'Met police may end policy of believing sexual abuse victims'

[catinthehat]

There was a documentary on the police (I think it was 70's - couldn't find a clip) which shows an interview with a women who has reported that she has been raped. The police line of questioning starts from a point of disbelief and the questions she is asked by the two male officers all are along the lines of 'have you ever worked as a prostitute', 'are you sure its not just a spat with the boyfriend', 'you like a good time don't you'....and so on. Attitude being 'you are lying unless proved otherwise'. I can't see that an attitude of 'you are telling the truth unless proved otherwise' gets in the way of establishing facts.

 

[Athos]

There was a documentary on the police (I think it was 70's - couldn't find a clip) which shows an interview with a women who has reported that she has been raped. The police line of questioning starts from a point of disbelief and the questions she is asked by the two male officers all are along the lines of 'have you ever worked as a prostitute', 'are you sure its not just a spat with the boyfriend', 'you like a good time don't you'....and so on. Attitude being 'you are lying unless proved otherwise'. I can't see that an attitude of 'you are telling the truth unless proved otherwise' gets in the way of establishing facts.

I agree. But those officers would still have that mindset, no matter what they were ordered to believe. The change needs to be more fundamental than simply saying 'all complainants must be believed.'

 

[dendrite]

It's not about what cops believe..

So there could be better language than "listen and believe" and "believe women" etc ?

Still don't understand how anyone practically goes about 'believing' something they're not yet convinced of on the evidence they've encountered so far. Just repeat "#ibelieveher" subvocally until...?

Isn't 'believe' just the wrong word if what is meant is 'be open to', 'don't dismiss', 'try to understand where their account is coming from' etc?

And if it is the wrong word, why is it the one which is being insisted on?

 

[catinthehat]

Agree believe is the wrong word. Maybe if there was an overall policy and practice of treating all 'customers' with dignity and respect regardless of offence, status or any other consideration. Maybe 'treat them all as if they have got a shit hot massively expensive legal team to call on'.........

 

[phildwyer]

And if it is the wrong word, why is it the one which is being insisted on?

Because H-H is desperately playing catch-up with the media, and he thought they were demanding that he believe every accusation laid before him. So naturally he said "yes yes of course, anything you say Rupert."

Now he's realized that would be a bit daft, and that he can probably get away with saying something slightly less daft.

Wanker that he is.

 

[dylanredefined]

There was a documentary on the police (I think it was 70's - couldn't find a clip) which shows an interview with a women who has reported that she has been raped. The police line of questioning starts from a point of disbelief and the questions she is asked by the two male officers all are along the lines of 'have you ever worked as a prostitute', 'are you sure its not just a spat with the boyfriend', 'you like a good time don't you'....and so on. Attitude being 'you are lying unless proved otherwise'. I can't see that an attitude of 'you are telling the truth unless proved otherwise' gets in the way of establishing facts.

That is wrong ,but, the allegations about the field Marshall seemed more like the rambling of some one with mental health issues than a serious crime.
Surely professionals can strike a balance.

 

[agricola]

There was a documentary on the police (I think it was 70's - couldn't find a clip) which shows an interview with a women who has reported that she has been raped. The police line of questioning starts from a point of disbelief and the questions she is asked by the two male officers all are along the lines of 'have you ever worked as a prostitute', 'are you sure its not just a spat with the boyfriend', 'you like a good time don't you'....and so on. Attitude being 'you are lying unless proved otherwise'. I can't see that an attitude of 'you are telling the truth unless proved otherwise' gets in the way of establishing facts.

That was the Roger Graef documentary "Police".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me, the police are dim.

 

[laptop]

A policy that says victims must be believed is a different thing to an attempt to get cops to believe victims. It's a structural counterbalance to the fact that they might not. If a cop dismisses a complaint because they didn't think the victim was credible, the fact that there is a policy means they can be shown to have contradicted it. "Education programmes" can take place at the same time, but without at least the pretence that there are consequences involved, people will rightly be even more cynical about these than they are already.

This.

There are several postings above that make perfect sense as epistemology. But very few cops can spell that, let alone discuss it.

The orders that an hierarchical organisation issues are not judged by their truth, demonstrated knowledge or even coherence, but by their expected effect.

So the Met was telling cops "You will believe"... was there a more effective way of saying "you will not leave complainants feeling you think they're lying"?

It's in a bit of shit now for the about-turn - especially among those who read the new policy as carelessly as many cops will.

But not as much shit as could have been generated by an honest order: "You will not show complainants in what contempt you hold them and in particular you will make no public statement suggesting that complainants lie."

 

[SpookyFrank]

Fuck me, the police are dim.

Ordinarily I'd agree but I think this move on Hogan-Howe's part is a calculated arse-covering strategy to negate the fact that his force has proven horrendously bad at dealing with these cases. It's a sly attempt at making the issue less grave than it truly is by implying that a good proportion of those making complaints are probably lying.

Even for a copper, this cunt never ceases to disappoint me.

 

[elbows]

Ordinarily I'd agree but I think this move on Hogan-Howe's part is a calculated arse-covering strategy to negate the fact that his force has proven horrendously bad at dealing with these cases. It's a sly attempt at making the issue less grave than it truly is by implying that a good proportion of those making complaints are probably lying.

Even for a copper, this cunt never ceases to disappoint me.

Sorry but thats a total misreading of what has happened here. The arse-covering going on here now is the opposite to what you think - sections of the media have been complete shits about the police daring to name and question certain VIP's, causing a backlash against the met, and thats what Hogan-Howe is responding to. If anything its a crude attempt to adjust a previous arse-covering. It really is not an attempt to insinuate the victims are all liars.

I sincerely believe that the way sections of the media and some MPs have behaved in relation to this represents one small but significant piece of the historical picture as to why VIP sex crimes were handled so poorly in the past. One that cannot now be claimed to be a thing of the past because its happened again before our very eyes.

 

[KKKool]

Sorry but thats a total misreading of what has happened here. The arse-covering going on here now is the opposite to what you think - sections of the media have been complete shits about the police daring to name and question certain VIP's, causing a backlash against the met, and thats what Hogan-Howe is responding to. If anything its a crude attempt to adjust a previous arse-covering. It really is not an attempt to insinuate the victims are all liars.

I sincerely believe that the way sections of the media and some MPs have behaved in relation to this represents one small but significant piece of the historical picture as to why VIP sex crimes were handled so poorly in the past. One that cannot now be claimed to be a thing of the past because its happened again before our very eyes.

Your point is invalid.

 

[elbows]

Your point is invalid.

Make the case why then.

 

[KKKool]

Make the case why then.

Just read what you posted. Its pretty self explanatory.

 

[elbows]

Even relatively mild forms of media distortion are dodgy on this front if you ask me. A very small example.

BBC article about the review includes this small section on Brittan:

There has also been scrutiny of the Met Police's handling of an investigation into a rape allegation against the late Lord Brittan, a former Home Secretary. He died in January 2015 without being told that the case had been dropped.

Any yet just a few days earlier we had this article regarding a review of the Brittan investigation, which concluded that despte some mistakes, there was nothing wrong with the basic decision to investigate Brittan:

Lord Brittan abuse inquiry 'fully justified', review finds - BBC News

Obviously I believe that the later article should not be talking about the Brittan case in such vague and negative terms and make no mention of the reviews broad conclusions.

 

[elbows]

Just read what you posted. Its pretty self explanatory.

No it isn't, not to me at least. I've followed things closely for some years now and the only thing thats obvious to me is that my opinion has long since diverged from the casual criticisms often expressed in regards to these matters.

 

[likesfish]

Seems the police have fallen into the satanic abuse mode everyone must be a nonce.

Trouble was their were cover ups and widespread abuse did happen.

But not everybody in the 70s was a nonce

 

[Lurdan]

Sorry but thats a total misreading of what has happened here. The arse-covering going on here now is the opposite to what you think - sections of the media have been complete shits about the police daring to name and question certain VIP's, causing a backlash against the met, and thats what Hogan-Howe is responding to. If anything its a crude attempt to adjust a previous arse-covering. It really is not an attempt to insinuate the victims are all liars.

I'd broadly agree with that, although the press are also using concerns about Operation Midland to get in some post-Elveden revenge. (And despite their outrage today on behalf of Brittan and Bramall they were perfectly happy to publicise the allegations against them when they first emerged).

On the issue of 'believing victims' it's worth reading Hogan-Howe's own words, rather than the Guardian clickbait version the OP quoted. The gap between whatever he says and what the Met actually does will undoubtedly remain but he is clearly aware of the issues involved.

