Wrong wrong wrong

Always punish the woman.

The conduct of a detective who said “all men” were rapists and should be given a curfew to stop sex attacks has been found to be gross misconduct. Detective Constable Rachel Fletcher, of Northumbria Police, has been subjected to a misconduct hearing.

She was accused of saying “all men” were rapists and they should be given a 9pm curfew to stop sex attacks at night. Det Cons Fletcher, who worked in safeguarding, was also accused of describing transgender women as “c**ks in frocks”.

A panel, sitting at Houghton-le-Spring police station, has found that she made all of the comments and had breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to Discreditable Conduct, Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Equality and Diversity.

Chair of the panel, Assistant Chief Constable Andrew Hill, told the hearing that each proved allegation amounted to gross misconduct and they collectively amount to Gross Misconduct. The panel will now need to decide what disciplinary action she will be given.

The action they decided on was kicking her out.

During her evidence, Det Con Fletcher said she hated male violence and that some of the things they deal with in protection are “abhorrent”. She said: “But I have not said I hate men.”

She went on to say: “I have been labelled as a man hater because I call out misogyny and I’m a feminist. The atmosphere is, if you call out misogyny, you hate men. That’s what I have been told repeatedly at work – I hate men.”

Detective Sergeant Damon Hall said he witnessed Det Cons Fletcher make the comment about a curfew for men to another colleague while they were all working at Gateshead Police Station. He said Det Cons Fletcher said: “The only way to stop night time rapes is to put a 9pm curfew on all men.”

Det Sgt Hall said that, although she was known for her dry sense of humour, he did find the comment offensive. He said: “It was offensive to me as a male as it presumes that everyone is capable of rape.”

Or you could understand what she said as a matter of what to do in a situation of incomplete knowledge. Rapists don’t wear labels saying they are rapists, so the only way to be sure would be to lock up all the men. It could be a point about epistemology as opposed to a literal recommendation or an insult.

Det Cons Barbara Callaghan told the hearing how Det Cons Fletcher made the derogatory comments about transgender people during a conversation about new search guidance. She said Det Cons Fletcher had become very upset at the suggestion that female police officers would have to search transgender women, if that is what the individual wanted.

Oh no, how dare a woman get upset at the news that she might have to search a man’s body if he claimed to be a woman.

Det Cons Callaghan said she challenged her fellow officer when she said that transgender women were “cocks in frocks”. In her statement she said: “Although Rachel had a right to her views sometimes she would go to far. She said she would refuse to search transgender women as they are cocks in frocks.”

Why is that to or even too far? It is after all true that transgender women are men.

Comments

14 responses to “Wrong wrong wrong”

  1. twiliter Avatar

    That’s what trans means ffs!

    And yes, not all men are rapists, but they all *potentially* are.

    It was offensive to me as a male as it presumes that everyone is capable of rape.

    Now you’re talking. Not everyone is capable of rape, but how are women supposed to tell the difference? Sorry Det Sgt Hall, but you are in that group of potential rapists, like it or not. And “transwomen” are too because they are in fact male and in the same category. Maybe even more so due to the evident psychological deviancy.

  2. twiliter Avatar

    My daughter is grown now, but I still use the litmus test of *would I leave my child alone with this person* quite often. Yes to Martina, Julie and Rachel. No to, well we know who the creeps are.

  3. iknklast Avatar

    This is a discussion my husband and I have had several times. He is really good about getting furious about male violence against women, and most other things of the sort, but when it comes to a woman (stranger to him) crossing the street when he walks by, he gets upset. I have tried to explain, and tell him how it is when you are a woman facing a man you don’t know. All he ever says is that no young woman needs to be afraid of him, he’s a 70 year old man. And he doesn’t carry a weapon.

    And she knows that how? A 70 year old man with a gun can easily overcome a woman in her twenties, even if he doesn’t know how to fire it, because she has no way of knowing that. Guns and knives are both easily concealed on the person. I gave up a long time ago trying to talk sense into him on this issue; he listens on most things, but not on this.

    It seems like a lot of men take it personally when a woman implies that she can’t know they are not a rapist…or any other type of male violence, for that matter. I avoid the homeless men; he’s seen me do it. But he seems to think it is the look of them, that I can tell they might be dangerous. I can’t tell they are dangerous, but I can tell they are men. I am usually not keen to hang around unfamiliar men who are quite presentable and even dressed in clothes better than I could afford. They can be dangerous too.

    And we all know that if a woman is attacked because she is not taking precautions (or even if she is), she will be to blame. She was on the street; she was wearing [fill in favorite garment for blame; you can include a nun’s habit if you wish]; she went to a bar to network with colleagues; she went to a symphony; she was at the library; she was at the grocery store. It doesn’t matter. It’s always her fault.

  4. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Does that happen? I don’t think I’ve ever crossed the street because a man was in sight. Apart from anything else you’d have to be zipping back and forth like a pinball. And aren’t there usually men on the other side of the street too?

    Also, on the rare occasions when I do feel slightly uneasy about a man on the street, my primary instinct is to conceal my unease. Crossing the street does the opposite.

    I really don’t recognize this world where women are always zipping back and forth to avoid a man on the street.

  5. Omar Avatar

    Detective Sergeant Damon Hall said he witnessed Det Cons Fletcher make the comment about a curfew for men to another colleague while they were all working at Gateshead Police Station. He said Det Cons Fletcher said: “The only way to stop night time rapes is to put a 9pm curfew on all men.”

    Det Sgt Hall said that, although she was known for her dry sense of humour, he did find the comment offensive. He said: “It was offensive to me as a male as it presumes that everyone is capable of rape.”

    Which is the safest course for a woman: presume that all men are potential attackers (which includes rapists) or presume that only some unidentifiable ones, or even none are?

    Det Sgt Hall has a right to get as offended as he chooses to be. What he definitely does not have is a right to not be offended. Because that would make society unworkable.

  6. maddog1129 Avatar

    @OB #2

    I have crossed the street myself, but context is important. It’s not when there are multiple people walking on both sides of the street. I do it when I’m by myself, usually at night, and a man is walking either behind me, or approaching from the front. I cross when there is still some distance between us; I want to see whether he crosses too.

  7. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    I dunno, it always seems risky to me – that you’re signaling fear.

    But then again it’s all a bit abstract; I don’t spend a huge amount of time wandering city streets in the dead of night.

  8. iknklast Avatar

    This happened in a residential neighborhood in a state where almost nobody walks anywhere. And I don’t know why she crossed the street; there could have been a different reason. I wasn’t with him, so I only know his perception. I just think it’s interesting that a man who gets it in so many ways can’t understand why a woman might fear him, and takes it personally.

  9. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    People don’t walk? Lordy lordy I’d go nuts if I couldn’t walk.

  10. Bjarte Foshaug Avatar
    Bjarte Foshaug

    And we all know that if a woman is attacked because she is not taking precautions (or even if she is), she will be to blame.

    …according to the very same people who require women to show every creepy dude the benefit of the doubt right up to the last millisecond before he starts raping her.

    If a man really cares about women’s safety, the question he needs to be asking himself is: “In the absence of telepathic abilities, is there any reliable method/set of criteria/rule of thumb that would allow a woman to determine that I in particular deserve the benefit of the doubt without also leading to the same verdict for a lot of real predators?” If the answer is no, and you still insist on women taking the chance for the sake of your precious feelings, don’t pretend to care about women’s safety. (Also, fuck you)

  11. Papito Avatar

    The allegation seems a bit off.

    What she said: “The only way to stop night time rapes is to put a 9pm curfew on all men.”

    What was alleged: “…detective who said “all men” were rapists and should be given a curfew to stop sex attacks…”

    What was alleged is not what she said. She didn’t say all men are rapists. She said night time rapes cannot be stopped unless men are all kept indoors at night. Some percentage of men are rapists, and you can’t know which ones until afterwards.

    And then there’s the apparently dim Det Sgt Hall, saying “It was offensive to me as a male as it presumes that everyone is capable of rape.”

    In what sense is Det Sgt Hall not capable of rape? Mentally, physically, emotionally? Per English law, only men are capable of rape. No women are capable of rape, just men. Legally, Det Sgt Hall is capable of rape, and Det Cons Fletcher is not.

    Det Cons Fletcher wasn’t making a policy proposal, she was registering her disgust.

    And now I’m registering my disgust.

  12. twiliter Avatar

    I had an sort of epiphany about this not so very long ago. Not about how I appear as threatening, but rather how I appear politically. It’s all very superficial of course. My neighbor friend had one of her friends visiting from the left coast, and we took a drive to Helen (little tourist town in north Georgia) for the day, and along the way we saw yard signs for Trump, and his image on a big mural on one of the buildings in town. I’m sure it was just before the election. So she was properly disgusted with the area due to that, and I wasn’t at all. I lived in a rural area for most of my life, so I get along fine with rural people (I simply don’t discuss politics with them ((unless they insist!)). But when I told her that, she said “Well look at you though”! So I thought about it and although I dress fairly nondescript, I guess the casual farm boy attire, jeans etc., along with me being a fairly large male with beard and moustache (mostly kempt) screams Conservative! to some people. I guess I didn’t realize my appearance indicated anything of the sort. To know me is to love me, right? I haven’t changed my behaviors or anything because of it, but yes, people make assumptions based on stereotypes and appearances all the time. It just never occured to me that I was giving off some kind of vibe that doesn’t fit who I am. No, I’m not capable of rape for many reasons (or voting for idiots), but I am in that category of people, namely males, who might be. I don’t take it personally.

  13. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    What was alleged is not what she said. She didn’t say all men are rapists. She said night time rapes cannot be stopped unless men are all kept indoors at night. Some percentage of men are rapists, and you can’t know which ones until afterwards.

    Exactly. It’s a classic problem of epistemology: people confuse “we don’t know which people are the potential baddies so we have the rule for everyone” with “everyone is a baddy”.

  14. Alan Peakall Avatar
    Alan Peakall

    Is registering one’s disgust with a sub-class through reference to an essentially linked super-class more, or less, acceptable when the classes are rapists/males as opposed to Islamists/Muslims?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *