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’.
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
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.
