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.
Crikey – a stark contrast to…
I think you might have hit the nail on the head and got my point......lots of farting about over PC nonsense hasn't made STW particularly attractive for female contributors. In fact they contribute very significantly less than they ever have. Do you see the irony?
I do - and that's not me being snarky! (Which I freely admit I can be from time to time)
I had to look up "snarky", it turns out that it's an American term which explains why I didn't understand its meaning.
No I'm not angry at all. I'm just making an observation and pointing out the irony of the apparent lack of female contributions on this thread.
Edit: And the lack of coppers. There used to be several that contributed very regularly - pretty much on a daily basis.
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.
Laddish culture? I don't think so ernie and would be interested to hear the thoughts of the other ladies on here.
My belief is that Cressida Dick should have been removed from her post as soon as it became clear that she wasn't up to the job. Why wasn't she? Growing up in London the Met always had a poor reputation, nothing has changed. At the end of the day it's just another public service that has been deliberately allowed to fail by a Government that seemingly cares not a jot about the UK and its citizens. Sorry for the cynicism, this is not simply down to bad management.
Laddish culture? I don’t think so ernie and would be interested to hear the thoughts of the other ladies on here.
Well I did wonder as alleged "laddish culture" is often portrayed as an issue on here.
And yes you are right - it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of other ladies. Thanks for turning up, even if it was quite late 😉
I think you might have hit the nail on the head and got my point……lots of farting about over PC nonsense hasn’t made STW particularly attractive for female contributors. In fact they contribute very significantly less than they ever have. Do you see the irony?
Wow. STW is too woke / PC / sensitive and thus putting off women. Thats your argument? Genius
Almost as staggering as your assertion that you do not recognise a word if google says it is of American origin. Even if thats a word i was using in Lancashire in the 70s.
Cressida Dick should have been removed from her post as soon as it became clear that she wasn’t up to the job. Why wasn’t she?
You don't think it was because the Home Secretary felt it was important to have a female as the highest ranking police officer in the UK?
Ultimate she went because of Sadiq Khan, it wasn't really in his remit to sack her but his complete lack of faith in her made it impossible for her to carry on. The head of the Met needs to have the confidence of the Mayor of London.
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.
Good background checks (which are incredibly hard and expensive to do) would look way beyond convictions etc. The next stage is "intelligence" - when they've had reports or heard rumours about someone. They track exactly that sort of intell on drug dealers (and I am sure other crimes). If you want clearance to handle documents above Secret level within the MOD etc you will get an enhanced background check. They will interview people who know you. None of these are infallible of course because sometimes people start off OK and then grow into being a problem, and that's why just checking people on entry is a stupid idea. In a fairly ordinary commercial job I expect my annual appraisal to include my and my teams "behaviours" (across the business its used for all sort of stuff from not giving a **** and laziness to rudeness or bullying). I assume that the Met has something like that in place. But you can bet that either their appraisers write something bland in the box and don't challenge it or there's no follow up from above when its logged (in some case the reason for the "bland" is because writing something useful actually results in a massive shit show for the appraiser because the culture is wrong!).
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
I encounter a lot of police officers and my inclination is that style / culture of new recruits isn't changing. In fact, my observation (which is not from the Met and will have an inherent bias from the type of officer I deal with) is that as they mature, officers become a bit more sensible, less gung-ho, and more about tackling the problems than just chasing down baddies! Perhaps there are enclaves within the police where 40 something mysoginists tend to collect, and either their attitude or promotion opportunities keep them out of the other units/divisions. It would be hard to believe that senior management would not be aware of the type of culture in those units. It would be hard to imagine that ordinary officers would also not quickly learn of the culture/style of those teams - so I'm not going to retract my comments above that which essentially say if you are not fighting to fix it you are part of the problem. Equally, if your unions are not driving to fix it - are they part of the problem? How many of the people found guilty of misconduct have they helped to save?
Theres about 155,000 police officers in the UK
If a thousand or thereabouts are under investigation, no doubt for a range of alleged offences, probably relating from one extreme to the other, poor driving to murder, which doesn't really show a trend.
So the vast majority are probably and more than likely safe to be around, even in vulnerable situations- even taking into account those whose behaviour hasn't become noticeable to the point its under investigation), but the majority anyway.
Probably a similar risk to flying(joke)
Plus it should always also be noted that they are under obligation to run towards the danger.
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
It's not about 'offending the Guardian reading lefties', though, it's that, if anything, the Met needs more women.
The story of the Met this week is of women who raised allegations and were ignored or not believed, and of men called 'The Rapist' and 'The Bastard' who raped and murdered women, and used their position as police officers to enable them to do so.
There's a very clear issue here, and it would reward some careful thought. And coming over like Jim Davidson going 'what next? Renaming it Personchester United?' doesn't inspire confidence that it's being taken seriously.
Wow. STW is too woke / PC / sensitive and thus putting off women. Thats your argument? Genius
Its an interesting logic!
Almost as staggering as your assertion that you do not recognise a word if google says it is of American origin. Even if thats a word i was using in Lancashire in the 70s.
Keep in mind that Ernie also hesitated to use the word "manpower" but couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant "American imported term" to avoid offence! I wouldn't have described any of these alternatives:
- police officers
- people
- resources
- boots on the ground
as being US derived!
Almost as staggering as your assertion that you do not recognise a word if google says it is of American origin. Even if thats a word i was using in Lancashire in the 70s.
I don't recognise a word that isn't used in circles which I associate with, the fact that it is apparently American helps to explain this - it is the reason.
I am surprised that you find that almost "staggering". Are you usually so easily shocked?
I'm from South London btw, I have no idea what words were in common use in Lancashire in the 70s. There is a similarly sounding word which is "sarky", you might not be shocked to learn that it's a word which I sometimes use.
I love it when discussions focus on what words should be used. It is such an important, and apparently sometimes shocking, subject. That's me being sarky btw 😉
The story of the Met this week is of women who raised allegations and were ignored or not believed
I didn't think it was. I thought they either withdrew their complaints or refused to cooperate with the investigations. When that wasn't the case Carrick was convicted.
Clearly there was a problem but is there any evidence that it was centered on the police not believing the victims? I'm happy to be corrected as I haven't read everything about this case.
That picture on the Marina Hyde link above was interesting for the semi-authorised "Thin Blue Line" badge on the stab vest. That cliquey attitude needs addressing as not they're not much different to a member of the community they are charged with policing by consent.
It is a personal decision to 'other' themselves and it is not helpful for those of a criminal offending disposition.
I didn’t think it was. I thought they either withdrew their complaints or refused to cooperate with the investigations. When that wasn’t the case Carrick was convicted.
Clearly there was a problem but is there any evidence that it was centered on the police not believing the victims? I’m happy to be corrected as I haven’t read everything about this case.
Worth reading this article by Sue Fish, former Nottinghamshire chief constable...
The Met could have stopped police rapist David Carrick – how can it have failed yet again?
The standout line is this
His job helped him to dominate and frighten his victims: prosecutors said that Carrick told women they would not be believed because he was a police officer.
I've read further details of this in other articles where he had said that he would arrange to have drugs planted in their vehicles and get them arrested as drug dealers, and that nobody would believe them over him.
In short: he conducted a campaign of threats and intimidation against his victims, who had already been at the receiving end of his violence so were more than aware of what he was capable of
I love it when discussions focus on what words should be used. It is such an important, and apparently sometimes shocking, subject. That’s me being sarky btw 😉
Its was you that brought up the use of the word and decided to focus on it first.
I didn’t think it was. I thought they either withdrew their complaints or refused to cooperate with the investigations. When that wasn’t the case Carrick was convicted.
To be fair, it's not made explicit that the women were ignored, but:
Carrick passed vetting to join the force in 2001 despite allegations of burglary and malicious communications to a woman with whom a relationship had recently ended. He was involved in nine separate police investigations – but his victims did not wish to go forward with a prosecution, and the Met did not join the dots.
We don't know why the victims did not wish to go forward. Presumably they were either threatened by Carrick, or decided there was no point. If the latter, what was it about the police approach that caused them to believe that? This possibility certainly leaves open the 'not being taken seriously' option.
But whichever it was, these women were badly failed by the police.
Rape / sexual assault investigations and trials are very traumatic for the victims and conviction rates are pathetically low even when its civilians. Its not unreasonable to assume the chances of conviction are even lower when its a policeman. Many victims cannot face the trauma over long periods of time to pursue a case. Often they are told the case is hopeless by prosecutors as well and prosecutions dropped
“See black folk in a posh car late at night – they must have stolen it.”
I got pulled over a few times when I was driving a rather tired old BMW 3 litre coupe. No obvious reason, never had this with any other motor. I am white, but the car was considered "Black Man's Wheels" in those days, and I have always suspected that they assumed it was probably not a white person driving it. Bizarre.
tj just described exactly the sort of well-meaning advice that a police officer might give to a victim of crime. "Are you sure your want to go through with this..." which to the police officer is just warning them what's coming, to the prosecutor is maximising the chances of success if the case goes ahead but unless VERY carefully worded (and I'd suggest followed up on any "i'm not sure" a few days later) is likely to be heard by the victim as something like:
- you'll have to give evidence in court of every sordid detail
- you'll have to face him in court and he'll call you a liar, nobody will believe you
- the court generally believe the police [FWIW I'm not sure that's true if the police are in the dock]
- it will take years, you might be better off putting it behind you and moving on.
That shouldn't happen. It does (not just with police officer cases). BUT the details should have been logged even if the first complainant didn't want to pursue. The second one suddenly sounds a lot more likely when it sounds remarkably familiar. The third one is a pattern of behaviour. That should be happening not just for police officer complaints but it definitely should be happening and getting followed up for them.
