Time to disband the Met?
Discussion
Red 4 said:
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
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/englis...
You can ignore the report mentioning wrongdoing in the police; this seems to be common practice amongst police for anything criticising them. Ignoring it won't make it untrue, though.
Earthdweller said:
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)
I was involved in a case a few years ago
What happened was a genuine shock to me and none more so than the whole system just seemed to accept it.
I suppose my point is there are probably very few who are are actively corrupt, but everyone seems to accept that there is nothing to be done about those that are.
JeffreyD said:
Re GMP
I was involved in a case a few years ago
What happened was a genuine shock to me and none more so than the whole system just seemed to accept it.
I suppose my point is there are probably very few who are are actively corrupt, but everyone seems to accept that there is nothing to be done about those that are.
Do a google search for “cabal of corruption”I was involved in a case a few years ago
What happened was a genuine shock to me and none more so than the whole system just seemed to accept it.
I suppose my point is there are probably very few who are are actively corrupt, but everyone seems to accept that there is nothing to be done about those that are.
Pupp said:
Before accepting this deflection, shall we just pause and recall, for a moment, the two key words at issue here; ‘institutionally corrupt’?
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.
Not excuses but statements of fact. 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.
The phrase is woolly. It means nothing on its own.
After Lawrence, where the Met were accused of being institutionally racist, the Home Office press department was unable to explain what it meant. There was a lot of discussion on line, in the media, and a plethora of explanations appeared. In the end, an ‘official’ explanation evolved; the Met had processes, later changed to procedures, or was it the other way around, which were racist and it did not mean that the force as a whole, or specific individuals, were racist.
Do we use that definition for institutionally corrupt, or go by someone’s characterisation, or even interpretation, of what the phrase means?
The choice is ours.
It’s a cop-out, as it was in Lawrence. It's open to everyone to come to conclusions that comply with their own prejudices. Everyone satisfied. What could be wrong with that? There were examples of officers whose decisions were racist in Lawrence, and it had nothing to do with processes. Why not point them out? It would appear, on the face of it, that, at the time of the incident, the actions of certain officers can only be explained by saying they were acting corruptly. That was then. It is history. Internal processes have changed substantially since then and it is unlikely that the same laxity in oversight would happen.
We do have specific criticisms of processes or procedures enacted by those of command level. Did they mean those? We might never know, but it's fun to accuse using a woolly accusation as a defence.
I have no idea of the specifics of the accusation. It's vague. It's inprecise. It's inexcusable, as it was in Lawrence.
N7GTX said:
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 main route to reduce corruption is to ensure the service remains well funded and the staff well paid. Corruption can never be eliminated simply because our societal values don't allow us to eliminate it and therefore there will always be a tensional balance between societies acceptance of some level of corruption versus the polices effectiveness to suppress the levels of crime.
At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, increased red tape, lower funding levels and therefore increased levels of corruption.
The virtue signalling on funding and lawlessness works for the NHS and Public Drug Policy but it doesn't extend to the police themselves, its the usual case of left-wing double standards for public sector funding and crime.
Carl_Manchester said:
The main route to reduce corruption is to ensure the service remains well funded and the staff well paid.
Corruption can never be eliminated simply because our societal values don't allow us to eliminate it and therefore there will always be a tensional balance between societies acceptance of some level of corruption versus the polices effectiveness to suppress the levels of crime.
At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, increased red tape, lower funding levels and therefore increased levels of corruption.
The virtue signalling on funding and lawlessness works for the NHS and Public Drug Policy but it doesn't extend to the police themselves, its the usual case of left-wing double standards for public sector funding and crime.
Greed fosters corruption, not need. Indeed, most corruption is not centred on monetary gain. Corruption can never be eliminated simply because our societal values don't allow us to eliminate it and therefore there will always be a tensional balance between societies acceptance of some level of corruption versus the polices effectiveness to suppress the levels of crime.
At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, increased red tape, lower funding levels and therefore increased levels of corruption.
The virtue signalling on funding and lawlessness works for the NHS and Public Drug Policy but it doesn't extend to the police themselves, its the usual case of left-wing double standards for public sector funding and crime.
What is rquired is a constant supply of quality recruits.
Not sure where the left-wing bit came in. The substantial increases in pay in the late 70s came via an independent enquiry set up by labour, with a promise of following the recommendations. The slashing of funding, to the dreadful level of today, came via Cameron's control of goverment.
Derek Smith said:
Greed fosters corruption, not need. Indeed, most corruption is not centred on monetary gain.
via Cameron's control of goverment.
I think you'll find there is a direct and proven colleration with the funding of police, societal values and corruption i.e. Iraq, Haiti, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, Africa etc. having the worst corruption in the world.via Cameron's control of goverment.
I also think history has proven that the Cameron government was neither Conservative or, right-of-centre due to both Cameron not actually being a Conservative and the Lib Dem. alliance.
Carl_Manchester said:
I also think history has proven that the Cameron government was neither Conservative or, right-of-centre due to both Cameron not actually being a Conservative and the Lib Dem. alliance.
A bloke called Tom Winsor stuck his name on a report and the result was sweeping changes to police conditions of service.What Winsor actually did was copy Cameron's ideological diatribe that was written 10 years previously.
Winsor got a Knighthood and was made the first person ever from a non-police background to be appointed HMIC for his trouble.
Derek Smith said:
Greed fosters corruption, not need. Indeed, most corruption is not centred on monetary gain.
What is rquired is a constant supply of quality recruits.
Not sure where the left-wing bit came in. The substantial increases in pay in the late 70s came via an independent enquiry set up by labour, with a promise of following the recommendations. The slashing of funding, to the dreadful level of today, came via Cameron's control of goverment.
Edmund Davis was commissioned by the Labour Home Sec in 1977 .. he reported back to the Labour Govt in July 1978 recommending big changes in pay and conditions What is rquired is a constant supply of quality recruits.
Not sure where the left-wing bit came in. The substantial increases in pay in the late 70s came via an independent enquiry set up by labour, with a promise of following the recommendations. The slashing of funding, to the dreadful level of today, came via Cameron's control of goverment.
The Labour Govt did not implement it
It was made a manifesto promise of the Tories at the 1979 GE that they would implement it in full if they won
They won the election and the Police got a big pay rise
Cameron is widely known to have been the main driver behind the Sheehy report in the 90’s where most of his radical ideas were rubbished and not implemented
He took his revenge in 2010 15 years later and his disastrous ideas were implemented and carried out by the worst Home Sec we have ever had
The legal ramifications are still playing out today across the Judiciary, Fire, Police and other civil service jobs
Earthdweller said:
Derek Smith said:
Greed fosters corruption, not need. Indeed, most corruption is not centred on monetary gain.
What is rquired is a constant supply of quality recruits.
Not sure where the left-wing bit came in. The substantial increases in pay in the late 70s came via an independent enquiry set up by labour, with a promise of following the recommendations. The slashing of funding, to the dreadful level of today, came via Cameron's control of goverment.
Edmund Davis was commissioned by the Labour Home Sec in 1977 .. he reported back to the Labour Govt in July 1978 recommending big changes in pay and conditions What is rquired is a constant supply of quality recruits.
Not sure where the left-wing bit came in. The substantial increases in pay in the late 70s came via an independent enquiry set up by labour, with a promise of following the recommendations. The slashing of funding, to the dreadful level of today, came via Cameron's control of goverment.
The Labour Govt did not implement it
It was made a manifesto promise of the Tories at the 1979 GE that they would implement it in full if they won
They won the election and the Police got a big pay rise
Cameron is widely known to have been the main driver behind the Sheehy report in the 90’s where most of his radical ideas were rubbished and not implemented
He took his revenge in 2010 15 years later and his disastrous ideas were implemented and carried out by the worst Home Sec we have ever had
The legal ramifications are still playing out today across the Judiciary, Fire, Police and other civil service jobs
Carl_Manchester said:
I think you'll find there is a direct and proven colleration with the funding of police, societal values and corruption i.e. Iraq, Haiti, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, Africa etc. having the worst corruption in the world.
