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.
Completely. Police are people too, with wives, Gf's and kids, so as above utterly ridiculous to suggest such.
Perhaps in non violent or some situations the police will support each other and i would go so far even to say lie to protect their own in many instances if one is accused of being heavy handed or violent towards a member of the public. Though with that they in the cases that do come up claim not to have seen it exactly, or were looking the other way at that exact time.
But i dont think they would ever ever do the same to protect a rapist or murderer.
My problem with the police is the force of assault in any and all situations. Or at least from the many TV cop fly on the wall documentaries i watch. They seem to come into a situation high on Adrenalin
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.
Seems a little far fetched to me that somebody would think getting a nickname as "the rapist" but then turning out to be an actual rapist and murderer, was just a coincidence.
Again, it's not just the literal nickname - it's the fact that (discounting a coincidence) there was obviously a suspicion amongst his peers that he might be a bit of a wrong-un. This suspicion obviously came from somewhere, but whatever he did/said to earn it, obviously went unnoticed or at least not not-acted upon by the organisation.
Do you not read the papers? It was widely reported at the time that Couzens was part of a Whatsapp group with other officers who joked about 'knocking about' women and had a right old laugh about women getting raped and murdered
Inside cop WhatsApp group where they joked about 'slapping your missus about'
Met officers charged over Wayne Couzens WhatsApp group named
Horrific messages shared by Met Police officers in WhatsApp group with Wayne Couzens revealed
Probably all just 'bantz' though, so its fine, as is having the nickname 'the rapist'. I'd definitely be comfortable knocking about with a mate who everyone referred to by that name. Wouldn't everyone?
Just to pick up on one point mentioned earlier:
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
Regardless of what happened, who's in charge, the state of the police (up to a point!) etc I do think that this is actually quite a high priority.
The situation should not be allowed to result in a widespread reluctance to go to the police, any sort of fear or similar, and so yes, the reputation of the police does need to be protected to some extent.
couzens was nick-named 'The rapist' by
ex-colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and was known to like violent porn.
Difficult to believe that nick-name didn't move with him or that no-one in the Met knew.
Either the nick-name or his predilection for violent porn should have been a red flag; neither did.
That strongly suggests he was either protected or senior officers/other ranks were disinterested or unconcerned.
My problem with the police is the force of assault in any and all situations. Or at least from the many TV cop fly on the wall documentaries i watch. They seem to come into a situation high on Adrenalin
Devils advocate: cop blandly passing the time of day talking to a pensioner doesn't make good TV? Handing out fixed pen notices to motorists isn't that exciting to watch, whereas kicking in doors is. Point being: the boring stuff won't get you viewers & you're only seeing what then director wants you to see. You may also only be seeing a snapshot of the situation & not know what's occurred in the run up. I can assure you they are taught to keep the energy level low & only escalate in response to danger.
You could only be in the SPG for 3 yrs IIRC. Consequently loads would've gone through that training. My impression at demonstrations was that many of the police, particularly mounted, were gagging for a bit of violence hence people like Blair Peach and Kevin Gately being killed.
Its an institution that at its core is likely to spend most of its time telling people they cant do what they want to be doing. So it naturally will be "at odds" with the people it predominantly deals with.
This means its likely to pull up its drawbridges to some extent, and be forced to look out for itself.
Combine that with th existance of murderous rapists in all walks of life, and you can see how theyve got to where they are.
Perhaps if they were better funded, they would have more resources to get involved in positive community activities, that they cant currently do because they spend their working lives dealing with scumbags.
couzens was nick-named ‘The rapist’ by
ex-colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and was known to like violent porn.
Difficult to believe that nick-name didn’t move with him or that no-one in the Met knew.
Either the nick-name or his predilection for violent porn should have been a red flag; neither did.
That strongly suggests he was either protected or senior officers/other ranks were disinterested or unconcerned.
The Couzens thing is shocking though, I cant imagine that the 99% of great police offers arn't appalled at the colleagues to sat by and let that slide. There shoud be job losses and prosections all the way up the chain so they know its not normal behaviour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64319133
"All forces must check officers against police database, says Home Office"
Out of my own ignorance, what will this show? What offences or cautions would not have been noted on the police national computer? How much due process is missed? It too Son2 three months of vetting to gain his first airside pass.
I cant imagine that the 99% of great police offers
I imagine it's a higher percentage. But I can also imagine that just because someone has a "name" or reputation, it's possible for others who are close to genuinely believe that the individual is not engaged in an activity. Isn't that the definition of "banter"? Still shocking though.
