Time to disband the Met?
Discussion
Pupp said:
anonymoususer said:
As regards the Met Police Personally I think they are a crock and seem to lumber from one scandal to another.
Apologies for quoting just this element, but this was really the thrust of my opening post. After scandal upon scandal over many successive years and leaderships, followed by these conclusions in a report of this nature, it seems implausible the organisation can be cured. An apology from the Commissioner could not achieve that; even were she minded to accept the findings and offer one. That she believes she knows better than the panel speaks loudly of the ingrained culture that has resulted in its conclusions. In my view of course.
Stakeholder experiences always informative, it goes without saying; even the prolix ones. However, to those heaping plaudits on the current Northants leadership, I’d hazard a guess you’ve not had cause to deal with the force in the County. I have, and cannot say the experience filled me with appreciation of the benefits of the new regime.
We do have ANPR cameras sprouting like mushrooms though, and lots of posh vehicles.
As for knowing better than the panel, I had personal experience of a couple of enquiries into major incidents, and have talked with officers who were involved in one of the biggest, and I disagree with the conclusions for good and valid reasons. It’s almost as if they were politically motivated.
There have been a number of enquiries where those in the know, both police officers and others, have vociferously attacked the findings, and produced evidence to support their points of view. It has led me to believe that no conclusions should be believed without a lot of support and even then, further investigation. That speaks loudly of experience. Most of those who organise them seem as bendable as senior police officers.
Mind you, I also think Dick is a disgrace to the service, but that's another matter.
Pupp said:
An apology from the Commissioner could not achieve that; even were she minded to accept the findings and offer one. That she believes she knows better than the panel speaks loudly of the ingrained culture that has resulted in its conclusions. In my view of course.
This is the frustrating part. Accept the criticism, act on it and move on. It has taken 34 years for the family to receive a personal apology and in the next breath she says there is no institutionalised corruption. So why did she bother apologising? Had there been no corruption the murderer(s) would likely have been caught. Derek Smith said:
Pupp said:
anonymoususer said:
As regards the Met Police Personally I think they are a crock and seem to lumber from one scandal to another.
Apologies for quoting just this element, but this was really the thrust of my opening post. After scandal upon scandal over many successive years and leaderships, followed by these conclusions in a report of this nature, it seems implausible the organisation can be cured. An apology from the Commissioner could not achieve that; even were she minded to accept the findings and offer one. That she believes she knows better than the panel speaks loudly of the ingrained culture that has resulted in its conclusions. In my view of course.
Stakeholder experiences always informative, it goes without saying; even the prolix ones. However, to those heaping plaudits on the current Northants leadership, I’d hazard a guess you’ve not had cause to deal with the force in the County. I have, and cannot say the experience filled me with appreciation of the benefits of the new regime.
We do have ANPR cameras sprouting like mushrooms though, and lots of posh vehicles.
As for knowing better than the panel, I had personal experience of a couple of enquiries into major incidents, and have talked with officers who were involved in one of the biggest, and I disagree with the conclusions for good and valid reasons. It’s almost as if they were politically motivated.
There have been a number of enquiries where those in the know, both police officers and others, have vociferously attacked the findings, and produced evidence to support their points of view. It has led me to believe that no conclusions should be believed without a lot of support and even then, further investigation. That speaks loudly of experience. Most of those who organise them seem as bendable as senior police officers.
Mind you, I also think Dick is a disgrace to the service, but that's another matter.
Tango13 said:
I'd say the Met succeeds in spite of the management/leadership, not because of it. In fairness to the Met the same could be said of a lot of organisations.
I think you are right. The influence of a chief officer on the street level operational PC and teams is vastly overrated, particularly by the chief officers themselves. In the case of Dick, and her performance, it increases the problems for those in boots.There’s a lot wrong with the day-to-day policing in most forces, but, in general, officers tend to manage despite considerable problems, and demands pulling different ways.
Derek Smith said:
Tango13 said:
I'd say the Met succeeds in spite of the management/leadership, not because of it. In fairness to the Met the same could be said of a lot of organisations.
I think you are right. The influence of a chief officer on the street level operational PC and teams is vastly overrated, particularly by the chief officers themselves. In the case of Dick, and her performance, it increases the problems for those in boots.There’s a lot wrong with the day-to-day policing in most forces, but, in general, officers tend to manage despite considerable problems, and demands pulling different ways.
It’s not about the figurehead; it’s not characterising the management approach or (in)effectiveness. It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
That cannot be reconciled with these excuses in my view.
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
N7GTX said:
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
N7GTX said:
I suspect some of this view is down to Dick refusing the panel direct access to HOLMES as she was an assistant commissioner at the start of the inquiry and caused the hold up.
I don’t know what you do But imagine you had an outside body coming into your organisation to do a review on your business, using staff you had not vetted and demanding unfettered access to one of your most confidential systems where you would have no control over who saw the information and who it may be passed onto
Now add into that mix the fact that some of the information would identify people both in your organisation and outside it, and that information could lead to them being exposed to serious harm and potentially undermine the process of justice
Would you resist handing over unfettered access?
My understanding is that they didn’t stop the enquiry viewing the database but for Operational security reasons stated that the would have to attend a police building to do so .. thereby protecting the integrity of the information and the safety of those identified on it
The enquiry panel thought that unreasonable ... others clearly took a different view
Red 4 said:
Institutionalised does indeed confer that practices are common place and the norm.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
We've had a couple of posters say that they weren't bent but there wasn't anything they could do about the corruption they knew about - surely that's the very definition of institutionalised?I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
If you really wanted to eliminate corruption which, lets face it, is one of the worst tags a police service could possibly be accused of, then you would do everything you could to assist.
The panel was not made up of the local criminal fraternity - Baroness O'Loan no less - so with the correct vetting, why could they not look at HOLMES? The inquiry was set up by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May in 2013. The main topic was:
"address questions arising, in particular those relating to police involvement in Daniel Morgan's murder; the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at The News of The World and other parts of the media, and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them."
The report states that the inquiry was expected to take just 12 months. It took 8 years. The panel states that the final documentation received from the Met was handed over in March 2021. That in itself is an utter disgrace.
The panel also state, "the vast majority of police officers act honourably and and do not break their rules or engage in corrupt activity" and "the Metropolitan police placed the reputation of the organisation above the need for accountability and transparency."
Its interesting to read the comments by some serving or retired officers on here who are trying to defend the indefensible.
The panel was not made up of the local criminal fraternity - Baroness O'Loan no less - so with the correct vetting, why could they not look at HOLMES? The inquiry was set up by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May in 2013. The main topic was:
"address questions arising, in particular those relating to police involvement in Daniel Morgan's murder; the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at The News of The World and other parts of the media, and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them."
The report states that the inquiry was expected to take just 12 months. It took 8 years. The panel states that the final documentation received from the Met was handed over in March 2021. That in itself is an utter disgrace.
The panel also state, "the vast majority of police officers act honourably and and do not break their rules or engage in corrupt activity" and "the Metropolitan police placed the reputation of the organisation above the need for accountability and transparency."
Its interesting to read the comments by some serving or retired officers on here who are trying to defend the indefensible.
JeffreyD said:
Red 4 said:
Institutionalised does indeed confer that practices are common place and the norm.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
We've had a couple of posters say that they weren't bent but there wasn't anything they could do about the corruption they knew about - surely that's the very definition of institutionalised?I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
But that related to events over 40 years ago
Red 4 said:
N7GTX said:
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
I think they chose the wrong word.
It is not 'infer', it is not 'confer', it is 'imply'.
Earthdweller said:
I think you have had one saying he was aware of it and he did challenge it and was forced to leave where he was working
But that related to events over 40 years ago
Fair enough.But that related to events over 40 years ago
Are you saying that it doesn't happen today?
Because if you are I'd have to say I don't believe you.
Red 4 said:
N7GTX said:
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
JeffreyD said:
Earthdweller said:
I think you have had one saying he was aware of it and he did challenge it and was forced to leave where he was working
But that related to events over 40 years ago
Fair enough.But that related to events over 40 years ago
Are you saying that it doesn't happen today?
Because if you are I'd have to say I don't believe you.
Far from it ... and I note you referenced GMP earlier .. enough said !
Certainly the Met is a paragon of virtue in comparison
But, it is a lot better ( generally)
Biggy Stardust said:
Red 4 said:
N7GTX said:
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
I think they chose the wrong word.
It is not 'infer', it is not 'confer', it is 'imply'.
I think I'll stick with infer. Thanks for the attempt at an English lesson though even if you're wrong
Pupp said:
Red 4 said:
N7GTX said:
Red 4 said:
Pupp said:
It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).
The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.
Is it any surprise that an investigation in police corruption uses the word corruption frequently ?
It is clear that the Met has had issues, well documented over the years and that significant actions were taken to eradicate corruption and that the effort to eradicate corrupt officers is still ongoing today (Sir Robert Marks’s biography is well worth a read)
How does that and the even the enquiry stating the vast majority of officers are honest and hardworking for with the definition of institutional corruption ...
“…is a systemic and strategic influence which is legal, or even currently ethical, that undermines the institution's effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including, to the extent relevant to its purpose, weakening either the public's trust in that institution
There are clearly serious issues around Morgan and the officers involved, mostly at junior ranks, at the time and since and indeed some officers of higher rank may have tried to sweep it under the carpet
But, I still feel that it struggles to translate into the entire organisation being culturally not fit for purpose.
Certainly viewed through the prism of their enquiry I can see where they are coming from, but is it really the reality that the entire organisation across all its multifaceted functions and responsibilities is failing ineffective and weakened and not fit for purpose I would argue it doesn’t ..
I don’t see systemic and strategic processes running from the Commissioner down through the ranks amounting to a strategic influence and direction designed to undermine the integrity of the organisation
It’s clear that there are serious issues in the Morgan murder but that doesn’t mean the entire organisation is rotten
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff