Did the Met betray rape victims to avoid bad PR?

An astonishing allegation in Brian Paddick's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

Former Metropolitan Police officer -- and Lib Dem mayoral candidate -- Brian Paddick has appeared at the Leveson Inquiry, and his witness statement contains an astonishing allegation against his ex-employers.

In a section about the Metropolitan Police Service's attempt to improve its image in the media, Paddick details the "negative commentary" on Ian Blair after he took over as Met commissioner. "The Met went from being very open to being almost paranoid," he writes.

One of the consequences of this, he adds, was that he was asked to "water-down" a report critical of the Met's handling of rape cases. Paragraph 19 reads:

Shortly after he became Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair asked me to review rape investigation in the MPS. Performance was patchy and he wanted the MPS to be the best in the world. The review revealed serious shortcomings and made strong recommendatons but senior officers were concerned about the impact the report would have on the MPS' reputation, particularly against the background of the criticisms levelled at the new Commissioner.

As a result I was told to tone down the criticisms and water-down the recommendations. My original report highlighted the changes over a period of four years, 2001/2 - 2004/5. It showed a large increase in the number of allegations of rape, but a similar fall in the percentage of allegations classified as rape by the police. It also identified wide variations in the way rape was investigated by the MPS within London.

The final report only analysed performance over two months in 2005 and sidestepped any criticism of the force, saying: "Any assessment of the performance of the MPS in the investigation of rape must be placed in the wider context of the complexity of rape allegations that are reported" and "without detailed case-by-case analysis, it's not possible to determine the extent to which police performance affected the outcome of the investigation."

In terms of remedial action, I recommended a radical change in approach, supporting a "consistent, victim-centred approach to the management of rape allegations". However, the final report concluded that existing practices were adequate, saying "it is adherence to best practice that needs to be addressed to ensure a consistently excellent service is delivered across London to the victims of rape."

[emphasis mine]

Paddick also claims that the Met's press officer told her that "her job was to ensure [the report] received no coverage at all". He concludes: "As a result, the service the MPS provided to rape victims was sacrificed in favour of the MPS' reputation."

If true, this is shocking. Campaigners have fought to bring attention to the low rates of conviction for rape, and the usual rejoinder is that there is no proof that cases are dismissed due to anything other than lack of evidence. The report outlined by Paddick would have provided useful statistics to challenge this, and help forces across London improve the way they dealt with victims.

Of course, this isn't the first time the Met's treatment of rape cases has been called into question. In 2010, an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that three officers in the specialist Sapphire unit faked a victim's statement to make it appear as though she had retracted her allegation.

Earlier that year, one of the victims of serial rapist John Worboys told the Guardian that her allegations had been dismissed by the Met, allowing Worboys to continue his spree. (He was arrested, but officers believed his story that the victim was drunk.) "They talked down to me as if it was my fault, as if I was the criminal, and I just felt they didn't take me seriously," she said.

The Evening Standard report into the IPCC's investigation of the case put it like this: "The officer in charge had a "mindset" that a black cab driver could not commit such an offence ... the report describes a culture in which officers did not believe women if they made allegations of a sex assault after a night out."

If Paddick's claims are borne out, it seems that problems with some Met officers' attitudes to rape victims had been identified long before these two cases -- and the chance to address them was missed. All in the name of positive PR.

Thanks to our legal correspondent, David Allen Green, for bringing the evidence to my attention. I'm on Twitter: @helenlewis

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland