Shouldn't we be discussing the police?

You obviously feel we should be, so start the discussion and see if it develops a response. If you don't get one then the answer to your question is "nobody cares enough".

It's terrible isn't it.

My lad has just joined the police force and initially thought of joining the MET but decided not to. I think it was the right decision but of course some of the problems within the force are national.

The Met does seem like a sort of racist, sexist, misogynistic, rapey, murderous, useless and incompetent world of its own

What’s surprising is that anybody is surprised about the latest revelations. We all just shrug and say ‘of course a serial rapists has been working in the Met for the last 20 years with complete impunity. Par for the course’

Would anyone be remotely surprised if something even worse came to light in a months time?

Of course not

I love the talk of ‘bad apples’ when its glaringly obvious that the whole institution is rotten to the core

Sarah Evererds Met officer killer was refereed to by colleagues at ‘the rapist’ and this latest one as ‘Dave the Bastard’ and apparently that’s normal. Bantz! FFS!!!

These weren’t some junior kids either. They were senior firearms officers.

That tells you everything you need to know

And i imagine they manipulate their funding for 'crimes committed' by going after so many motorists, rather than street crimes like mugging or burglary, as that will produce less numbers of cases solved, and therefore maybe make them look incompetent, or not worth the huge amount we give them.

Recent high profile cases have fundamentally changed my views on the police force in general.

It hasn't changed my views of the police forces in general. Over my lifetime I have seen police forces become far more responsive to the needs of the communities which they exist to serve. Stephen Lawrence was one particularly important turning point imo.

I have also seen how corruption which was once so widespread has become such a rarity in recent times.

I suspect that if you look at global public opinion with regards to public confidence in police forces British police would rank very high indeed.

There is never any room for complacency however and it is only by relentless demanding the highest standards that improvements are made, and have been made.

Every failure which is exposed provides the groundwork for improvement imo.

You are Cressida Dick and I claim my place in the House of Lords

Working on your principle then the next serial rapist in the Met will only take 16 years to expose and maybe have only 50 or 60 victims?

Nothing stands in the way of progress, eh?

Probably still better than Nicaragua.

Probably….

The Met has always seemed to be a law unto themselves, going back to the SPG, and perhaps even further. I do know their reputation has always been one of thugs in an official uniform, who answered to no one. Nothing much has changed.

There is a reason why the SPG no longer exists. As you might imagine.

You know what happened to the SPG when they were disbanded?

You reckon they dedicated the rest of their lives to charitable and philanthropic acts?

We ended up with one of the *s as a local copper. They were absolute *ing psychopaths. Thatchers very own *ing stormtroopers. Utter and complete *s, every last one of them!

Nice of you to add defending the Met and the SPG to your repertoire of Boris and Tory cheerleading though comrade

So on a scale of one to serial rapist, how much of an improvement is ‘Dave the Bastard’ on the SPG?

U OK HUN?

When you have calmed down perhaps you can explain why the TSG don't have the same notoriety as the SPG had?

Have you even heard of the TSG? They have been around a lot longer than the SPG ever were.

What’s your point, caller?

It seems to be ‘they’re not all violent, psychotic rapists, so let’s cut them a bit of slack, eh?’

As someone who’s journey to school used to take me past truckloads of tooled up stormtroopers in black Mariah’s, bussed in from the Met to beat the shit out of miners for the audacity of wanting to keep their jobs, I’m probably not as benevolently disposed towards them as you

What’s your point, caller?

You seem to be having a rant at me and yet you don't even know what point I am trying to make?

I would have thought my point was obvious. IMO policing in the UK has improved significantly over the years, read my comment in my previous post.

You obviously disagree, presumably you think policing has become worse, and for reasons which I don't totally understand you appear to be really angry that I don't agree with you.

Edit : Oh you appear to have edited and expanded on that

As someone who’s journey to school used to take me past truckloads of tooled up stormtroopers in black Mariah’s, bussed in from the Met to beat the shit out of miners for the audacity of wanting to keep their jobs, I’m probably not as benevolently disposed towards them as you

So you think UK policing hasn't changed in 40 years? In fact possibly got worse?

The Met said a total of 1,633 cases of alleged sexual offences or domestic violence involving 1,071 officers and other staff were being reviewed from the last 10 years to make sure the appropriate decisions were made.

The MET employs 45,000 people so 2.38% of them are now having allegations of sexual offences and/or domestic violence against them reviewed - and that's progress?
800 current serving officers are under active investigation today into allegations of sexual offences - and that's progress?
In ANY other organisation that level of alleged offending - which excludes all other types of offence - would have led very quickly to thorough investigations, sackings with forfeiture of benefits, prosecutions, dismissal of line managers who chose to do nothing and wholesale re-orgaisation.
Little - if any of that - has happened; that's progress?

