Time to disband the Met?
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219
There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
No magic wand to wield here, but this Spectator article from a few years ago seems remarkably prescient…
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shocking-t...
We all deserve better in the metropolis; don’t we?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shocking-t...
We all deserve better in the metropolis; don’t we?
Pupp said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219
There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
So an event 37 years ago means the current metropolitan police are unfit?There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
Last Visit said:
Johnnytheboy said:
And replace it with an organisation staffed with the same people but a different name?
Or sack all the policemen and hire news ones?
Or have no police in London?
Exactly my thought too Or sack all the policemen and hire news ones?
Or have no police in London?
Drumroll said:
Pupp said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219
There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
So an event 37 years ago means the current metropolitan police are unfit?There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
Cressida Dick was noted in the report:
"70. There can be little doubt that the Metropolitan Police were determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system which would have enabled the Panel to carry out its work far more efficiently and effectively. Very significant resources had to be spent challenging the continuing Metropolitan Police assertions about the difficulties of enabling the requested access to the HOLMES system. This should not have happened. The Panel would have been greatly helped in its work preparing this Report and would have been able to complete its Report much sooner, had it had access to the HOLMES system in its own offices from September 2013.
71. The Panel has never received any reasonable explanation for the refusal over seven years by AC Cressida Dick and her successors to permit proper access to the HOLMES accounts to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. The consequential major delays to the Panel’s work, which inevitably added to the Panel’s costs, caused further unnecessary distress to the family of Daniel Morgan."
Gareth79 said:
Drumroll said:
Pupp said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219
There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
So an event 37 years ago means the current metropolitan police are unfit?There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?
Cressida Dick was noted in the report:
"70. There can be little doubt that the Metropolitan Police were determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system which would have enabled the Panel to carry out its work far more efficiently and effectively. Very significant resources had to be spent challenging the continuing Metropolitan Police assertions about the difficulties of enabling the requested access to the HOLMES system. This should not have happened. The Panel would have been greatly helped in its work preparing this Report and would have been able to complete its Report much sooner, had it had access to the HOLMES system in its own offices from September 2013.
71. The Panel has never received any reasonable explanation for the refusal over seven years by AC Cressida Dick and her successors to permit proper access to the HOLMES accounts to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. The consequential major delays to the Panel’s work, which inevitably added to the Panel’s costs, caused further unnecessary distress to the family of Daniel Morgan."
slightlyoldgit said:
But she was in her current job from April 2017 - so is she somehow responsible for all decision made prior to that then - and I will ask you the same question as I posed previously. Are you accountable for the decisions of your predecessor and happy to be fired because of them? Or if you were a team member then promoted to team leader are you subsequently responsible for the decisions of the previous leader?
The specific criticism of Dick comes as a result of her actions, not the actions of her predecessors.JeffreyD said:
slightlyoldgit said:
But she was in her current job from April 2017 - so is she somehow responsible for all decision made prior to that then - and I will ask you the same question as I posed previously. Are you accountable for the decisions of your predecessor and happy to be fired because of them? Or if you were a team member then promoted to team leader are you subsequently responsible for the decisions of the previous leader?
The specific criticism of Dick comes as a result of her actions, not the actions of her predecessors.And no I do not subscribe to - I was only following orders - but based on destroying a career, it matters.
slightlyoldgit said:
Her actions as a subordinate or as the leader - there is a significant difference.
And no I do not subscribe to - I was only following orders - but based on destroying a career, it matters.
Her actions as the leader whilst the report was being prepared.And no I do not subscribe to - I was only following orders - but based on destroying a career, it matters.
I'll caveat that as I've only read and listened to the reporting rather than read the report.
slightlyoldgit said:
But she was in her current job from April 2017 - so is she somehow responsible for all decision made prior to that then - and I will ask you the same question as I posed previously. Are you accountable for the decisions of your predecessor and happy to be fired because of them? Or if you were a team member then promoted to team leader are you subsequently responsible for the decisions of the previous leader?
She was involved right throughout, hence them referring to her as Assistant Commissioner, since she was in that position at the time. After being promoted she would still have been aware of the progression of the investigation, and been in an even better position to do something about assisting, rather than frustrating it.JeffreyD said:
slightlyoldgit said:
Her actions as a subordinate or as the leader - there is a significant difference.
And no I do not subscribe to - I was only following orders - but based on destroying a career, it matters.
Her actions as the leader whilst the report was being prepared.And no I do not subscribe to - I was only following orders - but based on destroying a career, it matters.
I'll caveat that as I've only read and listened to the reporting rather than read the report.
If one of my Senior Leadership Team people came to me with a dossier of actions and activities from their previous incumbent that presented issues and challenges. I would ask them to own the fix but not the accountability for the problem.
Gareth79 said:
slightlyoldgit said:
But she was in her current job from April 2017 - so is she somehow responsible for all decision made prior to that then - and I will ask you the same question as I posed previously. Are you accountable for the decisions of your predecessor and happy to be fired because of them? Or if you were a team member then promoted to team leader are you subsequently responsible for the decisions of the previous leader?
She was involved right throughout, hence them referring to her as Assistant Commissioner, since she was in that position at the time. After being promoted she would still have been aware of the progression of the investigation, and been in an even better position to do something about assisting, rather than frustrating it.Oh and edited to add - she was categorically NOT involved right throughout as this whole thing started when she was in her 20's and a PC on the beat #factcheck
Edited by slightlyoldgit on Tuesday 15th June 23:32
slightlyoldgit said:
So every member of every team is accountable for the decisions made by its leader then? Interesting philosophy there....
Oh and edited to add - she was categorically NOT involved right throughout as this whole thing started when she was in her 20's and a PC on the beat #factcheck
Yes, sorry I meant "right throughout the length of this investigation".Oh and edited to add - she was categorically NOT involved right throughout as this whole thing started when she was in her 20's and a PC on the beat #factcheck
Edited by slightlyoldgit on Tuesday 15th June 23:32
slightlyoldgit said:
I have to be honest, I personally would not be as vociferous then. I would rely on my team to prepare me a report on past actions and as far as I can see it all of the actions on this matter - or a vast majority of them were way way before her tenure.
If one of my Senior Leadership Team people came to me with a dossier of actions and activities from their previous incumbent that presented issues and challenges. I would ask them to own the fix but not the accountability for the problem.
The report suggests that there were obstructed throughout.If one of my Senior Leadership Team people came to me with a dossier of actions and activities from their previous incumbent that presented issues and challenges. I would ask them to own the fix but not the accountability for the problem.
Effectively attempting to cover up the cover up of the issue.
I'm sure we'll find out more over the next few days.
From the link at the top: 'Dame Cressida is personally accused of obstructing the panel's work, and causing delays which added further and unnecessary distress to the family of a murder victim.'
Bearing in mind how long this case has been ongoing, the nature of the allegations and the treatment of Daniel Morgan's family, the current regime should have been doing absolutely everything within their power to assist the inquiry team. There will be a lot of hot air for a week or two then a return to as-you-were.
Bearing in mind how long this case has been ongoing, the nature of the allegations and the treatment of Daniel Morgan's family, the current regime should have been doing absolutely everything within their power to assist the inquiry team. There will be a lot of hot air for a week or two then a return to as-you-were.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff