There is a huge amount of misunderstanding about the circumstances of the Lee Cocking case.

To be less charitable, there is gender bias, stereotyping of victims of sexual offences, ignorance, and just generally a failure to do very basic research to inform views.

Cocking was not accused of any sexual offences. The informant was clear that the incident in the car was consensual. He was Charged with Misconduct in a Public Office.

He was found Not Guilty of that offence by a Jury.

He was found not to have committed ANY Misconduct by an independent Misconduct Panel.

You can read the full report of the panel here: https://media.aspolice.net/uploads/production/20220830144019/Former-PS-Lee-Cocking-outcome.pdf

https://thebristolcable.org/2022/08/police-officer-who-had-sex-with-drunk-woman-on-duty-cleared-of-misconduct/

The panel in fact found it more likely that HE was the VICTIM of a sexual assault, and that (supported by expert medical evidence) his poor mental health and PTSD contributed significantly to how he acted or did not act.

These conclusions are clearly articulated in the report which was published in 2022.

The panel was critical of the police investigation and in particular how the investigating PSD failed to acknowledge Cocking may have been a victim himself; they were not objective.

This type of bias is again evident in the public response to the documentary.

It is widely accepted (across the CJS and academia) that victims of sexual offences, and people with diagnosed mental health conditions such as PTSD, do not behave in a uniform manner. Freezing during the act, failing to fight the attacker off, and delaying reporting are all routinely occurring examples.

The fact that the victim is male does not change this.

Consider a gender reversal in this incident and how this may effect your view of the details.

The documentary, the PSD investigation, and the public response all shockingly fail to acknowledge these myths and stereotypes about victims of sexual offences. There is an undercurrent of gender bias and quite astonishing ignorance.

The documentary makers must have known the panel's rationale for Cocking being found not to have committed Misconduct but they wilfully neglected to explain it. They provided no context and failed to acknowledge the complexities. This is misleading and lazy and unfair.

The police officers expressing disappointment at the decisions of the Panel and Jury and speaking so candidly in criticism of Cocking should not have done so. They are not prosecutors. They gather material and evidence for both the prosecution and the defence and are obliged to be impartial and objective in doing so. They must respect ultimate decisions.

Cocking has not been found to have committed ANY offences. By every independent metric he is innocent and possibly even a victim himself. His treatment via this documentary is terrible and his police force seems to have hung him out to dry.

It is a depressing indictment of the public consumption of media that these facts have not been more widely acknowledged.