There may have been some action in the Met to act on institutional racism but that falls massively short of what is required for the public to begin regaining confidence.
Why do women - and men - choose to not report alleged sexual assaults to the Met? Because there is irrefutable evidence they will not be believed and/or any investigation will be cursory.
As for accusing a copper - look at the numbers above.

Who knows if other forces are less bad than the Met.

 

It's a question of lack of goverence, it almost has a hint of silent institutionalisation about it.

I mean, wasn't his nickname 'dave the bastard' or something?

So you think UK policing hasn’t changed in 40 years? In fact possibly got worse

Not a right lot seems to have changed

They were violent psychopaths in uniform back then and correct me if I’m wrong but one of their number was convicted yesterday of being a violent psychopath in uniform

Hardly a one off ‘bad apple’ either, was he?

You carry on excusing the inexcusable if you like though

Not a right lot seems to have changed

Well if you think UK policing hasn't changed in 40 years that is your opinion. I don't agree, I think incidents such as the Stephen Lawrence case, the Brixton Riots, etc, had significant affect on policing.

You carry on excusing the inexcusable if you like though

What exactly do you think I am "excusing"?

Or did you get so carried away with your ranting that you think I am excusing something?

When Stephen Lawrence was murdered, the MET was called institutionally racist

It still is

We now know it’s also a haven for murderers and serial rapists

So I guess you could say it’s changed, yes

There is never any room for complacency however and it is only by relentless demanding the highest standards that improvements are made, and have been made.

Every failure which is exposed provides the groundwork for improvement imo.

I'm not saying that you're a spokesperson for the Met - but this reads exactly like the sort of thing a spokesperson for the Met would say. And that's the problem. I think we're well beyond this kind of bland, meaningless statement designed to "respond" without actually saying anything of value. Let me guess: there'll be an enquiry? And the announcement of an enquiry will then allow the spokespeople to avoid saying anything of value/take any action until the enquiry has run it's course

In light of the recent revelation (coming just after the Sarah Everard murder, and their mind-bendingly stupid/ironic response to the public protests) I think the public are going to want a more meaningful response.

Both the Sarah Everard case and now this point to serious failures of oversight of the conduct of officers. Even if that's not tactually the case, it's certainly the perception, and needs to be robustly addressed.

The new commissioner has only been in role since September - so I wouldn't consider this to be a resigning matter for him (I understand that this case was a factor in Dick's ousting) - but I would expect him to have in place already a super-comprehensive plan to address oversight/screening/complaint handling etc. If he doesn't already, then THAT could certainly be a resigning matter (on the basis that this would make him an idiot), this has been on the horizon since he took office, he should (?) have had a team working on his response since day 1 - I would expect him either to announce his plan, or an ultimatum from the Mayor to be incoming in the next couple of days.

from what I know its more a MET problem than a police problem.

One thing I am convinced of is there should be a "no fault" system of investigations into errors.  Obviously that would not cover criminal acts but mistakes and misjudgements.  While officers are afraid of being disciplined for mistakes then we can never find out the whole truth as to how the mistakes happen and thus we cannot prevent them happening again.  when folk are afraid of repercussions for admitting error there is a strong incentive to cover up.  Same in the health service.  This is the system commercial pilots have

As regards the Met - the new boss seems to be less protective and more proactive than previous and its clear to me a far better disciplinary and investigative process is needed

We now know it’s also a haven for murderers and serial rapists

Well nothing that has happened has changed my opinion of the police in general.

If this has caused you to significantly change your opinion of the police I can only assume that you previously had an unrealistic view of the police.

The latest revelation is clearly shocking but it comes as no great surprise to me that a serving police officer should be found to be a serial rapist. I am not sure why anyone would assume that no police officer would ever commit a heinous crime.

Obviously there has been a serious element of failure in the latest case. Does that mean that there won't be any improvements and that there haven't been any in the last 40 years? No I don't think so. I suspect lessons will be learnt and further improvements will be made.

One of my family was a senior officer in the met decades ago.  Its a vastly changed place from those days from the tales he told me.  However its still far from fit for the 21st century

When Stephen Lawrence was murdered, the MET was called institutionally racist

It still is

You are saying that Doreen Lawrence achieved absolutely nothing?

The latest revelation is clearly shocking but it comes as no great surprise to me that a serving police officer should be found to be a serial rapist. I am not sure why anyone would assume that no police officer would ever commit a heinous crime.

