Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Verification is a red herring because Wayne Couzens was indeed a serving police officer. The issue is the institutionalised misogyny within the police service that allowed a man like that to become and to remain a police officer despite previously committing sexual offences.
Please be fair here. Reading the reports of his indecent exposures, it is NOW known that the person was him. Before the terrible crime ,the police did not know that the flasher was W.C, police officer.
On one instance, One part of the Police knew that the flashers car was registered to a W.C. Failure to quickly enough process the enquiry meant he wasn't known as W.C, police officer.
As far as I am aware, the latest flashing enquiry got as far as getting a car number, again not getting as far as identifying the car driver as being W.C, police officer.
I have seen no factual report alleging that W.C. was identified as committing flasher offences, but because he was also a police officer, it was decided to go no further.
There is no evidence of institutionalised misogyny in the police any more than any other organisation. Police , as an institution, do not dislike or abuse women. If they do, how do you account for the high office held by as many women as they do , within the service. If you were correct, there would not be many.