Sarah Everard Murder - Consequences

[LOL The Irony]

Hopefully one of the consequences are that all murderers are given life sentences that mean actual life from this point forwards. I will say though, that if this case wasn't publicised and politicised as much as it was, Wayne Couzens would've probably gotten 20 years and been let out after 10 on good behaviour. It also would've taken forever for him to be tried and convicted, but I digress.

 

[DarloRich]

Hopefully one of the consequences are that all murderers are given life sentences that mean actual life from this point forwards. I will say though, that if this case wasn't publicised and politicised as much as it was, Wayne Couzens would've probably gotten 20 years and been let out after 10 on good behaviour. It also would've taken forever for him to be tried and convicted, but I digress.

That is nonsense

 

[43096]

My view is that Cressida Dick should resign and to be stripped of her gong too. There is precedent in recent times, as the former big chief of the Royal Bank of Scotland Fred Goodwin got stripped of his knighthood when the 2008 economic crisis happened with RBS having to be bailed out.

That just comes across as knee-jerk "something must be done" territory. Having a woman leading the Met at the present time is probably a good thing, considering what we're talking about.

Who caught the murderer?

Fair point. Indeed the judge sentencing Couzens made particular mentioned of the Police investigation, how thorough it was and that there was absolutely no attempt by the Met to "close ranks" to protect Couzens.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That is nonsense

What part of it is nonsense? Are you suggesting that murderers don't get sentences that are too lenient, that he probably would've gotten a lighter sentence than he did, or that the trial process can be extremely slow?

Intentionally taking someone's life should be punished harshly, irrespective of any other crimes committed before or after, of which, should be used as an even greater excuse to throw the book at them. Is this a difficult concept to understand or am I not getting something?

That just comes across as knee-jerk "something must be done" territory.

Like the sacking of Danny Cotton?

 

[DarloRich]

What part of it is nonsense? Are you suggesting that murderers don't get sentences that are too lenient, that he probably would've gotten a lighter sentence than he did, or that the trial process can be extremely slow?

Intentionally taking someone's life should be punished harshly, irrespective of any other crimes committed before or after, of which, should be used as an even greater excuse to throw the book at them. Is this a difficult concept to understand or am I not getting something?

Most of your statement is nonsense. I don't think you understand the criminal justice system. You seem confused in your position. Perhaps undertake some research rather than relying on your chosen media outlet to generate your thoughts. The only sentence for murder is life. Your issue is in relation to the "tariff" or what "life" means.

There was a good piece by Joshua Rosenberg on this case which may help: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/will-killer-die-in-prison

You are right the trial process is very slow. I don't think you really understand why. One of the big issues is the lack of funding in the criminal justice system.

Aren't you just stating the obvious? Nobody is excusing what he did, it was awful. But what's your point? We can't trust Pilots after Germanwings Flight 9525? We can't trust Doctors after Harold Shipman? We can't trust lorry drivers after Peter Sutcliffe?

"They did here", he did here.

Every time someone mealy mentions some misdemeanour by a football fan you're quick to point out that the vast majority can't be tarred with the same brush. Yet here we are, talking about an incomprehensibly extreme and unusual criminal act by an individual, while talking about it in terms of what 'they' and 'the police' did. I'd have thought you more capable of a rational approach.

The big flaw in your argument is that each of the situations you refer to were investigated and subject to full public enquires. In the case of Shipman the report runs to something like 630 pages. Those enquires help to maintain/restore trust by showing that this really was just one bad apple and by setting out actions that must be taken to prevent it happening again. We need something like that here to maintain/restore trust yet we don't seem to be hearing any noises about this happening. We need to know how bad the infection is within the police and in particular the Metropolitan Police. There is clear anecdotal evidence of regular failings within the police force generally and the media are disclosing more and more issues with this chap that should have been dealt with by the Met in particular . We need to know why they weren't and how it will be avoided in the future. We also need someone to be held accountable.

Trust in the police is at stake. That cant be easily brushed off with "this is just one bad apple" because the police force didn't root out this bad apple and it looks like they had chances to do that. Because of that I think it is fair to ask how many more are rotten.

BTW: I don't suggest all coppers are badies. Far from it. The ones I know personally are disgusted by these crimes and the impact it will have on them. The worst thing for them is the use of the badge ( and all that means) to instigate this murder. Not all coppers are bad apples but this one was and the aggravating factor is that he used his position as a serving police officer to commit the offence. That is the big problem: The betrayal of the trust we have in the police and the perversion of position of trust to commit these offenses.

 

[al78]

Trust in the police is at stake. That cant be easily brushed off with "this is just one bad apple" because the police force didn't root out this bad apple and it looks like they had chances to do that. Because of that I think it is fair to ask how many more are rotten.

Trust in the police is at stake but this is an emotional, not a logical reaction. When it comes to the general case of whether to trust the police or not we need to find out how frequently cases like this happen, and what the probability of being on the receiving end of such a case is. Do people not trust GPs since Harold Shipman?

 

[brad465]

Like the sacking of Danny Cotton?

IIRC she wasn't sacked, but brought forward her retirement date in light of Grenfell inquiry revelations and her reaction to some of them. It's possible that Cressida Dick may hold on until Spring next year but that her contract won't be renewed, rather than being sacked, unless public pressure really becomes relentless and/or there's rioting as a result of Met police behaviour.

 

[Cowley]

IIRC she wasn't sacked, but brought forward her retirement date in light of Grenfell inquiry revelations and her reaction to some of them. It's possible that Cressida Dick may hold on until Spring next year but that her contract won't be renewed, rather than being sacked, unless public pressure really becomes relentless and/or there's rioting as a result of Met police behaviour.

I guess it goes with the territory?
On the one hand Dick (and I am justifiable in saying that for once) has had plenty of nasty situations thrown at her which is part of the job and will always happen. Seems pretty good at deflecting things because she’s a good operator and seems to understand people quite well.
Cotton however, although she’s made a high position, just seemed to rub people up the wrong way and come across as politically unsavvy and somewhat naively cold.
I guess that it’s worth looking at the salary and the prestige of the position being earned in this situation though. I mean I could probably take a fair amount flack if I was rapidly becoming a millionaire.

I am aware that I’m judging both of these people in a way that many men doing similar roles aren’t even noticed as they do their jobs ridiculously badly yet somehow continue to climb the ladder by the way…

 

[GB]

Another PC from the same unit has been arrested for rape (not connected).

Metropolitan Police officer charged with rape

Pc David Carrick, 46, of Stevenage, Hertfordshire, will appear via video link at Hatfield Magistrates’ Court on Monday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.

www.aol.co.uk

A serving Metropolitan Police officer has been charged with rape.

Pc David Carrick, 46, of Stevenage, Hertfordshire, will appear via video link at Hatfield Magistrates’ Court on Monday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.

Scotland Yard said Pc Carrick, who is based within the Met’s Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command, was charged with rape by Hertfordshire Constabulary on Sunday.

The officer was off-duty in Hertfordshire at the time, the force said.

Pc Carrick was arrested on October 2 by Hertfordshire Constabulary and suspended the same day by the Metropolitan Police.

The force said it awaits the outcome of criminal proceedings, adding that a referral has been made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick said: “I am deeply concerned to hear the news today that an officer from the Met’s Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command has been arrested and now charged with this serious offence.

“I fully recognise the public will be very concerned too.

“Criminal proceedings must now take their course so I am unable to comment any further at this stage.”

Malcom McHaffie, the chief crown prosecutor of CPS Thames and Chiltern, said: “The CPS has today authorised Hertfordshire Constabulary to charge serving Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick, 46, with one count of rape following an alleged attack on a woman on the night of 4 September 2020.

“The defendant’s first court appearance will take place via video link at 10am tomorrow at Hatfield Magistrates’ Court.

“The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has a right to a fair trial.

“It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

I think the police should be required to have 51% female officers.

You still haven't explained how that will help weed out the bad ones.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I think other measures are possible too. Police officers may lose touch with 'normal' life after being in a special organisation for years.

I am a harmless middle-class person who fortunately has little contact with the police (as mentioned elsewhere, like most of us perhaps). I live in a small quiet town where they are rarely seen, although there is a watch here.

 

[adrock1976]

That just comes across as knee-jerk "something must be done" territory. Having a woman leading the Met at the present time is probably a good thing, considering what we're talking about.


Fair point. Indeed the judge sentencing Couzens made particular mentioned of the Police investigation, how thorough it was and that there was absolutely no attempt by the Met to "close ranks" to protect Couzens.

Are you saying that Fred Goodwin never really got stripped of his gong after the 2008 economic crisis?

Are you also saying Ms Dick never did anything wrong back in the 2005 Stockwell shooting of an innocent man Jean Charles de Menezes, as it was a case of mistaken identity? Had any of us had done what she did, we would be house guests of Lizzie Windsor, and not at Buck Palace either.

Under Ms Dick's command, there has been a rise in stop and search, with a lot of those disproportionately targetting the black population. This is edging close to racism, of which the Met are trying to shake off.

Also, the report into the Stephen Lawrence murder had found that the Met is an organisation that has institutionalised racism.

Furthermore, regarding mistaken identity, Dorothy Croce sadly took a fatal heart attack when the Met burst into her home without warning. This was the catalyst for the riots in Brixton (1985).

In 1980, there was a fire at New Cross, where several black people lost their lives. It was reported that a white neo-Nazi group was near the scene. Nobody to date has ever been pulled into the dock.

All in all, is it any wonder how various sections of society cannot trust (in particular, the Met) the police?

 

[SteveM70]

Fair point. Indeed the judge sentencing Couzens made particular mentioned of the Police investigation, how thorough it was and that there was absolutely no attempt by the Met to "close ranks" to protect Couzens

The fact that the judge felt it necessary to make the final point is damning in itself

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That just comes across as knee-jerk "something must be done" territory. Having a woman leading the Met at the present time is probably a good thing, considering what we're talking about.

But if Commissioner Dick's only positive is "she's a woman", she probably shouldn't be in a very senior position.

I'm of the opinion that her blatant lies to the media after the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes in 2005, should have disqualified her from holding the position she now holds... but that's another story altogether.

 

[Crossover]

Perhaps the female share should be more than 51%. Maybe particularly large tall people could be recruited, apparently many of them have a placid temperament because they are used to people being wary of them.

The problem is "bad eggs" can be found in any part of society

 

[C J Snarzell]

Having served in the police myself for 15 years, I am quite appalled by the Sarah Everard murder.

Although, this is no comfort to Sarah's family, her killing is what I would describe as 'unique' in the circumstances. I cannot think of any other instances, where a serving officer has gone out and committed a premeditated random stranger murder and used his/her police powers to murder their victim.

There have been of course, serving officers in recent years who have killed their loved ones. A few years ago, a serving Inspector murdered his wife (also a serving officer) over their debts. An appalling crime, which although shocked a lot of people, it didn't necessarily create the same ripples as Sarah Everard's death.

What I have found quite worrying is the scaremongering and witch hunt against serving male officers in the aftermath of Couzen's conviction. One former female Chief Constable may just as well as branded all male officers as chauvinistic pigs when she was interviewed recently on the Sky news.

Many years ago, there was the Gene Hunt mentality amongst many old school male officers, but thankfully this has been ironed out due to the strict political correctness in the police service.

Although, I left three years ago, I found 99% of the time, police officers act professionally and go the extra mile with any victim of crime. In my period of service, there were odd occasions when male officers behaved 'laddishly' and although there was never any malice, sadly female officer's would judge this as offensive and inappropriate.

The fallout from this horrific murder is that the accountability of male officers in the service will be scrutinised even more. A friend of mine has recent handed in his notice after 22 years service, because he (like me!) has simply had enough of doing such a thankless job where he has no respect from anyone.

The Met Police and most other police forces are large organisations who employ thousands of people. In any large organisation, there is always a rotten apple but sadly a bad 'un in the police service causes a media storm rather than a bad' un who works for Asda or Tesco's.

CJ

 

[gg1]

I'm of the opinion that her blatant lies to the media after the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes in 2005, should have disqualified her from holding the position she now holds... but that's another story altogether.

Indeed, one aspect of that I clearly remember was the official statement released not long after the killing stated he had been running from police and vaulted over a barrier in the tube station. When CCTV was released that was proven to be a total fabrication.

 

[johncrossley]

Indeed, one aspect of that I clearly remember was the official statement released not long after the killing stated he had been running from police and vaulted over a barrier in the tube station. When CCTV was released that was proven to be a total fabrication.

How many years did the murderers of De Menezes get?

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact that the judge felt it necessary to make the final point is damning in itself

Yes, it's akin to him saying "well, I'm glad to see there was no collusion THIS time!". Hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

[C J Snarzell]

But if Commissioner Dick's only positive is "she's a woman", she probably shouldn't be in a very senior position.

I'm of the opinion that her blatant lies to the media after the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes in 2005, should have disqualified her from holding the position she now holds... but that's another story altogether.

