|
|
Post by happyhornet on Feb 29, 2024 13:30:15 GMT
"Sarah Everard’s family have said she was kidnapped and murdered by Wayne Couzens because he was armed with police powers he should never have had, after an official report revealed new and damning failures by police who missed his prolific sexual offending dating back almost 20 years. The failures laid out in the report by Lady Elish Angiolini are worse than previously thought, and she concludes Couzens should never have been a police officer. She highlighted a series of chances to spot his danger to women and his unsuitability to be an officer that were missed by repeated bungling in three forces." "The report damns police culture, finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn; was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021; and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done. It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder – and being in debt even before he joined the police." www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/29/met-police-should-never-have-employed-wayne-couzens-report-finds |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 29, 2024 16:34:22 GMT
Yawn, another inquiry pointing out the bleedin' obvious with 20/20 hindsight.
Of course Couzens should never have been a cop, it's just that no-one knew that at the time.
The Met have said that based on the information they had, at the time, they would still have employed Couzens.
In retrospect the answer is always obvious. But not necessarily so at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2024 18:10:32 GMT
Yawn, another inquiry pointing out the bleedin' obvious with 20/20 hindsight. Of course Couzens should never have been a cop, it's just that no-one knew that at the time. The Met have said that based on the information they had, at the time, they would still have employed Couzens. In retrospect the answer is always obvious. But not necessarily so at the time. I can hear it now. "Steps will be taken to ensure this can never happen again"
... and then it does. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 29, 2024 18:19:37 GMT
Yawn, another inquiry pointing out the bleedin' obvious with 20/20 hindsight. Of course Couzens should never have been a cop, it's just that no-one knew that at the time. The Met have said that based on the information they had, at the time, they would still have employed Couzens. In retrospect the answer is always obvious. But not necessarily so at the time. I can hear it now. "Steps will be taken to ensure this can never happen again"
... and then it does. But of course it does. Vetting can only ever disclose wrongdoing that an applicant has already committed. Wayne Couzens wasn't a criminal when he joined the police. His record was clear. He met the vetting criteria. As the Met said, based on what was known at the time, they would still have employed him today. Every organisation would. I was heavily vetted for my current job and I was totally clean. But if I killed someone tomorrow, are we saying that my employer should have known that would happen? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 29, 2024 18:27:00 GMT
I can hear it now. "Steps will be taken to ensure this can never happen again"
... and then it does. But of course it does. Vetting can only ever disclose wrongdoing that an applicant has already committed. Wayne Couzens wasn't a criminal when he joined the police. His record was clear. He met the vetting criteria. As the Met said, based on what was known at the time, they would still have employed him today. Every organisation would. I was heavily vetted for my current job and I was totally clean. But if I killed someone tomorrow, are we saying that my employer should have known that would happen? Hindsight is an exact Science |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Feb 29, 2024 18:47:45 GMT
But of course it does. Vetting can only ever disclose wrongdoing that an applicant has already committed. Wayne Couzens wasn't a criminal when he joined the police. His record was clear. He met the vetting criteria. As the Met said, based on what was known at the time, they would still have employed him today. Every organisation would. I was heavily vetted for my current job and I was totally clean. But if I killed someone tomorrow, are we saying that my employer should have known that would happen? Hindsight is an exact Science "The report damns police culture, finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn; was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021; and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done. It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder – and being in debt even before he joined the police." All of this happened before he murdered someone. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 29, 2024 18:59:26 GMT
The reports highlights the lack of Vetting him thoroughly before he was allowed to join the Police if that had been done and information shared correctly by three different Forces he would not have been allowed in.
We know what was not done, we know the Senior Officers failed to deal with him, this report is repeating what we already know that it was a balls up from the very beginning.
Even if he had not applied to join the Police and became a builder , or van driver, or joined the Army from the Territorials, or dossed on the dole what is now obvious there was something mentally wrong with him and he may well have committed sexual offences or murder at some stage in his life
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 29, 2024 20:12:30 GMT
"The report damns police culture, finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn; was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021; and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done. It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder – and being in debt even before he joined the police." All of this happened before he murdered someone. So let's pick it apart: "The report damns police culture... Subjective attempt to tar all with same brush, meaningless. ...finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn... Allegedly. If it happened. And if it was reported. ...was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021... At which stage he was an unidentified subject and not known to be a police officer. and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done... Which ones? It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder... See above. ...All of this happened before he murdered someone. Well exactly - and therein lies the problem of 20/20 hindsight. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 1, 2024 9:36:33 GMT
"The report damns police culture, finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn; was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021; and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done. It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder – and being in debt even before he joined the police." All of this happened before he murdered someone. So let's pick it apart: "The report damns police culture... Subjective attempt to tar all with same brush, meaningless. ...finding Couzens showed colleagues extreme porn... Allegedly. If it happened. And if it was reported. ...was the subject of reports to police for indecent exposure, with investigations being bungled by Kent police in 2015 and the Met in 2021... At which stage he was an unidentified subject and not known to be a police officer. and that routine checks that could have flagged his unsuitability to be an officer were not done... Which ones? It also finds “red flags” were ignored, such as reports of Couzens indecently exposing himself in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – days before the murder... See above. ...All of this happened before he murdered someone. Well exactly - and therein lies the problem of 20/20 hindsight. This wasn't a case of neighbours being shocked, he always seemed such a nice man etc. There were massive red flags that would have been visible from space with Couzens. There needs to be procedural and cultural overhaul but I wouldn't hold your breath. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 1, 2024 15:44:28 GMT
I can hear it now. "Steps will be taken to ensure this can never happen again"
... and then it does. But of course it does. Vetting can only ever disclose wrongdoing that an applicant has already committed. Wayne Couzens wasn't a criminal when he joined the police. His record was clear. He met the vetting criteria. As the Met said, based on what was known at the time, they would still have employed him today. Every organisation would. I was heavily vetted for my current job and I was totally clean. But if I killed someone tomorrow, are we saying that my employer should have known that would happen? Ok Fair enough So what about THIS He was allowed to be a special constable in spite of a debt problem which should have flagged him up. He WAS flagged as unsuitable through debt when applying to join what in dad’s nuclear days was called the UKAEA but was allowed to join them in spite of this. It’s one thing to claim many of the things he was subsequently found to have done following investigation AFTER his conviction for murder are in one sense irrelevant to his vetting for employment because he committed those actions after that vetting. However www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sarah-everard-wayne-couzens-inquiry-police-b2504962.htmlThe above link contains details of multiple allegations of indecent exposure after the man was a serving police officer. Two reported here are also reported on the BBC website with statements saying the ‘flashee’ had details of the card used to pay for takeaway food, and the car the flasher drove, both owned by Couzens It seems a piss poor bit of police work not to connect these details to a serving officer … Or have i got it wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 1, 2024 15:49:34 GMT
So according to the resident lefties there should be a collective responsibility for the police due to a rogue copper not being spotted and stopped but not for the Muslims when a rogue Muslim isn’t spotted and stopped ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 1, 2024 16:41:59 GMT
There are Rogue Doctors, Nurses, Cab Drivers, Van Drivers, Builders, People with Mental Illness, Druggies off their faces, etc etc that have abducted and murdered people going back in time, that have never come to notice until too late, as they say crap happens it is easy to be wise afterwards
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 1, 2024 17:08:42 GMT
Yawn, another inquiry pointing out the bleedin' obvious with 20/20 hindsight. Of course Couzens should never have been a cop, it's just that no-one knew that at the time. The Met have said that based on the information they had, at the time, they would still have employed Couzens. In retrospect the answer is always obvious. But not necessarily so at the time. He was rejected as a special constable during vetting but still managed to ''pass'' vetting for a paid job in uniform (including being allowed to join the gun squad) in spite of various red flags and allegations. Sounds like volunteers are subject to higher standards than their paid counterparts. Maybe vetting should be much more vigorous and repeated at regular intervals throughout the career. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 1, 2024 17:10:28 GMT
The reports highlights the lack of Vetting him thoroughly before he was allowed to join the Police if that had been done and information shared correctly by three different Forces he would not have been allowed in. We know what was not done, we know the Senior Officers failed to deal with him, this report is repeating what we already know that it was a balls up from the very beginning. Even if he had not applied to join the Police and became a builder , or van driver, or joined the Army from the Territorials, or dossed on the dole what is now obvious there was something mentally wrong with him and he may well have committed sexual offences or murder at some stage in his life In none of those alternative jobs would he routinely carry cuffs or a warrant card |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 1, 2024 19:06:11 GMT
Of course not but the fact remains there are many out there who have killed some are multiple killers , and tomorrow or next week they may be another one, just today three sadistic people have been convicted of a terrible murder of a woman tortured beaten burnt and starved to death over many weeks
|
|