But maybe it’s not expecting too much that they don’t get away with multiple rapes, sexual assaults, domestic violence, and false imprisonment over a 20 year period, despite repeated complaints made against them over that entire period?

Get me with my utopian visions and unrealistic expectations, eh? Madness!

You are saying that Doreen Lawrence achieved absolutely nothing

I don’t see what on earth she’s got to do with this. She’s an incredible woman who has changed many things, but certainly not anything within the metropolitan police. It seems that nothing much changes there. It’s still 1975

If the Stephen Laurence murder happened tomorrow the outcome would doubtless be the same

I suspect lessons will be learnt and further improvements will be made

Awwwwww… bless

Good luck with that

I am not sure why anyone would assume that no police officer would ever commit a heinous crime.

I don't think that's what the issue is, or what peoples expectations are. The issue is that there was a long history of criminal activity, which had been failed to be identified or acted upon, leading to terrible crimes (in this case numerous rapes) which could have been prevented had the Met been paying attention to the numerous complaints and allegations made against this officer.

Now you/one can choose whether missing these opportunities to catch this person was due to incompetence, or a more systemic inadequacy in oversight - but either one is fairly damning.

There is a much more important question than that which you should consider:

This person: a serial rapist and abuser of women, has been doing his day-job in the met for 27 years. He has, it seems, been fairly professionally successful in that time. How is hating women to this degree, and having such a twisted / no sense of morality compatible with having a successful career in the Met? How was somebody like that able to exist in an highly scrutinized environment that is (supposed to be) the antithesis of that behavior?

unless it's not an environment that is the antithesis of that behavior....

But yeah, lessons learned, improvements made.

Sometimes outrage is the appropriate response

The bottom line is that not only did he get away with monstrous crimes for decades, all complaints and allegations against him were casually dismissed and he was repeatedly promoted

All his colleagues knew him as ‘Dave the Bastard’ just as Wayne Couzens was called ‘The Rapist’ by his colleagues

What does that say about the culture in the Met?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never worked alongside anyone who was casually referred to by everyone as ‘The Rapist’

And would you believe it…, he was a murderer too. Oh how everyone must have laughed? Turns out that the nickname was massively selling him short

yeah - things like this come up, and I think about what'd happen if I said something blatantly racist or mysogenist in a meeting at work. My feet wouldn't touch the floor. And I was thinking about the "jungle drums" thread too.

A close friend of the family is a policeman, armed response actually (not Met) and apparently having complaints made about you by the public as you go about your work is just part of the job - he found it pretty demoralizing: that every complaint, however minor, spurious or blatantly vexatious had to be put under a microscope. He even got hauled over the coals by his commander because he got a (standard 3-point) speeding ticket - he accepts that he needs to be held to a higher standard.

So I do wonder how on earth culture in the met can be quite so dysfunctional, and certainly wouldn't want to tar other forces with the same brush.

from what I know its more a MET problem than a police problem.

Is my take on it too. The MET have always been known as the worst part of the police for cover-ups and corruption so I class it as a rotten part of the police service rather than the whole service is rotten. My 83 year old dad has plenty of stories of the MET being exactly the same all the way back to the 60s and the two police officers I know both don't like being associated with them either.

Cressida Dick should never have been given the top job after she approved the execution of Jean Charles de Menenez.

Overall, I’ve only ever had positive, helpful interactions with the cops. They’ve scraped me up and taken me home when I’ve been hit off my bike by idiot motorists and shown interest when my dogs get caught in poachers snares.

But then I’m a white middle aged man living in the countryside. Not where the problem is, presumably.

Here's my splinter arsed view.

Clearly a massive problem institutionally, that allows these things to happen and looks the other way. I listened to Mark Rowley on R4 yesterday (initially he wasn't even going to go on which made me think WTF!) and of course he said the right things, he had to and we all know what 'the right things' to do are but as he was repeatedly challenged - he and his predecessors have said this time and again, why do we believe them any more?

On the other hand - there's a quote up there that says 2-3% have investigations against them. If that's the tip of the iceberg and it's 10%, or 20% - which would be a HUGE institutional problem - there's still 80% that are genuinely good doing a very difficult job that their 'colleagues' have made measurably harder again by this behaviour. And I'm sure given the chance and the support they'd like to change their organisation for the better. The change has to be managed from the top but come from within - no more blind-eyeing because it's just a bit of bantz. No more accepting of there being a thin line between firm policing and thuggery. The (let's call them the 80%) have to stand up against it now and their senior bosses and Sergeants and Inspectors have to take seriously and protect whistle blowers every time they call something out, however minor, because that's the only way change can happen.