Either the nick-name or his predilection for violent porn should have been a red flag; neither did.
absolutely agree that it’s a red flag; however I’m pretty sure one’s genre of preference is not included in even the enhanced DBS check. I’m not defending the disgusting ’laddish’ culture at all, but it’s very difficult to take heresay and rumour (until it’s in hindsight) and convert it into hard evidence that will stand up in an employment tribunal. I would imagine that the same culture that condones such misogynistic and vile banter also isn’t one that’s likely to encourage whistle blowing and ‘telling’ on a colleague.
A culture change is needed, and may well be underway, but there are no quick fixes.
It’s very easy to bash organisations with the benefits of hindsight, and it’s often completely justified. However caution should be employed to not tar all with the same brush.
. . . and then lie about it.
This is the key point for me. Their first instinct is to cover up their mistakes, which is how murderers and rapists get to act with impunity.
This is the key point for me. Their first instinct is to cover up their mistakes,
and the elephant in the room is that in their jobs, they learn exactly how to get away with it, too.
When there was the student fees riots or something around that time, 2011 or so, Liberty did a report (which I cannot find now for the life of me) showed that the rates of various crimes detected and prosecuted in the public were 1000's of times higher than that found and acted upon in the police. Liberty essentially did not believe this was possible, as GCHQ and MI5 MI6 etc had more rigourous vetting and also had much higher rates of proven crime in their ranks than the cops.
IPCC was challenged to repsond/address this and they claimed it showed the police vetting process to be the best of the lot...
I think the Liberty investigation was kicked off after the SPG beat up that newsagent ? Tomlinson? and He died?
Out of my own ignorance, what will this show?
The implication is that the police management are not currently vetting correctly and not regularly consulting PNC for serving officers.
Out of my own ignorance, what will this show? What offences or cautions would not have been noted on the police national computer? How much due process is missed?
PND will show intelligence as opposed to PNC. No idea if new police recruits aren’t washed against pnd already
It too Son2 three months of vetting to gain his first airside pass.
I suspect, like most vetting that will be two months, 29 days of nothing and two days of actual vetting.
the reputation of the police does need to be protected to some extent.
that hasn’t really worked out well for them though! I agree that it’s important to have a police force in which the public have trust, in that I agree with you. I would suggest their strategy to always deflect blame and refuse to investigate properly has in fact accomplished the opposite.
Thanks @kilo. I would have presumed that all police officers would have been checked for a criminal record. Intelligence could also be malicious, I have no idea of how this is recorded, but recall the national DNA database and requests for removal based on no further action/evidence/prosecution.
In Son2's case it was prolonged - involving references, school and so on, but it may well have been nothing then all in one go. It's been the reason for the delays at airports recently.
the reputation of the police does need to be protected to some extent.
Reputation?
If you were young and female and lived in London, would you trust the police? Because I bloody wouldn't!
And thats now pretty common. With good reason.
So lets just have a think about where the METs prevailing culture has got its precious 'reputation'. It certainly has one, but I doubt its one that any organisation would want.
Where does that leave the whole principle of 'policing by consent'?
This is the key point for me. Their first instinct is to cover up their mistakes, which is how murderers and rapists get to act with impunity.
This is a key point and why we need a "no fault" ( for anything non criminal) investigation process.
Take the DeMendez case. The cops involved were fearful for their jobs and their liberty. As a result the evidence they gave was slanted or fabricated. If they did not have that hanging over them then its far more likely that we would have found out what really happened and thus could prevent it happening again
Like almost all serious errors there was not a single mistake or action that led to the death but a whole series of them. Briefing, communications, attitudes and quite possibly recruitment ie the firearms officer did not have the right temperament.
The fear officers have of being hauled over the coals for mistakes leads to impossibility in investigating mistakes and thus they are repeated
I have followed one big local negligence case resulting in death in a local hospital. Superficially it looked like a single nurse at fault. But when it was looked at more deeply it was actually a litany of errors some going back years.
The fear of reprisals leads to a "them and us" we must close ranks atmosphere which leads to Criminals like those mentioned escaping scruitiny.
On police using excessive force
It doesn't have to be that way. I worked alongside the police doing triage on detainees ( mainly friday and saturday nights). A real eye opening experience seeing the violence the cops have to deal with on a daily basis and how restrained they were in return. I never saw a single incident of excessive force. I saw cops attacked with weapons, spat at and all sorts of appalling behaviour.