I also think history has proven that the Cameron government was neither Conservative or, right-of-centre due to both Cameron not actually being a Conservative and the Lib Dem. alliance.
There is more to the countries you mentioned than just poor pay for police. Corruption all through government is the norm. It's greed rather than need. I also think history has proven that the Cameron government was neither Conservative or, right-of-centre due to both Cameron not actually being a Conservative and the Lib Dem. alliance.
Cameron was a tory. There's no argument. As others have said, he'd had his report rubbished some years before and from then on seemed to be anti-police. As said, he got Watson to implement his ideas and things deteriorated overnight. He did his 'good and faithful servant' thing and gave him the HMIC to make his well-recorded mistakes in. Pay was reduced and agreements between the police and the government not so much ignored as trashed. It was a betrayal. Yet, despite money dropping, there has been no increase in corruption. Labour have been ambivalent towards the police. The tories, from Cameron, with his little me May, was confrontational and vindictive. But no increase in corruption. This is not a third world country with regards policing behaviour and attitudes.
Kid yourself that Cameron was not a tory, but don't try and kid us.
Earthdweller said:
The Met is really two forces in one
It is a local police force .. yet has a sizeable number of staff on national/international roles
Nationally there the NCA which is branded like the “British FBI” opinions vary whether it is
Armed response is generally something that helps having local knowledge and local control. There are other national resources that can be in place very quickly if a serious ongoing threat emerges
Generally police forces are based on local authority areas .. the Met shrank in size in 2000 to fit within the Mayoral responsibility and public accountability
There’s been rumours of BTP becoming a national “transport” force and taking over roads policing and airports but nothing has come of it
The Met now is no different from any of the other geographic forces it’s based on a county basis
The creation is Police Scotland from various local forces hasn’t really been a great success by all accounts
To facsimile the FBI the NCA would need a budget many times what it gets right now, even if you separate off the paramilitary nonsense the americans indulge in; cybercrime is an obvious area where a national force makes a lot more sense than dealing at a county level, ditto organised crime, so there would seem to be a case for writing some big cheques. Polis Scotia has been a failure for everyone other than signwriters, suppliers of headed notepaper and business cards and HMRC.It is a local police force .. yet has a sizeable number of staff on national/international roles
Nationally there the NCA which is branded like the “British FBI” opinions vary whether it is
Armed response is generally something that helps having local knowledge and local control. There are other national resources that can be in place very quickly if a serious ongoing threat emerges
Generally police forces are based on local authority areas .. the Met shrank in size in 2000 to fit within the Mayoral responsibility and public accountability
There’s been rumours of BTP becoming a national “transport” force and taking over roads policing and airports but nothing has come of it
The Met now is no different from any of the other geographic forces it’s based on a county basis
The creation is Police Scotland from various local forces hasn’t really been a great success by all accounts
Earthdweller said:
Derek Smith said:
Full story available in my book, Both Sides of the Force.
Are you kylo Ren?
Earthdweller said:
Derek Smith said:
Full story available in my book, Both Sides of the Force.
Are you kylo Ren? I'd been struggling for months to come up with a title. I was in a book club - reading - at the time, and some of their ideas were good. I was close to deciding when this one was suggested by my wife. Brilliant! Said it all in five words. The cover was changed to incorporate the Star Wars theme. It was worth having to put up with her smugness for months afterwards. Neither of us managed to follow up with a SW theme for the sequel, and, as I went all over the place, I decided on A Tour de Forces, but that too failed the Mrs test.
Pupp said:
Derek, if you’re going to use the thread as an opportunity to plug your books, shall I look the other way whilst you post up the ISBN numbers, and we can get it over with please?
A thread about the exact topic he's written a book about, that subject, the one he knows about because he was there and experienced it personally? You're really complaining he's mentioned his book? Other publications are available and far more current, like the 3 volumes of the Daniel Morgan report.
