Met Police Placed in Special Measures
Discussion
eldar said:
Bigends said:
Other recent points of failure
However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
Looking at that point in particular, is that officers only, is it actually a significant number, and what sort of offences. As stated that could be good, bad or neither.However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
In each of the two years before our inspection, more than 50 people who had committed offences were allowed to join the Metropolitan Police. Most offences were not especially serious, but they did include theft, handling stolen goods and wounding. And some recruits were closely connected to known criminals.
While a case might be made that accepting some of these people into the force was justifiable, after their recruitment the force failed to introduce sufficient measures (such as monitoring and closer supervision) to lessen the risks they posed.
Over 2,000 warrant cards issued to personnel who had since left the force were unaccounted for. The force couldn’t say to whom it had allocated mobile phones and tablets. Some of its records about the receipt of gifts and hospitality were in disarray. These all indicate an organisation which is not taking the risks of corruption anywhere near seriously enough.
98elise said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Biggy Stardust said:
I'm waiting to see how the usual apologists will spin this to be anyone / everyone else's fault.
Well we have had conservative Home Secretaries, who ultimately are responsible for policing, for the last 12 years. So maybe some blame could be apportioned there. If you want to call out politicians, the Met are responsible to the Mayor of London...who happens to be Labour.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 29th June 12:00
98elise said:
The Tories are responsible for a WhatsApp group sharing stuff, or a murder by a serving police officer?
If you want to call out politicians, the Met are responsible to the Mayor of London...who happens to be Labour.
AIUI (and I could be wrong) it was Sadiq Khan who sacked Cressida Dick and Priti Patel ha slaunched an investigation into this.If you want to call out politicians, the Met are responsible to the Mayor of London...who happens to be Labour.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 29th June 12:00
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cressida-di...
To be fair to PP it looks like she wanted to sack Cressida Dick a couple of years ago but was overruled by Boris.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60229473
Bigends said:
eldar said:
Bigends said:
Other recent points of failure
However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
Looking at that point in particular, is that officers only, is it actually a significant number, and what sort of offences. As stated that could be good, bad or neither.However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
In each of the two years before our inspection, more than 50 people who had committed offences were allowed to join the Metropolitan Police. Most offences were not especially serious, but they did include theft, handling stolen goods and wounding. And some recruits were closely connected to known criminals.
While a case might be made that accepting some of these people into the force was justifiable, after their recruitment the force failed to introduce sufficient measures (such as monitoring and closer supervision) to lessen the risks they posed.
Over 2,000 warrant cards issued to personnel who had since left the force were unaccounted for. The force couldn’t say to whom it had allocated mobile phones and tablets. Some of its records about the receipt of gifts and hospitality were in disarray. These all indicate an organisation which is not taking the risks of corruption anywhere near seriously enough.
Doesn't excuse, of course, the other failings.
eldar said:
Bigends said:
eldar said:
Bigends said:
Other recent points of failure
However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
Looking at that point in particular, is that officers only, is it actually a significant number, and what sort of offences. As stated that could be good, bad or neither.However, the inspectorate’s overall finding was that the Met’s counter-corruption arrangements and procedures are fundamentally flawed. For example:
in the past two years, the Met has recruited people with criminal connections and more than 100 people who have committed offences. Some of these recruitment decisions may have been justifiable, but the force failed to properly supervise these people to lessen the risks;
In each of the two years before our inspection, more than 50 people who had committed offences were allowed to join the Metropolitan Police. Most offences were not especially serious, but they did include theft, handling stolen goods and wounding. And some recruits were closely connected to known criminals.
While a case might be made that accepting some of these people into the force was justifiable, after their recruitment the force failed to introduce sufficient measures (such as monitoring and closer supervision) to lessen the risks they posed.
Over 2,000 warrant cards issued to personnel who had since left the force were unaccounted for. The force couldn’t say to whom it had allocated mobile phones and tablets. Some of its records about the receipt of gifts and hospitality were in disarray. These all indicate an organisation which is not taking the risks of corruption anywhere near seriously enough.
Doesn't excuse, of course, the other failings.
Countdown said:
98elise said:
The Tories are responsible for a WhatsApp group sharing stuff, or a murder by a serving police officer?
If you want to call out politicians, the Met are responsible to the Mayor of London...who happens to be Labour.
AIUI (and I could be wrong) it was Sadiq Khan who sacked Cressida Dick and Priti Patel ha slaunched an investigation into this.If you want to call out politicians, the Met are responsible to the Mayor of London...who happens to be Labour.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 29th June 12:00
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cressida-di...
To be fair to PP it looks like she wanted to sack Cressida Dick a couple of years ago but was overruled by Boris.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60229473
Responsibility for the behaviour of individual Met officers, and general culture/attitudes lies with the head of the Met, or someone further down the command chain.
