Time to disband the Met?

[JeffreyD]

Earthdweller said:

You couldn’t break the system, the system would break you. You could choose to be straight or bent ... the vast majority were straight though

Because it wasn’t just the Police it was endemic from the Politicians down and all pervading

I remember my first proper job before I joined the cops and being sat down and told “this is how it is lad” things that would get you sacked on the spot today were accepted norm then

The good old days were the bad old days

The point is though that what happened 50
Years ago is a million years away from the Police ( or anything ) of today

The culture in the police is a full 360* from what it was back then and the link HAS been broken

I’m not saying the Police of today are perfect, far from it, but it’s no way comparable at all with 50 year ago

In my 30 years from the mid 80’s onwards I saw huge change in every aspect to the point that the job I left was unrecognisable from the one I joined

In some ways it had lost the plot, without doubt, but with regards to honesty, integrity, oversight and performance management it was far far better

As the the point on the link having been broken.
5 yrs ago I was involved in a very interesting case involving GMP.

It certainly hadn't been broken then.

[Derek Smith]

JeffreyD said:

Derek Smith said:

It was as easy at that not to be corrupt.

Just to snip this bit.

By not reporting the crime you were all corrupt. That's sort of the point of police corruption. The police didn't do anything about it.

I do absolutely appreciate that actually doing anything about it would have been nigh on impossible for most and that those turning down the envelopes were generally in an impossible position.

OK, so let’s look at what occurred.

A PC finds an envelope containing money in a drawer. Does that show that an offence has been committed? I assume you don’t need a clue as to the answer.

The PC is returned to uniform patrol. An SIO, at least in those days, reserved the right to refuse any person to be in his enquiry.

There has been no offence committed.

I was threatened. It was subtly done, but it was obvious. I went to my Chief Super, a bloke you could use as a straight edge, immediately and after two minutes, he realised there was no offence disclosed. But say I didn’t agree with him and wanted to push it further. Should I go to the bloke in charge of CID in my force? He may have been an honest bloke, but he, like all the bent ones, was in a lodge, the head of which was in CID and was an untouchable (an ironic title). Further, he was in charge of the most corrupt CID in the country. He later resigned from the police. I don’t know if he was corrupt.

I know, I’ll go to the Countryman Enquiry team. They’ll do something. But, the threat to me was implied by the bloke reciting what I’d said in my interview some 36 hrs (about, memories fade) after I’d said it. It leaked, presumably via a bent one.

How about a lawyer? One of the well-known bent ones, by repute, and that’s fellow lawyers who’d say that as well as police, was lauded at his funeral, in the national press and got a few second on TV news. How does one know who are bent and who are straight?

Judges? Come on! No one is that naïve.

What about the obvious corrupt behaviour, like the handing over of £50. That, surely, was evidence of corruption. You reckon? There’s no way that would go down, and in any case, it’d be investigated by one of the corrupt ones.

What about the Home Office? Surely they are a haven of honesty? When I was an instructor, a colleague was threatened with dismissal because she mentioned in a lesson that a famous MP has over 144 allegations of gross indecency against him, and the number was going up all the time. It was a good point that she made. You need evidence, something like the point I’m making.

It seems one of her students told her father of the fact (not allegation) as he was a member of the particular party of the MP. He pushed it higher, the Home Office no less, and they told our CC to ensure it didn’t happen again, hence the threat to her, and, oddly, to me, despite not knowing anything about it.

The team enquiring into this MP was closed and the officers dispersed. The file went missing, as did the copy that they team kept in reserve just in case. Yet, and this shows their connections, in newspapers, TV news, in investigative TV programmes, the police are shown as hiding the file. Yet copies made their way to various forces. It was pushed to news outlets. Nothing was done. The bloke died and all sorts of influential bods went to his funeral, despite knowing, as did the whips, of what he was doing.

What chance does a PC who found an envelope containing a few quid stand? I assume you don’t need the answer made clear.

These corrupt bods were not stupid. The irony is that many of them brought in some real big villains by good, honest investigation. Had they stayed straight, they’d have been very successful.

One of the well-known corrupt ones resigned when he thought the enquiry was getting too close – it wasn’t – but was taken on by a massive international bank. In other words, he went from poorly paid police, even with the bribes, to much better paid head of some department, with lots of benefits, better offices, secretaries and assistants.

Not being corrupt is being able to look in the mirror when you shave without embarrassment. I could, and can, do that despite working in the same force as one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, CID depts. ever in this country.

All I could do was write a book, and then, when the chance came, go on TV. Nothing will be done at high level. Those at the top of police forces are untouchable. Mostly, they are mates.

No one cares, except the victims.

It's easy when you can make a value judgement from your own chair, when nothing can come of it.

I was fitted up after Countryman. By luck, I received notification. In normal circs I would not have got it. I was at Horrogate and this complicated matters. I went to my Chief Super, he got the OIC, the one who had forged my signature, and she came up with a simple excuse that could not be attacked. That's when I decided I had to leave my force.

As I said, they weren't stupid. It was bad enough looking out for your back when you weren't a threat to them.

[BlackG7R]

Without having read the whole thread my view of the Met is very similar to my view of the BBC.

I think probably 99% of coppers just want to do their job, and get as many criminals off the street as possible, and I don't see it in any way as institutionally corrupt, or "rotten to the core"

As with the BBC, the real problem is the type of people that have been allowed to work their way into senior management.

Not just the Met, the Police across the country just seem to universally ineffective, and their priorities completely back to front.

The Police have become much more politicised than they used to be, it seemed to start in the New Labour era, and has just got worse as the years have passed.

Again like the BBC, I don't think disbandment of these great institutions is the answer, they just need the top management stripping out, and a re-evaluation of their real mission, and priorities.

[JeffreyD]

That's a lot of words to describe institutional corruption.

I'm not really being critical of those who didn't do anything about it as I appreciate they couldn't do anything about it.

The same applies now.

[Biggy Stardust]

JeffreyD said:

That's a lot of words to describe institutional corruption.

I'm not really being critical of those who didn't do anything about it as I appreciate they couldn't do anything about it.

The same applies now.

Did you expect anything other than a lot of words, some anecdotes & some self-aggrandisement?

A recent investigation has reported institutional corruption but they'll do anything to discredit or divert. Le plus ca change.

[N7GTX]

What constitutes 'corruption'? To be institutionalised it has to be occurring frequently and throughout the organisation. It cannot all be about £50 in an envelope. So what is causing this report to state this?

Definition: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

Is taking a 'free' takeaway because you are a police officer dishonest? Is showing a warrant card to get a discount in a shop dishonest? Or claiming you were on police duty to avoid paying a parking ticket? Or when stopping a garage owner for speeding and telling him your car needs an MOT so the owner suggests he drop the car off in the morning? Is that fraudulent?

Or, is this report about 'cover ups'? Conveniently 'forgetting' to include witness statements that could help the defence? Or is it mainly about named officers, including Dick, refusing access to HOLMES by the panel? Or when an outside force is called in to review the Daniel Morgan case and the Met installs an officer to watch and listen?

[hyphen]

N7GTX said:

What constitutes 'corruption'? To be institutionalised it has to be occurring frequently and throughout the organisation.

The Met know that a) The average member of the public won't know the rules and so won't call them up on it b) that most will be conscious, so either a cheap/legal aid solicitor balancing a massive workload or a private client charging by the hour and so the longer the Met drag it out, the more likely they will win. c) that they all stick together. So the officers management and each different department will resist in coordination. d) that any 3rd party will naturally be inclined to believe the police, as they are the police. e) that their internal complaints department are not staffed by highly paid senior and experienced people, but average PCs who won't be investigating throughly, or proactively widening the scope of any investigation.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 18th June 06:56

[Derek Smith]

Biggy Stardust said:

Did you expect anything other than a lot of words, some anecdotes & some self-aggrandisement?

A recent investigation has reported institutional corruption but they'll do anything to discredit or divert. Le plus ca change.