So if central Edinburgh can be like this then other forces could be as well
Binners is right about Manchester in the 80s - there was a very thuggish underlying trend then in the police there
Regardless of what happened, who’s in charge, the state of the police (up to a point!) etc I do think that this is actually quite a high priority.
The situation should not be allowed to result in a widespread reluctance to go to the police, any sort of fear or similar, and so yes, the reputation of the police does need to be protected to some extent.
Kind of missing the point - if you want to protect the reputation you do that by making behaviour better / safer, having routes to raise concerns, robust processes for investigation etc. NOT whitewashing negative stories - that is long-term damaging and may actually mean some vulnerable people are more at risk (because they seek help from dodgy officers).
that hasn’t really worked out well for them though! I agree that it’s important to have a police force in which the public have trust, in that I agree with you. I would suggest their strategy to always deflect blame and refuse to investigate properly has in fact accomplished the opposite.
Fair enough. I never said it was handled correctly!
Reputation?
If you were young and female and lived in London, would you trust the police? Because I bloody wouldn’t!
Also fair enough!
But that said: A) there's police outside of London to think of and B) most police in London are fine, protect the force's reputation as a whole, at the very very least in other situations (no young females involved).
Not saying that reputation is any good. Just that people shouldn't entirely lose faith in the police.
Not saying that reputation is any good. Just that people shouldn’t entirely lose faith in the police.
You have to remember just how bad the METs reputation was even before this latest exposure of a twenty year run or rapes and sexual assaults by a serving officer
Women should refuse to get into a car with lone male police officer, says ex-chief superintendent
Women should refuse to get into a car with a male police officer even if they show their warrant card, a former Met Police Chief Superintendent told ITV News London.
Dal Babu said women should always first make sure another officer is there, or a female officer comes along.
"Women will be asking the question should I get into a car if I'm approached by a police officer who shows their warrant card? My advice would be no," Dal Babu said.
"You need to ask for a female officer to come along. You need to make sure there is another officer there
Kind of missing the point – if you want to protect the reputation you do that by making behaviour better / safer, having routes to raise concerns, robust processes for investigation etc. NOT whitewashing negative stories – that is long-term damaging and may actually mean some vulnerable people are more at risk (because they seek help from dodgy officers).
Of course. Again, I never said it was handled correctly!
Just the point that the initial response to protect the reputation is correct, but should've been something more along the lines of "the MET is good, he is bad, some others are bad, we'll clean up our act pronto" instead of "the MET is good, lalala look over there"
In that silly example just going "he is bad, some others are bad, we'll clean up our act pronto" would cause many people to lose faith in the police and have more negative consequences.
I'm not very good at explaining myself here!
Son of 2 met police officers here, not to mention grandson of another 2, if you think the Met Police have not changed over the years I think you are wrong. Very different service now to what it was and like many organisations it continues to evolve and learn to cope with the pressure its under.
I have lived through my family's involvement the miners strike, Brixton riots and many other events in the last 50 years. My father was part of a TSG, a home beat officer, dog handler and was immensely proud of the fact he had only had to draw his truncheon/baton on a few occasions during his career. He always preferred talking to people and 99% of the time that worked (in later years the snarling German Shepherd by his side may have also helped).
I'm proud of the work my family did and of the Commendations they received. I have faith in the service as a whole, can it improve. Yes of course it can (and needs to), but they also need appropriate investment and support.
The implication is that the police management are not currently vetting correctly and not regularly consulting PNC for serving officers.
I think the second part of that is actually the most obvious failing. Upfront vetting is very difficult to do with any robustness. I recall being vetted in the 90's (not for police but similar vetting). You filled in a very long questionnaire with every address you ever lived at and things like "are you a terrorist" and "do you associate with anyone who is a member of the IRA", as well as questions about how likely you were to be bribed/blackmailed (financial, sexuality etc). Now whilst they did go and ask my referees the same questions clearly if I was trying to infiltrate the organisation I'd have been selective about who my referees were and what they really knew about me. Further clearance levels would have involved people who know you being interviewed etc, but good liars will have convinced those around them, and many people will join the police young perhaps before they've even developed some of their worst behaviours.
BUT knowing that pre-employment vetting is never going to be perfect you might expect that there is some sort of ongoing monitoring to spot signs of a problem. I think that only happens when a very specific concern is raised. Its not a routine thing, and there doesn't seem to be any easy way for a serving officer to anonymously flag concerns which might help prioritise who deserves the most scrutiny.
My understanding of DBS checks (which are a lower standard than police vetting) is that the onus is on the organisation to periodically redo its checks rather than the DBS proactively saying "the individual we issued with a DBS certificate last year has just been charged with an offence which means they would no longer get a certificate" or "in light of a recent conviction DBS certificate xxxxx has been revoked". My understanding is that this is different from Disclosure Scotland who automatically will contact organisations linked to an individual's PVG certificate when new information comes up. Of course, the issue is always sorting the facts from the rumours, but understanding and managing intelligence data and its reliability sounds like the sort of thing you would expect the police to be good at!
Anyone remember a few years ago someone started a thread where they said one of their female friends got beaten up by a policeman?
It turned into a multi-pager because a lot of people couldn't accept even the possibility a policeman would beat up a woman for no reason.
The public have been giving the police too much benefit of the doubt for too long.
This is a key point and why we need a “no fault” ( for anything non criminal) investigation process.
Take the DeMendez case. The cops involved were fearful for their jobs and their liberty. As a result the evidence they gave was slanted or fabricated. If they did not have that hanging over them then its far more likely that we would have found out what really happened and thus could prevent it happening again
The trouble with this is a large proportion of the public believe ACAB (I've been banned from another cycling related forum for arguing against it it's so pervasive in some quarters). The argument would follow that if any police operating under the same system would make the same mistake/decision, then QED ACAB. It becomes very difficult to separate individuals from the systems they work with in those cases because by joining the police you're implicitly agreeing with/upholding those systems.
e.g. should you let anyone prepared to shoot someone become a firearms officer
etc.
ACAB?
I am convinced no fault incident investigations is the key.
The trouble with this is a large proportion of the public believe ACAB
The trouble is a large proportion of the public believe all police are angels.
In the other thread I mentioned I reckon over 50% of the responses were, 'She must be lying. The police don't assault women for no reason.'
ACAB
All Cops Are Avoidingtheswearfilter
My wife, who is exactly the sort of person who should be in the police, joined Strathclyde Police in the late nineties and was sexually harassed out by the early noughties. I think there is something self selecting for negative personality traits when a job gives you power over big swathes of society. Similar to how the desire to be a politician is a high indicator of you being a lying slimy power hungry odious turd, but that of course is a separate topic.
For balance there are of course good and bad cops (boom tish)......
On cops beating up folk
I know of one case like this according to the lad. Apparently he was riding his bike along minding his own buisness when a cop pulled him off it and beat him up for no reason. Further down the line the truth came out. He was drunk and a face full of drugs. the cop told him to push his bike home and he got belligerent and refused and attacked the cop. Cops being trained in control and restraint put him to the ground and the laddies face got scuffed on the ground. He wasn't even arrested. They calmed him down and sent him on his way after locking his bike to a fence with his lock!. However what he told his mum that night and what the actual truth was were two very different things
Or another one that I was a part of. As above I worked in a police station doing triage. On arrival one day I was asked to go straight to one of the cells where a woman appeared to be injured. She was a small well dressed woman who had been removed from a flight a couple of hours before for her behaviour She was so belligerent shouting and screaming and threatening to kill me that I couldn't actually examine her tho she obviously had a broken arm. I went into the cells with two officers who actually removed me from the cell for my own safety. It turns out she had been drinking on top of valium and was out of her mind. We actually had to wait a further hour or two until it was safe to enter the cell to assess her and she was then taken to A&E with 2 cops.
I have seen women attacking cops on many occasions then complaining about brutality once they have been restrained. Restrained using minimum force and within guidelines after kicking biting and spitting on the cops
I am not defending all cops nor am I saying they never do wrong. However when working with the cops I saw the reality of what happens. The stories you hear are often not the actual truth by a long way.
Im not saying this is what happened in the case Bruce Wee is talking about but it my experience its at least a possibility
Edit:
Ill just mention again this is Edinburgh not london or manchester. Somehow here it all seems a bit different.
Im not saying this is what happened in the case Bruce Wee is talking about but it my experience its at least a possibility
The problem is that the majority of the public assume it's something that would never happen. Same reason priests were able to abuse kids for so long.
People only start to believe the victims when it happens to them or a loved one.
I used to work on 24 Hours in Police Custody.
I've no idea how the majority of them do the job, they must have the patience of a saint to deal with the "public".
If you were young and female and lived in London, would you trust the police? Because I bloody wouldn’t!
And thats now pretty common. With good reason.
There is good reason to assume that if a young female approaches a police officer in London he might rape her? Are you sure?
IMO the single overriding issue which undermines the public's trust in the police and their ability to perform their duties is lack of manpower. Not that the police have been taken over by rapists.
Obviously it is to be hoped that the David Carrick scandal will represent a watershed moment for the police, similar to the Brixton Riots and the Stephen Lawrence murder, it certainly appears as if it might be.
Although obviously those that deny that anything has changed in UK policing in the last 40 years and no lessons have ever been learnt will maintain, for whatever reason, that the police never change and improve.
Though quite what their solution is I am not sure, people's militia? Vigilantes?
Bruce - which goes back to my "no fault" incident investigation - because those cops who "turned a blind eye" are too scared of being punished to testify truthfully so the truth does not come out.
Its not that these bad cops "slip thru the net" Its that the net is full of huge holes and is not fit for purpose. Its more akin to a rusty bucket with no bottom!
Bruce – which goes back to my “no fault” incident investigation – because those cops who “turned a blind eye” are too scared of being punished to testify truthfully so the truth does not come out.
Its not that these bad cops “slip thru the net” Its that the net is full of huge holes and is not fit for purpose. Its more akin to a rusty bucket with no bottom!
Sure, but there has to be pressure for change.
As long as the general public's default assumption is that victims of police violence are lying then nothing is going to change.
There is good reason to assume that if a young female approaches a police officer in London he might rape her? Are you sure?
Have you read the piece I posted above? It’s not me saying that, it’s a former Met Police Chief Superintendent. And that was before this latest outrage
Though quite what their solution is I am not sure, people’s militia? Vigilantes?
Not employing serial rapists and murderers would probably be a good place to start
binners - you're wasting your time.
The Met the worst excuse for a Police force if there ever was one, full of officers that don't come from London with their racist attitudes.
Have you read the piece I posted above? It’s not me saying that, it’s a former Met Police Chief Superintendent
Yeah I read it. Dal Babu left the Met 10 years ago claiming that he had been unfairly treated. I am not sure however it gives him the definitive opinion on all Met related issues.
If you try hard enough I am sure that you will probably find another former senior police officer who doesn't claim that Met officers are dangerous and shouldn't be approached by young females.
I am not sure however it gives him the definitive opinion on all Met related issues.
Given that they had years of experience at a senior level in the MET and so be familiar with the culture, I’d say they’re better qualified to pass judgement than most.
I doubt you’d publicly level those kind of accusations without good reason. As has proved to be the case. The statement was made a couple of years before the latest expose of serial rape by a serving officer over a two decade period
Obviously it is to be hoped that the David Carrick scandal will represent a watershed moment for the police, similar to the Brixton Riots and the Stephen Lawrence murder,
But that's exactly what we all said two years ago about the last one
I was in the Met. Wasn’t from London. Wasn’t racist either.
That sweeping statement SuperScale20 is complete shit
I doubt you’d publicly level those kind of accusations without good reason.
Bitterness at being unfairly treated?
Anyway I reckon frankconway hit the nail on the head on the previous page - you are wasting your time.
Seriously, if you think the risk that a copper is a rapist is so high that no young female should trust one then that's up to you, but you really aren't going to convince me.
Ernie - there is a difference between the actual risk which is low and the perceived risk. Same as folk insist cycling is dangerous when the stats say otherwise
Its the perceived risk that is reflected in womens attitudes to the police
I'm sure there is TJ. But we weren't discussing the difference between the actual risk and the perceived risk.
Binners made the claim that he "bloody wouldn't" trust the police if he was a young female in London.
I think that is an unreasonable attitude to take precisely because the actual risks do not warrant it. The Met has not been taken over by rapists.
Edit: I also made the point that if there is a lack of trust that the Met will do their job properly then it is predominantly down to a lack of manpower. That is something which needs to be addressed so that the public can have greater confidence in the police.
No but the perception of risk is such that its not unsurprising that some have that attitude.
The rapists that have been exposed is just the extreme end of the misogynist culture that is on display. They won't trust the police because they don't believe they will be treated fairly, will be believed, that allegations will be properly investigated or that they will be supported. It seems they are more likely to be the butt of jokes in whatsapp groups than be taken seriously.
No but the perception of risk is such that its not unsurprising that some have that attitude.
Yes, I totally agree.
The Met has not been taken over by rapists.
Actual rapists, maybe not. People who condone a culture of borderline violent misogyny? That doesn't seem like a stretch, tbh.
No, there's a very low chance the police officer would be a rapist.
Sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic; sadly there's more than a low chance of that.
Again, if you flip the stats the other way and say (made up number) that 80% of Met Coppers are totally beyond reproach then yes the odds are good. But not negligible, and I wouldn't want my daughter exposed to even 'low level' stuff from someone they should be able to 100% trust.
Not read the whole thread but seems to be a bit of problem at the MET.
I was in the Met. Wasn’t from London. Wasn’t racist either.
That sweeping statement SuperScale20 is complete shit
Did you ever come across a colleague who you thought was racist or who expressed racist views (even if it was just bantz)?
Can I just check what other groups it’s OK to lump together and form a collective opinion of based on the behaviour of a tiny minority?
You know, like brown people, trans people etc. are they fair game too?
Can I just check what other groups it’s OK to lump together and form a collective opinion of based on the behaviour of a tiny minority?
You know, like brown people, trans people etc. are they fair game too?
White people, religious people, cyclists....
Audi drivers are the exception that proves the rule.
Cyclists… the red-light-jumping bastards!
Can I just check what other groups it’s OK to lump together and form a collective opinion of based on the behaviour of a tiny minority?
You know, like brown people, trans people etc. are they fair game too?
That's almost a clever point.
Do all brown people work together? Is there a WhatsApp group where they joke about what Ahmed the Rapist got up to over the weekend?
It's not that there are a few bad apples. It's that there are a few bad rapists and their colleagues create a culture that protects and encourages them.
It’s that there are a few bad rapists and their colleagues create a culture that protects and encourages them.
some of their colleagues. There are undoubtedly good coppers in the Met that are disgusted by this. Culturally they may not have been able to, or felt able to challenge it. While it's easy to say that if you aren't challenging it you're condoning it, a position I largely agree with, I think what we are seeing here is that have been no easy means to challenge it, where it is across many levels either actively or blind-eyed.
That has to change, then the Met can start to heal itself from within as well.
The issue is whether trust is so far gone now that even if it did heal itself, the trust can't be won back. That might be the case, in which case then a total restructure has to take place.
That has to change, then the Met can start to heal itself from within as well.
I don't think that's going to happen without serious and sustained pressure from the public.
That means we have to believe victims (or at least not automatically assume they are lying, even if they aren't 'perfect victims').
I don’t think that’s going to happen without serious and sustained pressure from the public.
That is vital; as the public we cannot accept anything less, but (and I've no way of knowing numbers) a substantial proportion of the Met also has to want it to change, and I believe do.
I work for a company with strong policies which takes action against poor behaviour (in our context that usually means eg bullying rather than rape, I have to be honest!) - but most importantly it has a culture where anyone could feel confident in calling it out to appropriate line management or HR and know it'll be dealt with.
The good coppers should be able to do the same. Once that's in place, and they know they will be heard and taken seriously - that's when you can start to work on the 'if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem'. That's what I mean by heal from within, by the time it gets to there being victims that means the low level 'bantz' hasn't been challenged and has become normalised. Or in this case is normalised. i
You know, like brown people, trans people etc. are they fair game too?
Dunno, do they work for the Met?
I unfortunately hold the rather negative view that sexist, racist and homopobic views are still commonplace in many workplaces in this country and many others.
What I've experienced in my working life (retail, factory, forestry and office work), has been largely 'laddish' behaviour with some sexist views, casual racism and unconscious bias (banter?). Which in itself is damaging to a more tolerant society, but I think it's still a large step away from a culture of institutionalised racism, misogyny and sexualised bullying/ abuse (which provides an environment where overtly racist views and talk of sexual violence is nornalised).
I don't know for sure if this the case with the Met as a whole, but from what is being reported it does appear drastic top to bottom action is required to change negative aspects of the culture, weed out any unsuitable employees and to try to restore the public's faith. The recent damning report of the London Fire brigade has prompted some decisive action, hopefully the Met will follow suit.
I think some interesting questions have been raised in this thread such as does the police force attract a high proportion of personalities that join because they want to abuse the privileged power that comes with many police roles.
Also does being in the police force (with the undoubtedly stressful situations they are exposed to) result in a prevailing view that all of the public are to be treated like they are criminals or potential criminals.
On a slightly lighter note I watched some Early doors episodes on iplayer after a recommendation on here, and the writing of the two policeman on there is some well observed satire.
absolutely agree that it’s a red flag; however I’m pretty sure one’s genre of preference is not included in even the enhanced DBS check. I’m not defending the disgusting ’laddish’ culture at all, but it’s very difficult to take heresay and rumour (until it’s in hindsight) and convert it into hard evidence that will stand up in an employment tribunal.
This.
Background checks are only useful if there is something to show up. If you've never been investigated, tried or convicted then what is the check supposed to flag up? There are plenty of bad people hiding in plain sight, whether or not their behaviour gives an indication of their true nature later on is immaterial if they can get in the door.