I'm thinking that at nearly 61 years of age, with 38 years police service and four and a half years as Met Commissioner under her belt, why Dame Cressida Dick doesn't just retire and enjoy some privacy away from the limelight.

The Met Commissioner job is a poison chalice and most of her predecessors have come under scrutiny at some time for things that have happened under their leadership. Ian Blair and Paul Stevenson, both stepped down in the wake of something negative - I can't recall the specific 'why's and wherefore's' though.

I do suspect that this will become political now - the Home Secretary will be determine to stamp down on females being victimised by males and what better way of fighting the cause by ensuring the female Commissioner remains in charge.

CJ

 

[johncrossley]

I do suspect that this will become political now - the Home Secretary will be determine to stamp down on females being victimised by males and what better way of fighting the cause by ensuring the female Commissioner remains in charge.

I doubt it. She's extreme far right, so more than likely she hates women, just like she hates the EU and immigrants.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How many years did the murderers of De Menezes get?

Nothing, and that was probably the correct outcome.

Without wishing to go too far off topic, my objection to that incident in relation to Cressida Dick, is that she lied to the press and public about the circumstances leading up to the shooting. Tragic (and possibly avoidable) as the shooting was, describing the officers who were directly involved as "murderers" is unhelpful.

 

[LOL The Irony]

You seem confused in your position. Perhaps undertake some research rather than relying on your chosen media outlet to generate your thoughts.

My position is that life should mean everyday until you die behind bars and it should be the minimum sentence for murder, with death itself not off the cards. It isn't an opinion driven by any specific media outlet and I'm not confused.

The only sentence for murder is life. Your issue is in relation to the "tariff" or what "life" means.

Correct because 20 years is not a life sentence. Calling myself Jesus Christ, son of God doesn't make me Jesus Christ, son of God. So frankly, the fact that "whole life tariff" is even a thing is dumb. Life is life, you know that, I know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Then there's the whole "life" (minimum of 20 years, tee hee, gotcha!) nonsense that really pees me off. The minimum should be the rest of your life.

There was a good piece by Joshua Rosenberg on this case which may help: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/will-killer-die-in-prison

Which just proves my initial problem with the system. The fact you have to commit a special type of murder to get actual life is ridiculous.

IIRC she wasn't sacked, but brought forward her retirement date in light of Grenfell inquiry revelations and her reaction to some of them. It's possible that Cressida Dick may hold on until Spring next year but that her contract won't be renewed, rather than being sacked, unless public pressure really becomes relentless and/or there's rioting as a result of Met police behaviour.

Jeremy Clarkson suffered the same fate at the BBC, would you deny he was sacked? Danny Cotton was sacked. Cressida Dick should've been sacked 16 years ago.

But if Commissioner Dick's only positive is "she's a woman", she probably shouldn't be in a very senior position.

If anyone's only positive is "oh they're a X", then they shouldn't be in any position.

I'm of the opinion that her blatant lies to the media after the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes in 2005, should have disqualified her from holding the position she now holds... but that's another story altogether.

Correct. The fact she wasn't sacked on the spot for that is a disgrace.

I do suspect that this will become political now - the Home Secretary will be determine to stamp down on females being victimised by males and what better way of fighting the cause by ensuring the female Commissioner remains in charge.

The only reason she's still in her position is because both the Home Secretary and Mayor of London are authoritarian and she's authoritarian. Mutual ideologies are essentially keeping her in a job.

describing the officers who were directly involved as "murderers" is unhelpful.

I don't think so, SO19 aren't the most level headed people out there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think so, SO19 aren't the most level headed people out there.

That's not really relevant though, is it? They're supposed to be highly-trained specialists dealing with potentially the most dangerous threats to life. The circumstances that led to the de Menezes shooting (the 7/7 attacks and 21/7 attempted copycat attacks) probably led to those officers being somewhat "on-edge" because despite their training they're still human. What should have come from the tragedy of Jean-Charles de Menezes is better support and training for those officers in those roles, and the end of Cressida Dick's career as a senior Officer.

The ideal outcome would not be two or three officers jailed for life meaning life because in a high pressure situation they made a critical misjudgement that cost a person his life. That would put those officers on the same level as Wayne Couzens, when it would be hard to find two "police-related homicides" that were further apart.