The interviewer asked as a woman - if I got into trouble in London, I am now scared of approaching a police officer because of the reputational damage that has been done. I'd feel the same for my daughter or wife. That is just so ridiculous a situation to be in in 2023.

looks like you are. My opinion is no, it is a cycling forum but meh.

"Cressida Dick should never have been given the top job after she approved the execution of Jean Charles de Menenez."
Why pray tell?

there’s still 80% that are genuinely good doing a very difficult job that their ‘colleagues’ have made measurably harder

But as others have pointed out, if the culture at the MET is so twisted that these 80% of officers either feel that they cannot, or shouldn't speak out against officers called Dave the Bastard, because of either the backlash they know they'll receive or that isn't "what you do". Then there's something seriously wrong. I don't doubt for a minute that the MET are still racist, despite Lawrence, I don't doubt that officers are violent, or rapists, despite the sacking of Carrick and Couzens

The Murder of Daniel Morgan is another case that highlights with perfect clarity the MET failing to investigate itself properly time and again and senior officers continue to cover officer's tracks, obfuscate and deny justice. If a case like this can go on in the full glare of the public, then I suspect what we don't know is hundreds of times worse.

OP Did the actions of Dr Harold Shipman change how you view Doctors.
Or Lucy Letby change how you view nurses?
Bad people exist all over the world. Some have jobs in public services.
Don't tar all people with the same brush.

All his colleagues knew him as ‘Dave the Bastard’ just as Wayne Couzens was called ‘The Rapist’ by his colleagues

I know that the West Midlands Serious Crime squad was disbanded but during the mid eighties, a black man was arrested for shoplifting in Next and died in police custody. The arresting officer was affectionately known as The Strangler!
Also at about the same time, I met a lad on a building site who’s brother had been arrested for selling dope and was offered the choice of being charged or selling for the police.
Again, around the same time we had the Hillsborough tragedy where a Policeman’s decision resulted in the deaths of 97 football fans where South Yorkshire Police lied and covered up the truth for many years.
I guess nothing has changed and all Police Forces have some bad apples but hopefully this current case will lead to much more scrutiny?

They have a big problem - they have no system for following the history of repeat offences of their own staff, and nobody followed up on individual incidents. Rather he was promoted.

Nobody is going to have to answer questions on this, and the IOPC don't think there's anything for them to look at - they saw no edidence of wrongdoing in what they were sent.

This isn't a 'bad egg' situation. 1633 cases applied to 1071 officers says that, and how long ago did David Couzens murder Sarah Everard? Any lessons learnt from that, or anything changed?

If you think this is a good process of improvement Ernie, you should probably have a quick reassessment. If you are a woment in London, a police officer is more likely to be dangerous to you than the general population

OP Did the actions of Dr Harold Shipman change how you view Doctors.

Was Shipman known as "the inheritor"?
Has another doctor in his area recently also been convicted?
Have you seen how many are currently under investigation?

Bad apples soon rot the rest of the barrel and there doesnt seem much effort put into weeding them out.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hero-police-officers-help-save-25089792.amp
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/solihull-lake-hero-police-officer-tried-to-punch-through-ice-to-save-children-141026672.html
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23133347.chorley-hero-police-officer-praised-good-deed/
These things happen every day and very rarely make the news. Do any of these headlines change your opinion of the police?
Or the officer who deals with that fatal traffic collision and has to inform the family?
Or the officer who talks the potential suicide down?
Or the officer who deals with domestic abuse?
Ffs....this place sometimes grips my shit

334 doctors have been struck off since 2016.

mattsccm
Free Member

“Cressida Dick should never have been given the top job after she approved the execution of Jean Charles de Menenez.”
Why pray tell?

Because she sanctioned then justified the murder of an unarmed, innocent man who was targeted by the police because he was brown. At the very least I expect the top cop to want to be certain of their evidence before they get their executioners to pin people down and shoot them in the back of the head.

. . . and then lie about it.

How many local command and senior officers are complicit in the offenders continuing their behaviour unchallenged and how many of them should now be facing dismissal proceedings..?
How on earth does this go on unchallenged for decades without severe sanctions on those involved in oversight?

I see this as two inter-related issues.

The number of dangerous and abusive police officers is, I believe, comparatively small in overall numbers. The chances of being raped or murdered by one is also small, as it is for any particular occupation.

The media going into a "can we trust the Police" frenzy is a dangerous one, it undermines the force as a whole, makes their already difficult task harder, and distorts everyone's perspective.

However, the officers who turn a blind eye to wrong doing and don't sort out the bad apples are a bigger issue, and unfit to command and/or serve.

All of this with the background narrative of a government stripping officers and resources from the service and then getting on their high horse when the service fails. If the thought of privatising the NGS scares you, how about private "security" everywhere?

OP Did the actions of Dr Harold Shipman change how you view Doctors.

because the GMC and the NHS made huge widespread changes to how GPs dealt with controlled drugs and death certs after what he’d done came to light. Something the MET and other police forces have pretty much failed to do.

that’s not to say other GP, doctors and nurses haven’t been revealed to be criminals since, but at least there is a culture of learning from mistakes

But as others have pointed out, if the culture at the MET is so twisted that these 80% of officers either feel that they cannot, or shouldn’t speak out against officers called Dave the Bastard, because of either the backlash they know they’ll receive or that isn’t “what you do”. Then there’s something seriously wrong.

As I went on to say:

"The change has to be managed from the top but come from within – no more blind-eyeing because it’s just a bit of bantz. No more accepting of there being a thin line between firm policing and thuggery. The (let’s call them the 80%) have to stand up against it now and their senior bosses and Sergeants and Inspectors have to take seriously and protect whistle blowers every time they call something out, however minor, because that’s the only way change can happen.

There's generally a call that offences committed against emergency services should carry higher penalties, does the reverse work - where someone has committed an offence made possible because of the position of trust, should that also have a higher penalty?

Every basket of apples has a few rotten ones.
How they are found out and dealt with is at the centre of my thoughts on this one. It seems to be that the few rotten apples can duck and weave the current processes in place to hold police to a high professional and personal standard.

I say this as someone with a few police and ex-police as friends, and as someone who's brother in law felt unable to continue to work for Manchester police due to racism internally, the week after he received a medal for bravery.

It's all a bit more severe than bad apples, one can usually save a couple of edible fruit from furthest away from the rot. It's more 3 gallons of fresh water and 2 pints of sewage making three and a quarter gallons of sewage.

The use of "lessons will be learned" is usually shorthand for no one taking responsibility for not doing their job effectively. Anyone using it in an enquiry tells me that the organisation doesn't give a monkeys.

That there are 500 officers that are not allowed to interact with the public in the Met says all we need to know about effect management and discipline therein.

committed against emergency services should carry higher penalties, does the reverse work – where someone has committed an offence made possible because of the position of trust, should that also have a higher penalty?

Sarah Everard’s murderer got Whole-life Tariff because of his abuse of power. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/whole-life-sentence-order-wayne-couzens_uk_61557355e4b008640eb051bb

Met boss also reckons it’s hard to sack people however I wonder if the people he refers to are ‘bastards’ and ‘rapists’ or ‘expense-fiddlers’.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/12/met-police-chief-its-crazy-i-cant-sack-toxic-officers-who-broke-the-law-mark-rowley

There’s generally a call that offences committed against emergency services should carry higher penalties, does the reverse work – where someone has committed an offence made possible because of the position of trust, should that also have a higher penalty?

judges have already made clear that harsher penalties will be imposed against police officers abusing their position.  New offences and harsher penalties are political window dressing.  Penalties are not a deterrent if you won’t get caught or prosecuted.

TJ - whilst the met definitely has a more public issue than anywhere else (and they are the biggest and in the heart of media land so not surprising), I think if any Chief Constable is waking up this week and thinking there’s no issue in their force of misogeny, potential cover ups or of good officers knowing who the dodgy ones are but doing nothing about it (or worse joking about it) they are probably sorely mistaken.  Is it better than 40 years ago like Ernie suggests?  Perhaps in some regards, but better isn’t good enough.

Brilliant... kingofhtefr's lights the blue fishing rod and the big hitters come wading in. His account doesn't even exist anymore! Thread should be retitled "Shouldn’t you be discussing the police?"
(Yep, that's all I've got to say on the matter.)

I suspect lessons will be learnt and further improvements will be made

Awwwwww… bless

Good luck with that

You do realise that your comment makes no sense at all don't you? You are suggesting that the police are not concerned that a multiple rapist should be a serving police officer and have no intention of doing anything to correct any failures.

If you get a chance when you stop for air between your rants ask yourself, why would the police, or any institution, or any business, be happy for a multiple rapist to be in their organisation?

Why would they be relaxed by all the bad publicity it is guaranteed to generate? Why would they care so little about the public's perception? Tell me what answers you come up with.

Wayne Couzens

I have never understood how some people claim that the Wayne Couzens issue changed their opinion of the police. It didn't change my opinion one bit. Maybe I am particularly cynical but it had never occurred to me that it was absolutely impossible for a potential predatory sex offender to join the police. I have never thought it was impossible for a police officer to commit murder.

If it comes as a total surprise to you that these things can happen then you were probably basing your opinion of the police too much on the writings of Enid Blyton and her lovable podgy Mr Plod.

Obviously any failures to minimise such risks is scandalous and unacceptable. Which is why I would expect the police to learn from any failures and correct issues which don't do their corporate image any favours.

The idea that the police don't care is clearly nonsense. However I fear this is just another subject which simply can't be discussed in a reasonable manner, despite the thread's title. It is just another vehicle for binners to go into one of his asterisk and exclamation mark ridden rants, and everyone else so-inclined to pile on. Anyone who doesn't agree is likely to get intimidated away.

I know that if I was a woman living in London I’d not trust the police. My 24 year old daughter sees this as one of the biggest problems in society right now - violence against women. Look at Andrew Tate etc. It is the responsibility of everyone- all men in society- to speak out against it, to call it out when we come across it, to teach our sons to respect women. The police included. Why does it seem that the police don’t want to fix their problem?

The Harold Shipman comparison is hilarious but quite useful. As nickc says there were big changes brought in following that case to make sure it wouldn’t happen again, has there been another Harold Shipman? To say that the number of doctors struck off is evidence of a problem is one thing- you could also say that it is evidence of the profession actually policing itself. What are the big changes being brought in by the met to make sure the issue of rapists and murderers in their ranks is eradicated?

I completely agree that the vast majority of police are excellent trustworthy decent people. It is letting them down to not deal with the ones who aren’t.

but it had never occurred to me that it was absolutely impossible for a potential predatory sex offender to join the police

I should have thought that would be at the very least an easy check (DBS) that should prevent any person with an offence to join (let alone stay in) the police. A cop I knew said to me that he’d got a speeding ticket (nearly 40 in 30 zone) and that he was going to have to go before a board that would determine whether he could continue to drive a cop car, if they can do that; they can - and should be preventing sex offenders. I refuse to accept that they’re aren’t enough citizens to recruit from that haven’t committed serious crimes

that shouldn’t be a controversial viewpoint.

Anyone who doesn’t agree is likely to get intimidated away

You are funny Ernie. This comment whilst you pedantically argue the minutiae of every point taking last wordism to absurd new levels... Self awareness is a wonderful thing...

On the Police, my guilty pleasure is watching those awful(?) bloody auditors on Yoo Toob and though it's heavy slanted, the Police (not just the Met) often come over as instutionalised, ego maniac, cynical, control freak bullies. Just try standing in the street, on the pavement, near a Police station with a camera in your hand and see how well their soft skills (or even their knowledge of/willingness to comply with the law) have developed....

On Mark Rowley, first week in the job he exposed himself as a complete twit. The old people were sitting in the road and causing general mayhem. He said (something like) 'while were hoovering these people up we're not fighting crime'. Y'know, where almost zero burglaries are even responded to, a very low percentage of sex crime is dealt with appropriately etc etc. Jumping on the excuse bandwagon like some crap middle manager from Marketing explaining why the latest campaign only increased sales by 0.0001%.

Tosseur.

I'm still here desperatebicycle and reading the thread with great interest, your contribution is appreciated. I don't have much more to say on the subject at present but glad the conversation is being had - as interesting as DIY, car/van, music, PSA etc threads can be.

You are funny Ernie<

Well I try my best.

Apart from an obvious attempt to throw an insult at me and I didn't really understand much of the rest of your post, although apparently you have some sort of issue with taking photographs outside police stations. If I was a bit cleverer I might be able to figure out what you are on about.

Still, although presumably your post was aimed at me there's no need to explain further, I get the general gist - you don't agree with me.

I’m still here desperatebicycle

Weird, your account doesn't have a profile page.

I don’t have much more to say on the subject at present

Yeah. Inneresting.

The idea that the police don’t care is clearly nonsense.

The problem is, do they care enough to air dirty laundry in public. There is very much a sense of institutional protectionism going on, and in this case they are very much looking like the catholic church.

Anyone who doesn’t agree is likely to get intimidated away

People are just disagreeing with you - Certainly nobody is being intimidating.

In particular they are disagreeing with your assertion which seems to be that this is all part of the natural incremental improvement of an organisation..... a mistake is made, a root cause analysis/investigation is done, preventative action is taken, and that everyone should accept that as the way of the world.

What most people seem to be saying, is that's exactly what fundamentally DOESN'T seem to have happened sufficiently in the Met for the last 30 years, and that those kind of platitudes are not sufficient this time.