What I’ve experienced in my working life (retail, factory, forestry and office work), has been largely ‘laddish’ behaviour with some sexist views, casual racism and unconscious bias (banter?). Which in itself is damaging to a more tolerant society, but I think it’s still a large step away from a culture of institutionalised racism, misogyny and sexualised bullying/ abuse (which provides an environment where overtly racist views and talk of sexual violence is nornalised).
I'm in my 50s and I'd say that describes my workplace experience, mainly in offices, but I'd also say that the culture had changed hugely in recent years.
I cringe at what I probably said and laughed at in the 90s Lad Mag days, but as I've matured, and workplace standards have risen, I now understand what was and wasn't appropriate and I know where the lines are.
I still struggle sometimes to say things in the "right" terms - my son had to correct my wording the other day when I used "race" instead of "culture", but the fact that the next generation are able to do that shows that progress is being made.
And it does depend on background and experience - I have a Polish colleague who occasionally sounds very clumsy when talking cultural issues in an office with a very diverse workforce, but no one is offended as she is trying to discuss things she had no reference for points for when growing up on Poland, as well as doing it in a second language.
Maybe that lack of background experience is one of the factors with these 40something Met officers that is less of a concern with younger officers coming through
Difficult job. Don't envy them. Neighbour is ex police, lovely chap, has a few stories I've heard, and probably many many more he can't share.
Be helpful if all the forces admitted it the possibility that some of their members are wronguns, though. Nothing is perfect, including the vetting process. Do we reckon the current political climate will encourage forces to spend time and money on removing a few officers though?
Not sure I have much to contribute here that hasn't already been said better.
A good summary from a female perspective from Marina Hyde
https://twitter.com/marinahyde/status/1615608314209144832?s=46&t=UpcuN6296cuQNxmjBmyDyA
When it all goes wrong, it goes wrong spectacularly.
One of the "Independent" Police Complaints team resigns over interference in her work. Just when one doesn't want the implication that the club looks after their own.
Further up the thread we had an ex-officer saying he was not from London which would fracture the link between the service and the community if too many officers live outside the patch they are responsible for.
Interesting stat from the Byline Times -
An investigation by the Byline Intelligence Team has found that more than half of the Metropolitan police officers found guilty of sexual misconduct over a four-year period to 2020 remained in their jobs.
This included officers involved in misconduct allegations relating to vulnerable victims and witnesses, as well as the abuse of colleagues.
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and publicly available data show that, in 31 misconduct hearings between 2017 and 2020, 41% of police officers who were subject to disciplinary proceedings for sexual misconduct retained their roles following the decision. More than half of Metropolitan police officers found to have committed sexual misconduct also stayed in post: a total of 43 officers out of 83 or 52%
Somrthing very wrong there.
I’m sure there is TJ. But we weren’t discussing the difference between the actual risk and the perceived risk.
Binners made the claim that he “bloody wouldn’t” trust the police if he was a young female in London.
I think that is an unreasonable attitude to take precisely because the actual risks do not warrant it. The Met has not been taken over by rapists.
But trust IS based on perceived risk so its not an unreasonable position for anyone to take. it may be factually unsound, but its not unreasonable.
Edit: I also made the point that if there is a lack of trust that the Met will do their job properly then it is predominantly down to a lack of manpower. That is something which needs to be addressed so that the public can have greater confidence in the police.
Without wanting to turn into some sort of "political correctness gone mad" debate manpower is a very unfortunate choice of words to describe a lack of resources in the current thread. However the culture being discussed is not created by the lack of officers. I don't believe that if they had 10% more officers they'd be prioritising getting the wronguns out from within, or improving their selection criteria so they don't hire more from the same mould, or ensuring that if a vulnerable witness has to speak to an officer they never have to do it alone.
A good summary from a female perspective from Marina Hyde
It would be nice to get a female perspective from STW, but I'm not sure if any have contributed - I suspect that all 57 voices on this thread have been male?
10-15 years ago female STWers used to contribute a lot to threads but now they rarely seem to. In fact they seem to rarely exist at all - off the top of my head I can only think of 4 who have in recent weeks posted. I wonder if a laddish culture on here is the cause of that?
Also there used to be about at least 4 coppers who regularly posted on STW, I think possibly one copper posted earlier on this thread but I suspect there won't be any further contributions from them as they might have found the environment too hostile. Shame.
Edit: One of the coppers who regularly posted on STW was "easygirl" iirc. Makes you think.
or improving their selection criteria so they don’t hire more from the same mould
Given the prevailing culture that has been continuously exposed within the Met, would you consider applying for a job there if you were
• black
• female
• gay
• 2 or more of the above
The problem would appear to be so ingrained as to be self-perpetuating.
Seriously, if you think the risk that a copper is a rapist is so high that no young female should trust one then that’s up to you, but you really aren’t going to convince me.
What does "trust" mean to you? There's surely a spectrum of trust and a spectrum of situations you would put yourself in depending on the level of trust you have in someone. Would I go and report a crime to a police officer I didn't trust? Yes. Would I prefer to go and meet them in a police station rather than have them come to my house? Possible. Would I be happier talking to two cops rather than one? probably. If I was a young woman who had too much to drink and a lone male cop offered to drive me home in his police car? perhaps - even although it doesn't feel comfortable its still better than a taxi? If I was a young woman who had too much to drink and the guy I'm chatting to says he's an off duty cop and shows me his warrant card and offers to give me a lift home - I'd not be giving any more trust to him than any other random in the pub I might be talking to. etc. If I've known a guy for a few years and always found him a bit creepy would I let him walk me home because he's a cop so must be OK actually?
We are told from a very young age that if you are in danger / lost as a child / need help then go to a police officer and you can trust them. On the whole that is probably still good advice but if these cases don't make you at least pause and think, what if?
But trust IS based on perceived risk so its not an unreasonable position for anyone to take. it may be factually unsound, but its not unreasonable.
Without doubt. Which is why when TJ made basically the same point I replied "Yes, I totally agree". It's up there ^^
Without wanting to turn into some sort of “political correctness gone mad” debate manpower is a very unfortunate choice of words to describe a lack of resources in the current thread.
Yes it did vaguely cross my mind as I wrote it whether I should use the term "manpower" but because I am not very PC and can't be arsed to find out what the latest term imported from America is I decided not to worry.
But "very unfortunate choice of words"? I don't think so. I'm sure that any offended bloke on this thread can deal with it 😏
Also does being in the police force (with the undoubtedly stressful situations they are exposed to) result in a prevailing view that all of the public are to be treated like they are criminals or potential criminals.
One of my previous neighbours and one of my current neighbours, both Prison Service, had opinions that were undoubtedly influenced by their work. Both almost paranoid in their level of suspicion and hostility to certain other groups, including teenage kids. It took me a while to make that connection with their job.
Yes it did vaguely cross my mind as I wrote it whether I should use the term “manpower” but because I am not very PC and can’t be arsed to find out what the latest term imported from America is I decided not to worry.
But “very unfortunate choice of words”? I don’t think so. I’m sure that any offended bloke on this thread can deal with it 😏
Crikey - a stark contrast to...
10-15 years ago female STWers used to contribute a lot to threads but now they rarely seem to. In fact they seem to rarely exist at all – off the top of my head I can only think of 4 who have in recent weeks posted. I wonder if a laddish culture on here is the cause of that?
Can I just check what other groups it’s OK to lump together and form a collective opinion of based on the behaviour of a tiny minority?
You know, like brown people, trans people etc. are they fair game too?
Simple - the ones who have a moral duty (and probably a statutory one too) to protect the public from harm, detect, report and investigate crime... there's some uncomfortable facts for all the good cops out there:
- there are some wronguns amongst you
- there behaviour doesn't seem as surprising to those close to them as it is to you
- therefore the ones around them are not as harmless as they might seem
- you are in an organisation that allows a culture like that to exist
- if you don't recognise that that culture exists or that your colleagues who behave that way have any choice in it - then you are part of the culture.
If you are a cop and have never reported another cop for their behaviour are you honestly saying you've never seen a colleague step over the line? In which case are you sure you know where the line is? if you are regularly challenging / reporting and nothing is changing are you sure you want to be part of that organisation?
You see there's a big difference between people who all share some physical characteristic and have never met each other and people who are employed and took an oath to perform a particular task and who work on the same large team.
Also does being in the police force (with the undoubtedly stressful situations they are exposed to) result in a prevailing view that all of the public are to be treated like they are criminals or potential criminals.
Not all of the public but certain groups in the main. I have seen this. At its worst its profiling, This is what the "coppers nose" tends to be. "See black folk in a posh car late at night - they must have stolen it." as in the Bianca Williams case
My ex wifes partner, really nice bloke. British Asian Muslim. Joined the Met and then left after a couple of years and joined Lancashire Police. Says the level of racism in the Met and the culture is awful compared to Lancs. This was part of the reason he left.