 

[DarloRich]

My position is that life should mean everyday until you die behind bars and it should be the minimum sentence for murder, with death itself not off the cards. It isn't an opinion driven by any specific media outlet and I'm not confused.

Sadly your view is, if not confused, extremely simplistic. The real world ( and especially the world of murder) isn't black and white like you want it to be.

Life is life, you know that, I know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

This, again, is simplistic. Your position gives no ability to consider any mitigation: The wife who kills hers her husband after years of abuse is treated the same as the person who kills 5 people during a rampage. Your stance gives no credit for a guilty plea (which means the victims family don't have to go through a full, costly, unpleasant & time consuming trial) so why bother. You may as well go for trial and try and use, no doubt in your opinion, lawyers tricks to get off. You offer no opportunity for remorse to be considered by the court, for the level of premeditation to be looked at or for the risk to others in society to be assessed. You simply lock everyone up regardless.

Which just proves my initial problem with the system. The fact you have to commit a special type of murder to get actual life is ridiculous.

Did you read and understand the point of the article? It explains why a whole life term is a special class of conviction. I am very happy to lock people up for a long, long time and for life to mean life in serious cases but not all murders are the same and not all deserve the same blanket whole life imprisonment you suggest.

 

[LOL The Irony]

This, again, is simplistic. Your position gives no ability to consider any mitigation: The wife who kills hers her husband after years of abuse is treated the same as the person who kills 5 people during a rampage.

Such an event should already be covered under self defence and momentary insanity, no?

Your stance gives no credit for a guilty plea (which means the victims family don't have to go through a full, costly, unpleasant & time consuming trial) so why bother.

Oh no, anyways. Cry me a river.

You offer no opportunity for remorse to be considered by the court

Tough fecal matter. Once again, cry me a river.

"I'm sorry I murdered this person in cold blood."
"Oh look, they're remorseful, lets only give them 15 years."

You simply lock everyone up regardless.

Yes, and?

Did you read and understand the point of the article? It explains why a whole life term is a special class of conviction.

Yes I did, frankly it shouldn't. The only special class of conviction for murder should be manslaughter.

not all deserve the same blanket whole life imprisonment you suggest.

Yes they do.

 

[DarloRich]

@LOL The Irony - I think I will leave it there. It isn't worth it. Have a good evening.

 

[LOL The Irony]

@LOL The Irony - I think I will leave it there. It isn't worth it. Have a good evening.

Fair enough, I understood my stance would be controversial from the start and not to many people's tastes.

 

[SteveM70]

I'm thinking that at nearly 61 years of age, with 38 years police service and four and a half years as Met Commissioner under her belt, why Dame Cressida Dick doesn't just retire and enjoy some privacy away from the limelight.

Because the ego that drives people like her to attain positions like her’s can’t just be switched off

 

[Butts]

I don't know if I've missed something, but none of the articles I have read mention or speculate why he did it ?

 

[Busaholic]

Care workers in England have to be double vaccinated by November 11th if they wish to retain their jobs, regardless of why they are in that position. (Bear with me, this has relevance to what I'm about to propose.) The police in England and Wales now routinely take DNA samples from anyone aged ten or over who has been arrested in connection with any recordable offence: no consent is sought, and a 'no' will be ignored in all but the most limited of circumstances. Until relatively recently, these were not disposed of in cases where a person was found not guilty/charges were dropped etc.

My proposal might be considered rather radical, illiberal or another word of that sort, but I believe they are not only highly desirable but completely necessary if trust in the police is to be regained, particularly by women and city dwellers. It is that every individual, male, female or other who attains the position of Police Constable has, as a condition of employment, to have their DNA taken in a controlled environment, to be stored on a separate database linked to the national DNA database, and kept for an agreed number of years, beyond the period of their likely employment. Any refusal to comply would render their employment in the role null and void, as there is no legitimate medical reason for non-compliance. If any police forces still take on officers straight to a higher rank than Constable, then it would apply to them as well. The DNA, once sampled, would have to be compared to the general national database, which might well both prevent some unsavory types being taken on and, no doubt, some previously unsolved crimes being solved. The requirement would apply to BTC, Ports, Atomic Energy forces etc too.

That's my idea: I somehow foresee it being torn to bits by some, maybe many, on here but I regard it as having merit. Please forgive me if I take a little while to come back, but my best friend died at the weekend and I have to go into hospital for a procedure within a few days too. Just wanted to float it before I go to bed.