I am sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but I believe Derek’s book is discussing events and experiences well over 40 years ago; this thread is about the state of play now.
My ‘complaint’, which it expressly wasn’t, was a gentle nudge to get the discussion back on track from the rheumy-eyed nostalgia where it was being derailed to.
I am sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but I believe Derek’s book is discussing events and experiences well over 40 years ago; this thread is about the state of play now.
My ‘complaint’, which it expressly wasn’t, was a gentle nudge to get the discussion back on track from the rheumy-eyed nostalgia where it was being derailed to.
Pupp said:
Derek, if you’re going to use the thread as an opportunity to plug your books, shall I look the other way whilst you post up the ISBN numbers, and we can get it over with please?
You seem to look the other way for a number of posters, so one more won’t make much difference. Earthdweller posted an explanation of the enquiry's statement as to the meaning of the phrase. It is still vague with regards to what these processes are, how many, and whether they are deliberate and malicious, what they do do is to limit interpretation.
It is quite clear that the enquiry did not conclude that the entire force is corrupt, nor that any particular individual is corrupt. Indeed, they say that such processes are (perhaps can be) legal and ethical. That leaves a very tight band of possibilities.
Is it the bod in boots they are criticising? It seems unlikely as murder and conspiracy cannot, by any stretch, be either legal or ethical.
More likely, but I accept not defined, is that the hierarchy has used legal and ethical means to frustrate the investigation, probably investigations. If so, they it would not just be Dick.
Most of the police, ex and current, on PH agree there are faults with the way the service is delivered, and much of the blame might well rest with the operational officer. But that is not what this enquiry is on about.
A headline phrase, one that can be picked up by the news media, should be avoided in enquiry conclusions. At best, it is a precis. An overview. It must be imprecise. The next problem with this one is that its meaning is not defined in the text; just further generalisations.
We should not be arguing about what a two-word phrase means. The question is what to do to ensure that performance is improved.
Corruption in the service is something I’ve experienced and matters to me personally. I’ve had a moan about it in a TV programme, but that is just whinging. It needs to change. Officers need protection. It’s improved no end at street level since the late 70s and 80s, but more can be done, particularly further up. Blaming all officers is a cop-out.
So, its taken 8 years - 8 years for goodness sake - to investigate the circumstances as to why Daniel Morgan's killer(s) have never been charged. The report, Part 1 of 3, has made recommendations to stamp out what it describes as institutionalised corruption having amassed 1 million pages of evidence. This figure on its own suggests there is a much bigger problem than some contributors here are acknowledging.
The Met know how to shoot themselves in the foot. When an outside force was called in to review the murder, in this case Hampshire, the Met just could not leave things alone. They 'inserted' one of their own into the review team to keep an eye on it and no doubt to report back to some senior management position within the Met.
Instead of instantly denying the report's conclusions, the Met should have put out a statement acknowledging the failures over the last 34 years and including their proposals for change to ensure there is no repeat in the future. The media hype would have died down and in a couple of weeks this would largely be forgotten in the general public's mind.
The Met know how to shoot themselves in the foot. When an outside force was called in to review the murder, in this case Hampshire, the Met just could not leave things alone. They 'inserted' one of their own into the review team to keep an eye on it and no doubt to report back to some senior management position within the Met.
Instead of instantly denying the report's conclusions, the Met should have put out a statement acknowledging the failures over the last 34 years and including their proposals for change to ensure there is no repeat in the future. The media hype would have died down and in a couple of weeks this would largely be forgotten in the general public's mind.
N7GTX said:
The media hype would have died down and in a couple of weeks this would largely be forgotten in the general public's mind.
Apart from us .. is anyone else discussing it? Is it in the minds of a good majority of the 67m in the country?
I’d argue it’s forgotten already, it does not have, nor will it gain the traction that the Lawrence murder had and still has. If it hadn’t been in London, or involved the Met id doubt there’d even be a thread on here about it
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff