All Men Are Rapists’ Northumbria Police Detective Made Discriminatory Remark, Misconduct Panel Finds

DC Rachel Fletcher claimed one comment was a joke and insisted witnesses had misheard or misremembered her — but a misconduct panel branded her denials “wholly implausible”

DC Rachel Fletcher denied making the remarks and claimed colleagues had either misunderstood or misremembered what she said.

But the panel accepted the accounts of four police witnesses and found every part of the two allegations against the Northumbria Police officer proven.

Fletcher was found to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity, and Discreditable Conduct.

Each allegation was found to amount to gross misconduct in its own right.

The determination referred to comments concerning a curfew, the phrase “all men are rapists” and a “cocks in frocks” remark.

Fletcher told the hearing that the curfew comment had been a joke and did not reflect a position she genuinely supported.

She described it as a “flippant comment made in a more serious conversation” and said it had not been made directly in front of members of the public.

The detective said she would not make the comment again because doing so had meant she had “ended up in a gross misconduct hearing”.

She maintained that she did not hate men but hated male violence.

Fletcher denied saying “all men are rapists”, insisting it was not something she believed. She claimed one witness must have misremembered their conversations.

She did not accuse another colleague of lying but suggested that the officer had misheard or misunderstood what she had said.

Evidence accepted by the panel showed that Fletcher immediately retracted the “cocks in frocks” comment and apologised after being challenged by a colleague.

However, the panel rejected her wider account.

Its determination said: “The Panel did not find the officer a reliable witness of truth in giving her evidence.”

It found that the witnesses were more likely to have told the truth and described Fletcher’s suggestion that they had independently provided inaccurate evidence as “wholly implausible”.

The panel also rejected claims advanced during the hearing that the investigation had been influenced by senior officers or formed part of a wider attempt to remove Fletcher from the force.

It found no evidence that investigators had corrupted the inquiry, influenced witnesses or brought the case to silence Fletcher’s protected views.

The panel said Fletcher’s conduct was “intentional and deliberate” and involved discrimination against people with protected characteristics.

It added: “The officer is fully blameworthy and responsible for her actions that led to the findings.”

The panel concluded that the proven comments caused significant harm to individuals and sections of the public.

It warned that the conduct had significant potential to undermine public confidence and damage the standing and reputation of the police service.

Aggravating factors included Fletcher attempting to blame others, repeating the behaviour over a period of time and continuing after she knew it was improper.

The panel also found that she had failed to demonstrate insight or modify her behaviour after previously being challenged.

Mitigation included Fletcher’s policing record and what the panel described as the “very important work” she had undertaken during her service.

Character witnesses described her as kind, hardworking, diligent and dedicated. They also highlighted her work promoting women’s rights and advancing the force’s approach to tackling violence against women and girls.

However, the panel ruled that a final written warning would not adequately reflect the seriousness of either allegation.

It concluded that dismissal without notice was the only appropriate outcome.

Fletcher will also be placed on the College of Policing barred list.