A lot of words, eh? Not quite sure you've grasped the concept of forums.

Anecdotes = experience. Beats assumptions every time.

Self-aggradisement . . . I tried self-deprecation, but I just wasn't good at it.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Biggy Stardust]

Derek Smith said:

A lot of words, eh? Not quite sure you've grasped the concept of forums.

Anecdotes = experience. Beats assumptions every time.

Self-aggradisement . . . I tried self-deprecation, but I just wasn't good at it.

Thank you for your contribution.

“It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

I notice that in all the anecdotes you are always the smartest person out there & your experiences make you more qualified on any subject than anyone else.

I have to concede that self-aggrandisement is something at which you are spectacularly good.

We seem to be getting away from the subject of institutionalised corruption, though, which might actually be your intent. Care to comment on the report or should we just ignore it & deflect criticism elsewhere?

[Derek Smith]

Biggy Stardust said:

“It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.”
? Friedrich Nietzsche

I notice that in all the anecdotes you are always the smartest person out there & your experiences make you more qualified on any subject than anyone else.

I have to concede that self-aggrandisement is something at which you are spectacularly good.

We seem to be getting away from the subject of institutionalised corruption, though, which might actually be your intent. Care to comment on the report or should we just ignore it & deflect criticism elsewhere?

That's the personal attacks over I hope. Any comment on the subject of the thread?

I love aphorisms. They give all the appearance of wisdom without any of that tedious thinking.

[Biggy Stardust]

Derek Smith said:

That's the personal attacks over I hope. Any comment on the subject of the thread?

I love aphorisms. They give all the appearance of wisdom without any of that tedious thinking.

Personal attacks? I called you "spectacularly good". I merely have the same opinion as Horace:
“Quidquid praecipies, esto brevis."

(Whatever advice you give, be brief.)

On the subject of the thread I will reiterate my previous comment that nobody seems to be acknowledging its conclusions & attempting to improve matters- instead there's excuses, deflection & plain refusal to accept.

[N7GTX]

If I've got my facts right (probably not) I understand that Derek was a police officer in the 1980s and served for 10 years? If that is correct (apologies if I am wrong) I can only be amazed at how much you have crammed into those 10 years.

Back on topic, Hyphen has commented on corruption but the long retired or recently retired have carefully sidestepped the issue. Its all very well wanting to stand up for your ex-colleagues but this is a serious charge and needs to be put right. I still don't understand what it is that has made the panel state the Met is institutionally corrupt.

[Earthdweller]

hyphen said:

The Met know that a) The average member of the public won't know the rules and so won't call them up on it b) that most will be conscious, so either a cheap/legal aid solicitor balancing a massive workload or a private client charging by the hour and so the longer the Met drag it out, the more likely they will win. c) that they all stick together. So the officers management and each different department will resist in coordination. d) that any 3rd party will naturally be inclined to believe the police, as they are the police. e) that their internal complaints department are not staffed by highly paid senior and experienced people, but average PCs who won't be investigating throughly, or proactively widening the scope of any investigation.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 18th June 06:56

A)

90% of Police time is spent dealing with 10% of society .. that almost without fail are very clued up

The 10% that aren’t … are entitled to free legal aid and PACE enshrines that in Law and places a duty on care on the custody staff to ensure the rights and entitlements of a detained person are fully understood and that free independent legal advice can be taken up at any time


B)

The police cannot drag it out .. the law fully and explicitly lays done exactly how they must behave and places checks in the system with regular reviews of detention escalating up the ranks and ending up with a court authorising further detention

But the law also lays down finite limits of detention at which point someone must be charged or released .. and if released before the limit if they are brought back into custody the police only have the remaining time on the clock from the previous detention .. it does not start again

Legal advice is free and independent for everyone .. the standard varies for sure, but there are firms and solicitors that do this work full time and know the system inside out … and again the tax payer picks up the bill and the police cannot drag it out

C)

I’m not sure what you point you are trying to make other than to say the police are all corrupt .. if you want to be more specific I’ll answer

D)

Police evidence is tested by the Crown who’s Lawyers make binding decisions based on their independent evidential tests

The decision of the Crown’s prosecutor’s is then tested in court and can be appealed etc

E)

Professional standards departments are not staffed by brand new recruits but generally experienced detectives with Detective Inspector/Detective Chief Inspector team managers

It will be overseen by a D/Supt D/Ch Supt

There are also covert/internal investigation and surveillance teams of very highly skilled detectives that have access to other agencies and in some cases the officers are based out of force and work from secret and secure locations

They will and do go where the evidence takes them .. almost very officer identified as being involved in corruption has been found by the internal investigation units

Hope the above helps your understanding

[Biggy Stardust]

I don't think the corruption is as much about screwing the public over as it's about protecting their own when they're naughty.

There are plenty of examples.

[Earthdweller]

N7GTX said:

If I've got my facts right (probably not) I understand that Derek was a police officer in the 1980s and served for 10 years? If that is correct (apologies if I am wrong) I can only be amazed at how much you have crammed into those 10 years.

Back on topic, Hyphen has commented on corruption but the long retired or recently retired have carefully sidestepped the issue. Its all very well wanting to stand up for your ex-colleagues but this is a serious charge and needs to be put right. I still don't understand what it is that has made the panel state the Met is institutionally corrupt.

I think Derek did 30 years first in the city then Sussex. ? And was at least an Inspector when he retired

I don’t think I’ve sidestepped it, in fact if you go back to my first post I said there are serious issues with some parts of Police senior management but I don’t see how, like you, makes an organisation “institutionally corrupt” the lady who is the subject of this thread was not charged because of corruption but by her misdeeds

I note today the Black Police association have released a statement of support for her stating the Police put too much emphasis on the fact she had committed a serious criminal offence when they sacked her

Which I find both baffling and bizarre

[anonymoususer]

N7GTX said:

If I've got my facts right (probably not) I understand that Derek was a police officer in the 1980s and served for 10 years? If that is correct (apologies if I am wrong) I can only be amazed at how much you have crammed into those 10 years.

Back on topic, Hyphen has commented on corruption but the long retired or recently retired have carefully sidestepped the issue. Its all very well wanting to stand up for your ex-colleagues but this is a serious charge and needs to be put right. I still don't understand what it is that has made the panel state the Met is institutionally corrupt.

I understood it that he was a serving officer in the 70s and possibly part of the 80s
He will undoubtedly have encountered corruption sexism racism and a few other isms.
His posts are usually long and I get the impression he does post himself in a good light at times but he comes across as a thoroughly decent enough bloke on the whole

As regards the Met Police Personally I think they are a crock and seem to lumber from one scandal to another.

[Derek Smith]

I was a police officer for 30 years. 10 years in the City of London Police (not the Mets). After my kids were threatened I ran away, for which I make no excuse, and joined Sussex. I was, for a time, seconded to the Home Office. I saw corruption, sexism and racism, but for the second two, not as much as many might think. I got around a bit, spending an average of a fraction over 2 years in any one post.

As for the exhaustive content of some of my replies; my hobby is, and has been all my life, writing. I enjoy it and find it fulfilling. Most of those who teach writing will tell you, the way to improve is to write. It's not my main reason. It's an indulgence. I love doing it. Given my predilictions, you should be able to understand my motivation. I make no apologies for that. There is no obligation to read them except in one circumstance: if you want to reply to any point I make. I have little other than contempt for those who state, when criticising something I've posted, 'I not read it all . . .'

[Derek Smith]

Earthdweller said:

In some ways it had lost the plot, without doubt, but with regards to honesty, integrity, oversight and performance management it was far far better

I agree.

[Pupp]

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.

[Biggy Stardust]

Derek Smith said:

I have little other than contempt for those who state, when criticising something I've posted, 'I not read it all . . .'

If their English is that bad then they deserve such contempt.

Edited by Biggy Stardust on Friday 18th June 21:04