Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Six Hampshire police officers accused of breaching standards

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
As with @Turret_Monster that's an awful lot of extrapolation.

I'll stick my neck out and say they may have been exceptionally good and created an environment where others have been jealous of their achievements. The tall flower gets the scythe.


Yarp.
 
'in reference to the only black officer in the unit.'
That doesnt answer the question though, as I said he may be in on it for want of a better phrase.
 
The police has a certain lingo like most organisations. Expressing the hope that a passing asteroid might wipe out a certain estate is ok. Questioning why certain folk are allowed to breed (and even breath) is ok. Travelling folk may be referred to by a word beginning with P or other terms - it happens but it does seem as though these people have gone too far though.
 
My posts have talked around the issue generally. I haven't set out to comment on the specific case but to add, I hope, food for thought.

Regarding your second paragraph: you've just described BLM as well as the individual. If you're not on-message you're wrong - that's Wrong. Don't take the knee? You're Wrong. Don't add '#BLM' to everything you post? You're wrong.

@dogmeat nails it: guilty of WrongThink, no matter what other laudable qualities you may have.
Thats why this case is already over and its just a matter of the punishment to be decided.... If the Officers can dig up enough dirt of their own, then they're will be allowed to continue after they've grovelled a suitable amount, but their careers are finished anyway... If they're can't find any dirt, then there toast, because in the present climate senior officers give the strong impression of enjoying the 'make an example of them', way of thinking today.
 
My company is strongly over borne with what in the UK would be called woke people; the HQ is jam packed full of millenial snowflakes. I probably can’t call them snowflakes, however. I play the game, I keep my opinions to myself and if they start with their political shite in a work discussion, I close them down and ask them to keep to the task at hand. The quicker we get the work done, the less I have to listen to their snivelling.

I have my own opinions, which mostly are not congruent with theirs, but frankly, we’re not here to discuss either theirs or mine, we’re here to design communications infrastructure and projects. I have my friends, of the same generation as me and we may have private conversations about non-work matters, or (in former times) over a beer after work.

Seems to me these coppers should have had these conversations privately, or not at all, and just got on with detecting and preventing crime. Even if it was Pikeys that did it.
 
Just remember that at least one person has earned a huge leap up the career ladder off of this. Very likely with a transfer to a much wanted job in another department, and career-long protected status with any allegations of inefficiency or unprofessionalism easily written of as ‘revenge’ for their involvement in the sacking of their workmates.

Coming to a station near you (Before then going off sick for months at a time with stress and then suing for discrimination)
 
The article doesn't mention the amount of time spent on banter, so I'd suggest you're extrapolating quite a lot from little information.
So what?

I'd also ask if all the posters here who feel the officers are bang to rights for using terms like 'Pikey' can honestly say they have kept those standards themselves? Going through some of the threads on here would indicate that there may be a few in glass houses.
I'm sure I have allowed my personal standards to slip as described, but then it's not my profession to enforce the law in an unbiased (as much as anyone possibly can be) manner.

Calling a pikey a pikey on record (even a covertly obtained one) is a sure fire way of guaranteeing that lawyers for said traditionally mobile individuals will expensively and time consumingly challenge every case involving the indivduals so described - resulting in some guilty folks getting away scott free. Easily avoided by keeping your personal oopinions to yourself and in your own time.
 
Just remember that at least one person has earned a huge leap up the career ladder off of this. Very likely with a transfer to a much wanted job in another department, and career-long protected status with any allegations of inefficiency or unprofessionalism easily written of as ‘revenge’ for their involvement in the sacking of their workmates.

Coming to a station near you (Before then going off sick for months at a time with stress and then suing for discrimination)
How do you know that?
 

4(T)

LE
Seems to me these coppers should have had these conversations privately,

Evidently they did.

The evidence against them was apparently from covert surveillance and examination of their private communication means.


I suppose its down to the individual as to which side of this story is the most disturbing.
 

WatchingWater

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
Yes, that may be so, but you are comparing apples with a bench drill. And that's not the Police Force. Are you happy to have (let's say) a rape, a homophobic or racially-inspired attack on a relative investigated by police officers who do little to disguise their grossly misogynist, homophobic or racist behaviour? Do you think they would apply their full diligence to investigating an attack on a 'gay Paki' for example?
Do you believe the British Army, in Afghanistan will be able to provide an aid to a local who has been hurt by a landmine, or other such device, when half of the soldiers refer to the locals in a derogatory way? I think there's a difference in what is said in a break room/private group chat, and what is said in a professional environment. Being edgy in private is very different to being professional in public.
 

Cruthin1967

Old-Salt
A bug was placed in the office of the Hampshire police's serious crime squad and six officers have been charged with breaching professional standards for comments that in a previous day might have been dismissed as "off colour".

What surprises me is that if one were to read the threads relating to policing on this site one would be led to believe that such comments went out with the dinosaurs and that UK police services are now thoroughly taken over by knee-taking, woke, rainbow-wearing, social justice warriors. It would appear not, the spirit of Gene Hunt lives on.

I do appreciate this is the CA thread and therefore of a more serious nature but seriously, read the comments and then try and work out what their ARRSE names are.

Opening the case against them, Jason Beer QC said: “It was a unit that was racist – a black officer is described as a ‘pavement special’, ie a mixed-breed dog. People are described as ‘pikeys’; a black officer is accused of behaving like a colonial overseer running a plantation of white people. When speaking to a black officer, a colleague puts on a fake Caribbean accent – in fact he was from Ghana. A detail like that doesn’t matter, he was a black man after all.

“A black officer is accused of being flown to England from Africa in a crate and taken to London zoo; all the time a song is sung in the background to the tune of Buffalo Soldier.”

Beer added that “offensive” photos of black men were shared on a WhatsApp group in reference to the only black officer in the unit.

Beer also said the unit displayed sexism: “Women were called or referred to as ‘whores’, ‘sluts’, ‘sweet tits’ or ‘sugar tits’, ‘Dorises’, ‘a ******* Doris’ … A suspect is called a ‘******* ****’. And the officers ponder amongst themselves if a person using the tannoy system is ‘getting any cock’.”

Beer said the covert recording device caught derogatory terms being used for disabled, gay and transgender people, and suggestions that Albanian nationals “should be shot or even killed with a nerve agent”.

It was also said that “illegal immigrants deserve the death penalty”, Beer told the hearing. “The officers joked about immigrants having a ‘long swim’ and drowning in the sea.


Edited to add link.

These Plods are clearly not a great bunch of lads. But what isn't some senior officer dealing with this properly (in person bollockings, breaking up toxic teams, normal procedures) as opposed to bugging his own officers? Poor leadership - presumably someone gunning for a top job who wants to display "commitment to diversity" etc.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
These Plods are clearly not a great bunch of lads. But what isn't some senior officer dealing with this properly (in person bollockings, breaking up toxic teams, normal procedures) as opposed to bugging his own officers? Poor leadership - presumably someone gunning for a top job who wants to display "commitment to diversity" etc.
Or perhaps someone who feels that this needs stamping on, hard, in order to send a very clear message to the entire force. The cops absolutely need to be held to higher standards of behaviour and probity and I haven't got much of a problem with this. They knew the score, as detectives they should have been paranoid enough to assume the authorities might have them under surveillance - and, incidentally, there's no reason in the world not to implement surveillance on all parts of a police station, they remain accountable even when kicking back in their office.
 
The evidence against them was apparently from covert surveillance and examination of their private communication means.

I suppose its down to the individual as to which side of this story is the most disturbing.

Did you notice the section at the end? "Oldfield is also accused of attending work after excessive drinking, and DS Willcox is also alleged to have falsely recorded hours and overtime, according to Hampshire police.".

Someone made a complaint, which was serious enough and credible enough to warrant surveillance. Isn't that a Ministerial-level request? You can't seriously be suggesting that covert surveillance is somehow ungentlemanly, or that the Police are somehow immune? "I say, you there, we're going to be watching and listening to you in order to gather evidence against your thieving or terroristing activities, my good man! Worry not, however, we won't look at any personal emails that you send using your official work IT resources, and we'd certainly never listen to your phone calls". Who knows, perhaps the initial allegations were about corruption rather than bigotry, and that's why the surveillance was put in place? It's all hypothetical. Nice to hear that you don't believe that the Det should ever had tried listening in to PIRA... (and before you say "but that's different", this was the SOCU - they had higher security clearances, they were dealing with organised crime, they are primary targets for attempts at compromise).

For it to have got this far, the case against these officers was obviously well beyond the level of "interview without coffee, watch your language, march him out". I know they do a hard job; I know that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. But these don't exactly sound like top-third coppers... and isn't it interesting that there isn't a rentaquote from the Police Federation about how these good, honest, hard-working coppers are being unjustly accused?

Bang to rights, by the sound of it. Impeccable evidence, unacceptable behaviour, no excuse sufficient. Good riddance.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top