Jail for sex PC?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Jail for sex PC?
A police officer who had sex with a woman in a police station toilet was told today to expect a prison sentence. The activity took place after the woman followed him into the unisex loo in a Cornwall station. Now I accept there’s a disciplinary aspect here. He was after all being paid to catch criminals. But prison? For sex with a consenting, indeed, well up-for-it adult: Seriously?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 40
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by ShotOne
A police officer who had sex with a woman in a police station toilet was told today to expect a prison sentence. The activity took place after the woman followed him into the unisex loo in a Cornwall station. Now I accept there’s a disciplinary aspect here. He was after all being paid to catch criminals. But prison? For sex with a consenting, indeed, well up-for-it adult: Seriously?
Discipline the bloke by all means, but prison?! That's insane (and probably not legal... Where did you hear about this?)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
The story is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55107433
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 40
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by VP959
The story is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55107433
Psychophysiological entity
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 82
Posts: 3,131
And the officer that's lost everything by scanning, or not scanning, 10 quid doughnuts. He has a long history of service. Fired without notice.
He was in uniform. He did not re-label the item but put another one through twice. The conviction seemed to be based entirely on deciding what he was thinking at the time.
Video of him showed that he looked at the screen and therefore must have taken on board the purchase prices. Goodness know how many times I've stared at that screen while thinking of a totally unrelated subject.
He was in uniform. He did not re-label the item but put another one through twice. The conviction seemed to be based entirely on deciding what he was thinking at the time.
Video of him showed that he looked at the screen and therefore must have taken on board the purchase prices. Goodness know how many times I've stared at that screen while thinking of a totally unrelated subject.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,376
She was the victim of a crime and possibly in a vulnerable state, it could be argued that the officer took advantage of this. A police station toilet is certainly no place for this sort of activity. It was totally unprofessional on his part, shows extremely poor judgment and it could be argued that he may do it again. He has no place being a police officer.
Getting involved with her later on, once the matter has been finalised and there is no conflict of interest could be acceptable.
Getting involved with her later on, once the matter has been finalised and there is no conflict of interest could be acceptable.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tapping the Decca, wondering why it's not working.
Age: 73
Posts: 159
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
And the officer that's lost everything by scanning, or not scanning, 10 quid doughnuts. He has a long history of service. Fired without notice.
This case as reported in the local press has a nasty smell about it.
'a
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by ShotOne
A police officer who had sex with a woman in a police station toilet was told today to expect a prison sentence. The activity took place after the woman followed him into the unisex loo in a Cornwall station. Now I accept there’s a disciplinary aspect here. He was after all being paid to catch criminals. But prison? For sex with a consenting, indeed, well up-for-it adult: Seriously?
Last edited by TLDNMCL; 28th Nov 2020 at 02:34.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,192
Originally Posted by ShotOne
A police officer who had sex with a woman in a police station toilet was told today to expect a prison sentence. The activity took place after the woman followed him into the unisex loo in a Cornwall station. Now I accept there’s a disciplinary aspect here. He was after all being paid to catch criminals. But prison? For sex with a consenting, indeed, well up-for-it adult: Seriously?
A neat bit of selective outrage, but, alas, not entirely accurate.....sorry about this....but, he's not actually been sentenced.... yet... and, whilst a prison sentence was indeed mentioned, it was in the context of being a high probability rather than the actual sentence he can expect. But, this is JB where the outrage bus invariably breaks the world land speed record whenever it gets rolled out....
The rest of the article also suggests he was hardly a paragon with references to further contact with the lady and another one.
As for the former officer in Cambs, well lets put it this way. Last time I looked, a bag of carrots bore no resemblance to a box of doughnuts.......should I book a visit to an optician ?
Last edited by Krystal n chips; 28th Nov 2020 at 05:35.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 196
This issue is not that they have done wrong and should be punished, it is the fact that they are being or potentially being treated more harshly due to the fact that they are Police Officers.
I live in Cambs and not a day goes by in the local paper reporting on a Nonce that is given a community service order or a fine.
Yet a copper nicks some donuts and his life is destroyed.
I can tell you who I would rather have walking the streets.
I live in Cambs and not a day goes by in the local paper reporting on a Nonce that is given a community service order or a fine.
Yet a copper nicks some donuts and his life is destroyed.
I can tell you who I would rather have walking the streets.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
“Not actually been sentenced..” :thank you KnC; as I made clear in my original post.
“Hardly a paragon..”. Once again, I don’t disagree. But since when did we put people in prison for being “hardly a paragon”? Ask Keith Vaz.
“Hardly a paragon..”. Once again, I don’t disagree. But since when did we put people in prison for being “hardly a paragon”? Ask Keith Vaz.
Last edited by ShotOne; 28th Nov 2020 at 09:59.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,192
Originally Posted by ShotOne
“Not actually been sentenced..” :thank you KnC; as I made clear in my original post.
You casually missed this bit out....the word "options " may give you a clue here.
Taken from the BBC report....
" Obviously, the court will consider other options but I don't want to mislead you. You must come back realising that prison is very high on the agenda," he said.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
It seems right and proper that we hold people in public office, especially those charged with maintaining law and order, to much higher standards of behaviour than ordinary citizens.
In the case of the officer convicted of misconduct in public office, it seems as if there is more to this story than just two consenting adults having sex in a toilet. The officer was on duty, and the woman concerned was apparently a victim of crime. That placed a responsibility on the officer to treat the woman with the care we would expect any crime victim to be treated with, and not to take advantage of his position of authority. The situation is not dissimilar to a young teacher having sex with an 18 year old pupil. It might seem to be lawful on the basic facts, but we should hold people in responsible positions, especially where those positions also carry a degree of authority, to higher standards.
In the case of the officer convicted of not paying the full price for a bag of doughnuts, I suspect that the reporting of this story has also underplayed some of the evidence presented in court, something not exactly unknown when the media are trying to hype up a story. The evidence was clearly convincing enough to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the officer's actions at the check out were deliberate, not accidental. Had the media reports included the detail of that evidence, perhaps it might be easier to determine whether the verdict seemed reasonable. However, media outlets are unlikely to do this, as they deliberately make stories seem one-sided, as that encourages people to both read them, and, more importantly, for those stories to get "liked" or reposted on other forms of media.
In the case of the officer convicted of misconduct in public office, it seems as if there is more to this story than just two consenting adults having sex in a toilet. The officer was on duty, and the woman concerned was apparently a victim of crime. That placed a responsibility on the officer to treat the woman with the care we would expect any crime victim to be treated with, and not to take advantage of his position of authority. The situation is not dissimilar to a young teacher having sex with an 18 year old pupil. It might seem to be lawful on the basic facts, but we should hold people in responsible positions, especially where those positions also carry a degree of authority, to higher standards.
In the case of the officer convicted of not paying the full price for a bag of doughnuts, I suspect that the reporting of this story has also underplayed some of the evidence presented in court, something not exactly unknown when the media are trying to hype up a story. The evidence was clearly convincing enough to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the officer's actions at the check out were deliberate, not accidental. Had the media reports included the detail of that evidence, perhaps it might be easier to determine whether the verdict seemed reasonable. However, media outlets are unlikely to do this, as they deliberately make stories seem one-sided, as that encourages people to both read them, and, more importantly, for those stories to get "liked" or reposted on other forms of media.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1
Most major private corporations now have policies and rules in place where personal relationships with other staff need to be disclosed upfront and generally are not allowed within the same business unit or where a conflict of interest may arise.
The public service has always been slow at adopting these kinds of measures, and the fastest moving thing in parliament is a politician dropping his strides.
The public service has always been slow at adopting these kinds of measures, and the fastest moving thing in parliament is a politician dropping his strides.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by wtsmg
He wasn’t prosecuted, he was sacked after an internal misconduct hearing, which are surprisingly commonplace and the minutes of which are freely available on force websites which is why the press know the details.
Thanks for that, I should have read the reports more carefully. One wonders quite why he wasn't prosecuted, though? Perhaps because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he did this intentionally?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 44
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by VP959
The situation is not dissimilar to a young teacher having sex with an 18 year old pupil. It might seem to be lawful on the basic facts, but we should hold people in responsible positions, especially where those positions also carry a degree of authority, to higher standards.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 56
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown
Think 18 is legal according to the 2001 Act unless they are classed as vulnerable. I do know of 1st year Uni students sleeping with lecturer/tutor. Bit of a grey area it appears.
Are you sure that staff can shag their way through the upper sixth (or year 13 as they are now)?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown
Think 18 is legal according to the 2001 Act unless they are classed as vulnerable. I do know of 1st year Uni students sleeping with lecturer/tutor. Bit of a grey area it appears.
The (fairly young) chemistry teacher at the school I went to was going out with a girl in my class, she was probably 15 or 16 at the time (mid-1960's). No action was taken and they ended up getting married, and stayed married, probably still are. When the "Friends Reunited" website was going someone had organised a reunion of as many of us from that year as she could find, and they were still married then. I can't remember anyone being the slightest bit bothered by it at the time, other than a bit of mickey taking in class. If this happened now I dare say the teacher would be sacked, prosecuted and have his name plastered across the front of every tabloid.
