We are currently experiencing network problems with the desktop version of Police Oracle. We hope to have these resolved as soon as possible.

Former Met officer allegedly “missed opportunity” to investigate Couzens

paul webb (15/05/23 @ 17:16)

Couzens the poisoned gift that just keeps giving. The sick depraved animal should never see the outside of his prison. However for the authorities to go after him for the indecent exposures. How on earth did that benefit the Met. The people on his WhatsApp group and now this former Pc are all collateral damage to his deviant behaviour. The MSM love it as it feeds into the anti police narrative they are pushing and then it continues to chip away at the public support for the police. This former officer is now working as an OnlyFans porn star just to make the story even more titillating for the great unwashed Yet more unnecessary hanging out the dirty washing as if she would ever want to be in the police again.

Blackstock (15/05/23 @ 18:15)

Am I reading this right? Couzens exposed himself on 14 and 27 Feb, albeit the manager did not report either incident until 28 Feb? It was presumably because it wasn't then on going that Ms Lee wasn't dispatched to make enquiries until 3 March. I am reading nothing to suggest that she herself dragged her feet in attending. So Couzens went on to rape and murder within a few hours of Ms Lee attending the drive thru? What could she have possibly done to prevent the killing? Even if she did everything at the scene in a proper, diligent manner, what then would be the necessity criteria to seek an arrest? Couzens name was garnered as a suspect due to it being his car the flasher was in, so his name and address is known. And presumably he had no known history of missing court, or intimidating witnesses etc. Prompt and effective? Prompt when even the police itself delayed any attendance to the scene for three days following the report, made a day after the second of the two exposures? If the job is claiming that the incident type was so serious as to demand some sort of immediate action, then why didn't the supervisor insist upon it? And if he or she didn't, why is he/she not before the panel? Indecent exposure I believe is a MOPI 2 offence. So why treat it as overly urgent? I see comments to suggest that Ms Lee didn't obtain the CCTV footage. Even if she did, how would that have stopped the rape and murder? I would suggest that even if she did, it would have taken time to produce working copies and still images grom it. All of which is rather moot.

Jensen2021 (16/05/23 @ 18:55)

Both very fair points below. The Met have employed a KC barrister, so another case of it being taken seriously, rather than police ‘protecting their own.’ Perhaps there are genuine criticisms of this officer’s actions, but as noted below, there is a whole context to consider, which the media haven’t considered of course, and trying to spin it like a cover up to suit their anti police agenda.

Leave a Comment