Spoiler: Part of Hogan-Howe Statement

(...)
My second proposal is for a clear public statement about our approach to victim testimony in these very sensitive cases. The public should be clear that officers do not believe unconditionally what anyone tells them. They are listened to, sometimes at length, before the decision is made to begin an investigation.

We must be clear about the principle of impartiality at the heart of criminal justice. Dame Elish Angiolini, who has reviewed our approach to rape investigations, made a proposal that should be at the core of this debate. She detailed how our policy has moved over the years. In 2002, the Met said officers should “accept allegations made by the victim in the first instance as being truthful”. A report in 2005 called for a “culture of belief, support and respect”. In 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.” A complaint of sexual abuse must now be recorded immediately as a crime.

Dame Elish questioned whether it is appropriate, or possible, to instruct an officer to believe. Instead, she said: “It is more appropriate for criminal justice practitioners to remain utterly professional at all times and to demonstrate respect, impartiality, empathy and to maintain an open mind … in the first instance, officers should proceed on the basis that the allegation is truthful.”

I agree, and would add that a good investigator would test the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an open mind, supporting the complainant through the process. This is a more neutral way to begin than saying we should believe victims, and better describes our impartial mindset. Emotionally, though, it may not be enough to give victims confidence in our approach.

There’s a tension there that’s hard to reconcile, so I’d like it to be part of the independent review of how we investigate historical cases, which I announced on Wednesday. Police officers are trained to be sensitive to victims and complainants. They deserve public support in a role that requires them to listen to the worst that men and women do to one another and to children. I think we all need to recognise that, do what we can to help, then let them get on and investigate.

That statement and the simultaneous announcement of a Judge led inquiry into the Met's handling of historic abuse cases were intended to respond to a number of criticisms (not simply those from establishment chums of some of those investigated), and to position himself in advance of his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee on the 23rd. He's addressed some of the concerns raised about Operation Midland, and he's done so without giving his critics what they clearly want - an announcement that it has ended. (At which point, if there are no resulting prosecutions, it really will become 'open season' not just on the conduct of the operation itself but on "Nick").

 

[laptop]

[some of] the press are also using concerns about Operation Midland to get in some post-Elveden revenge.

Fo' sure.

(And despite their outrage today on behalf of Brittan and Bramall they were perfectly happy to publicise the allegations against them when they first emerged).

REVERSE FERRET!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

More about the contextual meaning of "belief":

The head of the police watchdog has criticised Scotland Yard’s commissioner for claiming that an official policy to “believe the victim” had caused confusion among his detectives when investigating prominent people for alleged sexual abuse.

On Wednesday Sir Tom Winsor said he had written to admonish Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and “corrected a misapprehension which he may have”.

...

In the letter Winsor stresses the policy of “institutionalising belief” was strictly about the recording of an allegation. He said the aim was to stop detectives disbelieving victims of crime, thus denying them an investigation into their claims. Winsor wrote that HMIC’s reports on child protection had found “a pervasive and discreditable culture or presumption of disbelief”, and that the 2014 report found that nationally, the under recording of sexual offences ran at 26%.

Police watchdog criticises Met chief's comments on sexual abuse policy

 

[laptop]

More about the contextual meaning of "belief":

Police watchdog criticises Met chief's comments on sexual abuse policy

Ah:

Winsor, the chief inspector of constabulary, said the watchdog had ordered in 2014 that victims should be automatically believed only for the purposes of recording a crime in official statistics. But the watchdog had said nothing about how the claims should be investigated and it was wrong to mix up the two.

So the order was not supposed to be as I suggested above: but was still far too subtle for the average cop.

 

[Athos]

It was always doomed to fail. If what they meant was that all allegations should be recorded as crimes, why not just say that, instead of this 'institutionalising belief' nonsense?

 

[laptop]

It was always doomed to fail. If what they meant was that all allegations should be recorded as crimes, why not just say that, instead of this 'institutionalising belief' nonsense?

Bcs DC Plod would have read that as "yeah, we fill in a form then we ignore the stupid."

 

[Athos]

Bcs DC Plod would have read that as "yeah, we fill in a form then we ignore the stupid."

As it happens, they wilfully resisted being told what to believe. Because it's patently nonsense to be told to believe something you don't.

The only way to takle the problem is to address the appaling underlying attitudes, so that they actually believe victims.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

What I suspect is happening here is an old guard of plod didn't like the idea that regulations were saying that they had to take complaints seriously, saw a situation where the great and good were offended, and are trying to blame said regulations for this to get them rescinded.