you can't 100% eradicate this problem.
What did the other officers Say? Were they basically just character witnesses?Screening, and also disciplinary procedures by the sounds of it. I’m quite surprised by the stat that 50% of officers who were found guilty of sexual misconduct were then allowed to carry on in their roles. Not sure how that compares to other organisations, but it sounds high to me and potentially shows an overly lenient attitude, as it’s hard to imagine what would fall under this category and not be a serious cause for concern.
We’ll never eradicate the risk, I agree there, but the culture seems pretty rotten and very alien to me as someone who works in another large public sector workforce. I still am astonished that other officers chose to testify in Couzens’ favour after he’d pleaded guilty.
I’m not sure their testimonies have been published anywhere, I think it was just noted in the judge’s remarks that other officers had “spoken supportively” of Wayne Couzens. This was after the guilty verdict, so can’t have been to do with concerns he might actually be innocent. They must have believed he deserved a lesser sentence is the only rationale I can think of.What did the other officers Say? Were they basically just character witnesses?
Yep you'd imagine being found guilty of sexual assault would be an instant dismissal. I guess you can get into the debate of 'it was only a pat on the arse' at the lower end of the sexual assault scale, but you'd think the police would be zero tolerance of any form of sexual misconduct, particularly given they have to deal with vulnerable individuals etc.Screening, and also disciplinary procedures by the sounds of it. I’m quite surprised by the stat that 50% of officers who were found guilty of sexual misconduct were then allowed to carry on in their roles. Not sure how that compares to other organisations, but it sounds high to me and potentially shows an overly lenient attitude, as it’s hard to imagine what would fall under this category and not be a serious cause for concern.
We’ll never eradicate the risk, I agree there, but the culture seems pretty rotten and very alien to me as someone who works in another large public sector workforce. I still am astonished that other officers chose to testify in Couzens’ favour after he’d pleaded guilty.
There wasn't a verdict as such, given he pleaded guilty I thought? I'd have thought those comments from other officers would've been taken beforehand.I’m not sure their testimonies have been published anywhere, I think it was just noted in the judge’s remarks that other officers had “spoken supportively” of Wayne Couzens. This was after the guilty verdict, so can’t have been to do with concerns he might actually be innocent. They must have believed he deserved a lesser sentence is the only rationale I can think of.
Does sentencing happen immediately after a guilty plea is registered in the UK? If not, that could be why the officer testimony happened after the plea, to try to mitigate the length of the sentence. I don’t know exactly, though.Yep you'd imagine being found guilty of sexual assault would be an instant dismissal. I guess you can get into the debate of 'it was only a pat on the arse' at the lower end of the sexual assault scale, but you'd think the police would be zero tolerance of any form of sexual misconduct, particularly given they have to deal with vulnerable individuals etc.
There are obviously levels of acceptability but loads of us work in sedate offices and have no knowledge what the culture is like in say the police, which is obviously so alien, given the different pressures. You can imagine the use of language etc is a bit more rough and ready when people are coming into the station having had some skaghead threatening them with a knife or whatever. I've no idea what level of ongoing psychological evaluation and help police officers get to deal with this.
There wasn't a verdict as such, given he pleaded guilty I thought? I'd have thought those comments from other officers would've been taken beforehand.
It’s not just disgusting behaviour, it’s incredibly suspicious.Does sentencing happen immediately after a guilty plea is registered in the UK? If not, that could be why the officer testimony happened after the plea, to try to mitigate the length of the sentence. I don’t know exactly, though.
Thin blue line seems to exist over there as well. Disgusting behavior by the officers.
