Policewomen Behaving Badly

Although women have become and appear to be becoming more violent, violence with a capital V is still primarily a male pastime. That applies to police officers as much as to anyone else, but not to Jacqueline O’Neill, whose violence was thankfully confined to throwing stones, although she was said to have threatened to run over the eleven year old daughter of a neighbour.

The stone throwing incident happened in the early hours of May 7 last year. Last week she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court where she was convicted of threatening behaviour and causing wilful damage to property. She was fined £520. She also made the local press, the national press, and the YouTube channel Police Abusing Powers. If that is the bad news, worse is to come. She is currently suspended from work and will face a disciplinary hearing soon. Normally, this would be a sacking offence, but Jacqueline O’Neill is nearly fifty years old, apparently with an unblemished record, so it may be she is offered early retirement or given a final written warning. No doubt she will be represented at the hearing and spin a tale of menopausal madness or some such, backed up by a medical certificate from a dupe psychiatrist.

If this sort of nonsense is uncharacteristic for a female police officer, false allegations of domestic abuse or false allegations per se are a typically female vice. It was this that led to the dismissal of Surrey officer Amanda Aston, who also completed the triple crown of local press, (inter)national press – Mail Online, and a certain dedicated YouTube channel.

Like O’Neill, she was over forty, but unlike her, she caused damage with a capital D to her victim. Matt Taylor is some nine years younger than his tormentor. He was a police sergeant but is now a former police sergeant. Aston’s false allegations of domestic violence and duplicity were so convincing they led to him spending two months behind bars, not a pleasant thing for a police officer. 

Aston used a technique used by other female psychopaths, she drip fed lies about him to their colleagues over a period of time, then made a 57 page witness statement in addition to a recorded interview. Thankfully, the truth eventually came to light, though not in time to save his career. 

Aston was charged with two counts of perverting the course of justice and also with defrauding the Police Welfare Fund of £5,000 with her hard luck story of having to move home due to this mythical abuse.

She was convicted after a lengthy trial at Maidstone Crown Court and on May 22 was given a suspended sentence, which is outrageous, but sadly typical. She is said to be a mother of one, which may account for it. She is also now living in Seaford, a long way from her mark. Last week, she was sacked after a misconduct hearing.

Finally, the case of Novlett Williams has been discussed here before. In 2018, this woman did something foolish, which at worst was an act of omission. Her sister was sent what can only be described as a grossly obscene video clip of  a man and a young girl. A number of other people were sent this video, and two of them reported it, but she didn’t. And for that…yes, police officers are rightly held to higher standards than the rest of us, but this was a step too far.

Another video her sister received was said to depict someone, apparently a man, having sex with a horse. A man or woman having sex with a dog is simply obscene and depraved beyond all meaning of the word, but someone attempting to have sex with a horse sounds ludicrous and probably looks it as well as obscene, so one can imagine it might have ended up on a website that caters to absurdity as much as one that caters to obscenity.

Unsurprisingly, the Black Police Association whined about racism, but this organisation is a joke. Novlett Williams was dismissed but was reinstated after an appeal. Now, would you believe, she has been charged with five more offences?

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, these are:

“On 22 November 2019 failed without reasonable excuse to notify the Metropolitan Police of the information required by section 83(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Regulation 12(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, namely the details of a credit card account.” 

And “failed without reasonable excuse to notify the Metropolitan Police of the information required by section 83(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Regulation 12(7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, namely the credit card number, validation date and expiry date of a credit card held.”

And “On or before the 11 December 2021 failed without reasonable excuse to notify the Metropolitan Police of the information required by section 86(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Regulation 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004, namely the details of your travel outside the United Kingdom between 11 and 19 December 2021.”

And two others. This is because she is a registered sex offender following that trial. Miss Williams has nearly forty years service under her belt; most police retire after thirty years with a fat pension. It remains to be seen why she didn’t retire a month after her reinstatement.

Here are the legal notes relating to registered sex offenders. They have no financial privacy and can travel abroad only with permission. Sex offenders in the United States face even more Draconian restrictions and often end up homeless. And lest it be forgotten, a sex offence can be a lot less serious than rape; it might be something as trivial as a drunk touching a woman’s breast, or as in the Williams case, something with no sexual motive at all.

Sex offender registration was brought in, ostensibly, to protect the public, principally the young. A full analysis would take us far afield but is it just, fair or sensible to brand someone – a man or a woman – a sex offender for watching a video, or in this case not watching a video? Registering people as sex offenders for trivial offences is stigmatisation, pure and simple. Yes, there are people who need to be kept away from children especially – women as well as men – but if they are genuinely dangerous, they shouldn’t be on the street in the first place.

Having said all that, Novlett Williams appears to be the author of her own misfortune this time round. As a senior police officer, she can hardly plead ignorance of these requirements. She must also have been aware of the fact that she was a marked woman and that someone higher up or lower down the food chain, would trash her life again at the slightest opportunity.