IT’S really been a rotten few days for the police, hasn’t it?
First we had the landmark Casey Review into the Metropolitan force, which exposed a sickening culture of misogyny, racism and homophobia rife in the ranks.
Then soon after that it was revealed that the College of Policing was considering offering guidelines which would mean the names of those charged with serious offences would remain secret.
After pressure from the media, those in charge have now ditched the draconian proposals, thank goodness.
Because if this new ruling had been put in place then dangerous predators like David Carrick would probably still be walking the streets.
From tongue scraping to saying no, here are 12 health trends to try in 2023
The brave woman who first came forward to name the former Met officer did so after reading the victim impact statement given by Sarah Everard’s mother, Susan, at the sentencing of murdering cop Wayne Couzens.
Herts Police then charged Carrick with the woman’s rape and released his details to the media.
Within hours of the Press publishing his name and picture, further victims had come forward to report being raped and abused by him.
He was jailed for at least 30 years last month after pleading guilty to 49 serious offences — including 24 rapes.
That came about because of the media’s vital role in reporting open justice.
Of course, false allegations can ruin a person’s life.
Only last week I was appalled by the lying fantasist Eleanor Williams, who faked her rape claims.
But stats show that only a tiny percentage of allegations of this nature are actually false.
Overwhelmingly, those brave enough to report a sex crime are telling the truth.
The proposed change to guidance would have stated that forces “can” name those charged with crimes including indecent exposure, domestic violence or child sexual abuse.
How to de-clutter if you have a beauty stash to last you a lifetime
At present it states that they “should”.
With the aim of protecting the defendant’s privacy, it would have suggested that individuals do not have to be named.
This tiny change of wording would have protected criminals and potentially endangered the lives of many others — particularly women and children.
Decisions on whether to identify defendants at the charging stage would have been made on a case-by-case basis, effectively leaving it down to individual police officers to decide.
Thankfully the College of Policing made a major U-turn on Friday night after meeting with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Chief Constable Andy Marsh said: “The mirror journalists hold up to policing is such an essential part of our democracy.”
How true. After this week’s damning report from Baroness Casey on the culture inside the Met, isn’t it vital that our police forces are required to be more open about the way they operate?
Censor reporting
The review into the standards and culture of the Met was launched following the shocking kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard and it told us everything we already know — that the police need more transparency, not less.
Any plans to censor reporting would make it impossible to hold perpetrators to account — and women would inevitably suffer the consequences.
PUTIN FAT THE DOUBLE
WHEN it comes to Russian politics, conspiracy theories always abound.
But I have been enjoying the deep-dive video examination, which has now gone viral, of whether or not 70-year-old Vladimir Putin uses body doubles.
The video looks at Putin’s changing appearance over the years as possible evidence that he uses someone else to stand in for him on engagements he either doesn’t want to do or considers too dangerous.
Some suggest that one stand-in has a noticeably wobblier chin.
But who could blame him? Surely being Putin’s double has got to be the worst job in the world?
3D EGGS A YOLK TOO FAR
UNDOUBTEDLY the worst part of any holiday is queuing for hours to get past passport control.
But a new report suggests that in the future, passengers will be scanned and tracked as they make their way to the gate, meaning no more security checks.
Sign me up!
Some of the other suggestions from Birkbeck College are slightly more alarming.
Apparently hologram tour guides will let tourists road-test potential destinations “before they buy” and the breakfast buffet will be replaced with 3D-printed food.
I think I’d rather stick with the omelette station.
J-Lo shows you’re never too old to sparkle in sequin top
WHO says you can’t be fabulous over 50?
We’re positively awash with wonder women who are hitting their sixth decade in their stride.
Take Jennifer Lopez, for example, who said the other day that there are no longer any rules about how women should dress.
This was demonstrated by the 53-year-old superstar wearing only a strip of sequins on her top half in a sizzling photoshoot to promote her new shoe range.
Go Jennifer!
NO FAIR PLAY ON PAY
IT sounds too ludicrous to be true.
Last week we learned that a senior manufacturing executive was told she couldn’t have a pay rise – because her husband “earned enough”.
Jian Ping asked her bosses at James Durrans & Sons for a pro-rata pay rise after she moved to part-time working in 2016.
Her workload was not reduced significantly to match her revised status and so she asked to be compensated accordingly.
Annoyingly, this is all too common – the classic “five days in four” conundrum faced by many women who take a pay cut to work four days when they return to work after maternity leave.
That is clearly outrageous and unacceptable.
But worse was to come. Her bid for a pay rise was rejected by a company director, who argued that the salary earned by her husband – one of the company’s directors, David Armitage – meant their household income was “more than enough”.
A tribunal last week – which she rightly won – heard that her boss adopted the view that “a married woman cannot challenge her salary if her husband is a high earner” – which feels about half a century out of date to me.
Obviously, her husband works at the same firm so her boss knew what he earned (nearly eight times as much as she did, in fact) but that is really beside the point.
Does it really need to be said out loud that it should be irrelevant what a woman’s partner earns when she is being considered for a pay rise?
Imagine a man being told he doesn’t deserve a pay rise because his wife earns too much to justify it – there would, rightly, be uproar.