Also, in the politest way possible, the style you seem adopt in discussions is one where you'll repeat what you think somebody has said back to them in the form of an outraged question ("are you saying that.......?").
Unfortunately what you are reflecting back is either a distortion, or the complete opposite of what they were saying. Not sure if that's deliberate or not.... but it's an extremely effective way to turn a discussion into an argument.

There is very much a sense of institutional protectionism going on, and in this case they are very much looking like the catholic church.

100%. Plus weapons and the powers to kidnap/beat/bully/intimidate etc...

A good friend was a senior police officer in Manchester /Warrington

One of his jobs was disciplining police for various offenses, drugs, fighting, domestic abuse... he was always complaining that his recommendation, ie. fire them- was always ignored, final straw was cover up over death of gang member police had some involvement with.
Ended in a dispute with force and him threatening to go to press, in the end he got a big pay off, but it nearly broke him, cost him his marriage etc.
Regards the met & serial rapists, something is deeply wrong there, but then look at rape conviction numbers in general...

There is very much a sense of institutional protectionism going on

in every case that comes to public scrutiny; Lawrence, De Menezes, Hillsborough, Couzens, and on and on is to firstly protect the reputation of the police at all costs regardless, secondly; apportion blame elsewhere even if that is untrue. And thirdly deny and obfuscate. It’s the tactic they deploy every time.

that’s why most folks have no trust in the Police

What EVERYONE else seems to be saying, is that’s exactly what fundamentally DOESN’T seem to have happened sufficiently in the Met for the last 30 years, and that those kind of platitudes are not sufficient this time.

You haven't read the thread in that case. The suggestion was made that absolutely nothing has changed in 40 years. I disagree, I think it's nonsense. But because I disagree I get a barrage of abuse, including bizarrely that I'm a Tory.

The problem is, do they care enough to air dirty laundry in public. There is very much a sense of institutional protectionism going on, and in this case they are very much looking like the catholic church.

Well they made the arrest and charged him. Failures have been admitted, do they care enough? Well it's not a good look so I think probably yes. Will something similar ever happen again? Well the point is to minimise the chances I would have thought.

"Institutional protectionism" is actually sadly a very common human reaction, it is not only restricted to the church or police. Dirty laundry is swept under the carpet, I have known families to ignore, never mention, pretend it never happened, what they would rather not face. Even if the issue was eventually resolved.

he was always complaining that his recommendation, ie. fire them- was always ignored

I do suspect that there is pressure not to fire somebody due to recruitment issues - but one would think by now they might realize that one is perhaps related to the other?

Regards the met & serial rapists, something is deeply wrong there, but then look at rape conviction numbers in general…

Indeed - perhaps these things are related too? An organization who seems unable to detect and/or effectively deal with their own team who have allegations of rape and abuse against women made against them - also having a poor record of policing these types of offences in the general population.

I have never understood how some people claim that the Wayne Couzens issue changed their opinion of the police. It didn’t change my opinion one bit. Maybe I am particularly cynical but it had never occurred to me that it was absolutely impossible for a potential predatory sex offender to join the police. I have never thought it was impossible for a police officer to commit murder.

Jeez, I'm agreeing with Ernie.

You haven’t read the thread in that case. The suggestion was made that absolutely nothing has changed in 40 years. I disagree, I think it’s nonsense. But because I disagree I get a barrage of abuse, including bizarrely that I’m a Tory.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that literally nothing has changed in the last 40 years. I'm sure you'll cut/paste somebody saying that, but that's so obviously not (literally) true that if that's the point you are arguing - then I think you may just be yelling into a void.

I think perhaps what was being voiced was the frustration that it seems like nothing has changed - ie: that the Met seems to regularly suffer from this kind of thing. The last case wasn't that long ago, and Braverman has indicated/forewarned people that more cases are going to be coming to light in the next few weeks.

Personally, I think that frustration is valid - seems like the Met just aren't able to respond to these scandals in a way that's proportionate to their seriousness, and that trend over time has led to more bad apples that one would expect/is acceptable, and those bad apples being more rotten by the time they are extracted from the barrel than is acceptable.

It is an "in" culture thing in almost every organisation. Almost every copper I know is pro cop and biased towards the public, any complaint as seen as likely backlash as the complainant is really a criminal.
To me this is normal behaviour, it is not right, but I cannot see how we should expect anything different.
This is why huge amounts must be done to combat it. At least UK cops are not habitually armed and doing WTF they like with guns...

I have never understood how some people claim that the Wayne Couzens issue changed their opinion of the police. It didn’t change my opinion one bit. Maybe I am particularly cynical but it had never occurred to me that it was absolutely impossible for a potential predatory sex offender to join the police. I have never thought it was impossible for a police officer to commit murder.

I don't think anyone believes its impossible either. I think the issue is that the institution operates in such a way that these things can carry on for so long and be suspected internally, without being addressed.

I don’t think anyone believes its impossible either. 

There used to be a time when in court a coppers word vs suspect, the copper woudl be believed.
I think/hope that has changed now. But in general we are supposed to trust them. I don't, but people do...

There was a former MET officer interviewed on Five Live yesterday (who herself had left the MET due to consistent racism and sexism) who said you could have a 30 year career as a front line officer and never go through any vetting procedures at all.

Given how tin-eared and dismissive they clearly are to any accusations made against officers, who's obvious character flaws are glaringly obvious to their colleagues, this is hardly a healthy state of affairs, is it?

Braverman yesterday was the latest in a long line of Home Secretaries mouthing the same platitudes that we seem to have heard a thousand times before.

I note that it wasn't the Met who actually exposed any of this, but the Hertfordshire constabulary. If it was left to the MET, maybe he would have continued for many years yet with the same level of impunity? Theres clearly neither the will or the system in place to do anything about the issue within the force

I've always been a bit cynical about the police but was a tiny bit surprised that they had a guy they called "the rapist" who was a rapist and then murderer. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if someone in my line of work turned out to be a rapist but there's no-one openly referred to in those terms, with everyone turning a blind eye to their behaviour.

Of course trying to argue over whether *nothing at all* has changed in 40 years is a bit of a silly straw man but this is singletrack so par for the course really. Of course some things have changed but the Met protecting its own in preference to the public seems very much ingrained.

May or may not have been mentioned..

Part of the problem is also decades of underfunding. Pressure on numbers has meant officers who in the past would have been sacked aren't, resources aren't there to do the vetting that's needed.

Case in point is Couzens. Couzens was a member of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary prior to SO19 & hadn't undergone the probationary period similar to other officers. He was, as I understand, taken on because largely he was fire arms trained & there was a lack of them. Neither had he undergone enhanced vetting.

This doesn't excuse the fundamental failings in any way, but it's important to understand the full picture. In part the failings of the Met (in this instance) are down to the failings of successive govs to provide adequate funding. The 20,000 PC'S promised by Johnson are only coming into replace those that have been lost in the last 20yrs..

He was, as I understand, taken on because largely he was fire arms trained & there was a lack of them. Neither had he undergone enhanced vetting.

It's a shit excuse for them to say we're under-resourced and a bit busy, so we can't do thorough background checks on someone who will be in charge of a firearm. Absolute bollocks.

You can't teach kids 5-a-side without background checks. You can't work at Costa at the airport without security checks. Neither of those involve firearms.

Don't worry The Met Commissioner and Suella Braverman will sort it all out. FFS

Of course some things have changed but the Met protecting its own in preference to the public seems very much ingrained.

Has the Met actually done that in the cases we are talking about? Were Couzens and Carrick actually "protected" by the Met?

There is a huge difference between protecting a corrupt copper and having a vetting procedure not up to the job or ineffective safeguarding protocol. You mentioned straw man.

It’s a shit excuse for them to say we’re under-resourced and a bit busy, so we can’t do thorough background checks on someone who will be in charge of a firearm. Absolute bollocks.

Agreed. I wasn't making excuses, just pointing out how the failings of chronic underfunding can help create the mess we have today. The numbers of officers on duty on any given night these days is woeful, scarily so. It's worth knowing the full picture so we know who else to point the finger at, who else is to blame, how to improve the situation & how to avoid these kind of terrible things being repeated.

Has the Met actually done that in the cases we are talking about? Were Couzens and Carrick actually “protected” by the Met?

Backsliding a bit, seems clear Couzens had other officers who shared his jokes/views. Whether that is being protected by "the Met" or whether it's a nasty clique within it is a question of scale and perspective, and the facts are still coming out.

And for all there are good reasons to want to have a go at the Police for their great and many faults, they are still the thin blue line most of us have to rely on. If we think we can do better, please apply....

Investigator in the Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos case resigns as her investigation was watered down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64304500

seems clear Couzens had other officers who shared his jokes/views.

I probably don't know enough about this, were the officers who shared jokes with Couzens aware that he was a potential rapist and murderer?

When you say "views" what views - views on rape and murder?

What is clear is that there appears to be an issue of with a certain level of misogynist culture among some police officers. Obviously it needs to be tackled but to somehow suggest that Couzens was protected by other officers who knew that he was a potential rapist and murderer sounds a little far fetched to me.

I probably don’t know enough about this, were the officers who shared jokes with Couzens aware that he was a potential rapist and murderer?

The fact that they called him 'the rapist' is probably a clue here