PC dismissed for raping woman in police locker room

[Silver]

Yes, it's another Police thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11787634

Some selective quotes from the above linked article (in case you can't be arsed to read it):

[Phoenix]

To be guilty as an offence it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, which it wasn't. However, it was clearly not clear cut enough to satisfy the police disciplinary body which is not looking at the law but his conduct.

[Raffles]

So it's okay for police sergeant Mark Andrews to throw a (possibly drunk) woman around in a police cell causing her injuries but it's not okay for an off duty policeman to shag a pissed woman who was possibly gagging for it but later felt guilty for being a drunken slag
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[Silver]

That was my point. I imagine he's allowed to have (consensual) sex on his own time. On the other hand, if it was 'proved' he raped her then he would have been charged and yet the force are convinced enough to sack him. There's either proof or there isn't (or the force are happy enough to work on the law of probabilities rather than concrete evidence).

[colin1]

The level of proof needed for a criminal prosecution is different from that needed for a civil prosecution, and thats also different from the level of proof needed to sack someone.

You can never prove something 100%, so it does come down to what level of proof is acceptable. They dont like having scientists on juries, as scientists aim for something like 95% certain whereas laymen are happy to convict on 70%.

That's as it should be. There should be a higher level of proof needed to deprive a man of his liberty than to get him fired. It's a more serious thing.

I'm now hoping Mark Andrews will be fired on the basis that an officer cleared of a criminal offense can still be fired. I think a lot is going to come down to individuals in power and their view of the situation, which may reflect the realiy of the situation, or it might reflect their predjudices, or political needs.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Phoenix]

[Silver]

[Phoenix]

You're right, I thought there was a court case and he was found not guilty, still it was the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence, not the police, they may have thought there was enough to prove him guilty. The statement about such dreadful behaviour is ambiguous though and again may just mean what the incident has shown about his character rather than the act of rape, there's not enough detail to know exactly what they're sacking him for or what the evidence was.

[colin1]

[pepperami]

He was a police-man ! , his conduct should be beyond reproach!.

He is/was supposed to be an example to us all : a paragon of good virtue and that clearly was/is not the case.

taking advantage of a situation ie shagging a drunk bird may not be illegal but it is not ethical?

In my trade, I bet there were times when I could of shagged a drunk bird every week-end,but I did`nt!
Why? cos it`s just not right even if they said yes, the`re drunk for crying out loud.

He is a sexual preditor and as such, maybe he is`nt suitable to be a policeman
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!

[Syris the Indomitable]

That's well spooky man!
https://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6020/anighostflarec.gif
____________________
In Greek mythology Ichor is what immortals have in the place of blood
Those that mind, don't matter...Those that matter, don't mind. Do you agree with this?

[Silver]

For the record, I'm not saying he shouldn't have been fired, I'm just questioning how the police can fire him because of guilt but they see no point in attempting a prosecution. To me that suggests that the evidence is poor and the police have acted on a 'best guess at what happened' when considering his employment. Nowhere does it say he was fired for a lesser improper conduct offence, for example, the insinuation is that he raped her.

[pepperami]

[Silver]

[pepperami]

Nothing was proven and no one was prosecuted, but I see a rotter and possibly the force would be better off without him??imho.

Maybe if he had of been a little more careful of who he put his dick into, this case would never of come to light?
maybe the lesson for us all is to stay away from drunk birds
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!

[Silver]

Depends how drunk!

[lihp]

We had somebody sacked for theft from our place in work.

Now, there was enough evidence that it was very PROBABLE that she stole, but not enough evidence to prosecute, and prove that she DEFINATELY Stole.

If it was probable that he raped her, he'd be sacked, but that doesn't mean there's enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

In the article, it says that she said to a friend that she doesn't remember much of the night after the party, but was obviously conscious between the party and the station, so can't say for certain she didn't give consent.

[Raffles]

[The Artist]

Out of interest if the woman said she did not give consent and the guy said she did and there was no cctv or anything else interfering, he couldn't get prosecuted for it could he.

It would just be her word against his. Does it make any difference that he is a cop if it went to court etc?

[colin1]

[colin1]

[bootsbiker]

[pepperami]

Next time I`m dealing with a drunk bird, i`ll tell her I know a couple of virgins that could do with a bit of help
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!

[The Original Muzza]

[Silver]