These are operational failings, not a political ones.
98elise said:
Responsibility for the behaviour of individual Met officers, and general culture/attitudes lies with the head of the Met, or someone further down the command chain.
With all due respect, I don't accept this statement.Individual officers are responsible for their behaviour. Anything else is the Nuremberg defence.
Biggy Stardust said:
98elise said:
Responsibility for the behaviour of individual Met officers, and general culture/attitudes lies with the head of the Met, or someone further down the command chain.
With all due respect, I don't accept this statement.Individual officers are responsible for their behaviour. Anything else is the Nuremberg defence.
Sticks. said:
Biggy Stardust said:
98elise said:
Responsibility for the behaviour of individual Met officers, and general culture/attitudes lies with the head of the Met, or someone further down the command chain.
With all due respect, I don't accept this statement.Individual officers are responsible for their behaviour. Anything else is the Nuremberg defence.
Either way it's not a political problem.
Bigends said:
More from the report
In each of the two years before our inspection, more than 50 people who had committed offences were allowed to join the Metropolitan Police. Most offences were not especially serious, but they did include theft, handling stolen goods and wounding. And some recruits were closely connected to known criminals.
While a case might be made that accepting some of these people into the force was justifiable, after their recruitment the force failed to introduce sufficient measures (such as monitoring and closer supervision) to lessen the risks they posed.
Over 2,000 warrant cards issued to personnel who had since left the force were unaccounted for. The force couldn’t say to whom it had allocated mobile phones and tablets. Some of its records about the receipt of gifts and hospitality were in disarray. These all indicate an organisation which is not taking the risks of corruption anywhere near seriously enough.
These things can happen in any large organisationIn each of the two years before our inspection, more than 50 people who had committed offences were allowed to join the Metropolitan Police. Most offences were not especially serious, but they did include theft, handling stolen goods and wounding. And some recruits were closely connected to known criminals.
While a case might be made that accepting some of these people into the force was justifiable, after their recruitment the force failed to introduce sufficient measures (such as monitoring and closer supervision) to lessen the risks they posed.
Over 2,000 warrant cards issued to personnel who had since left the force were unaccounted for. The force couldn’t say to whom it had allocated mobile phones and tablets. Some of its records about the receipt of gifts and hospitality were in disarray. These all indicate an organisation which is not taking the risks of corruption anywhere near seriously enough.
Lessons have been and continue to be learned
Etc
Two more fired.
Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Two more fired.
Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
It's hard to tellMet police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
Maybe the "few bad apples" are gradually being weeded out
No-one is going to admit to sharing racist jokes though, unless caught in the act. Same with any other crime.
a police station must be a tight knit group, I'm sure their colleagues know who the nobs are. But then we're back to innocent until proven guilty.
The police are supposed to reflect the society they serve...
But we're not in an ideal world, and our society just has it's share of racists, bullys, rapists (as well as hard workers etc)
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Two more fired.
Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
It's not only the Met clearly, for example in my area I think ten officers have been sacked since 2017. Various offences, failure to record incidents, racist and derogatory language whilst off duty,touching a minor, stealing from a shop, drink driving whilst off duty, taking inappropriate photos while on duty, breach of honesty and integrity ( relationship with vulnerable woman), and assault whilst dealing with a disturbance.'Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan
I keep asking but is this sort of thing common as whenever I read about it it seems to involve the Met.
That's from memory. Not going to mention force as that would imply they are a rabble, which frankly is not the case. Expect other forces have similar experiences. If you want a wider list the college of policing barred list is a start. https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list#... (links to the detailed pdfs at the bottom of the page)
For example list published March 2022 shows that between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021 257 officers dismissed from PC to Chief Constable ranks, additionally 29 specials and 267 staff.
Just to highlight something from that information between Dec 2017 and March 2021 other than the Met the forces with the highest number of dismissals had figures of 47 West Mids, 45 Thames Valley, then 32 Avon and Som, the force mentioned earlier had 10, well down the list.
The Met in the same period had 167.
XCP said:
At least it's all out in the open now.
I can think of officers who were guilty of much worse offences and weren't sacked but were disciplined internally.
2 Colleagues were done for excess alcohol off duty but retained their jobs for example.
Yep, arrested a Met D/Insp from Kilburn for drink drive and fail to stop in the mid 1980's - kept his jobI can think of officers who were guilty of much worse offences and weren't sacked but were disciplined internally.
2 Colleagues were done for excess alcohol off duty but retained their jobs for example.
Biggy Stardust said:
Blimey, the fact that she lied under oath, means that her testimony in any court can never be used again (which I totally agree with), so it begs the question, how can she continue to be employed by the police?andyA700 said:
Blimey, the fact that she lied under oath, means that her testimony in any court can never be used again (which I totally agree with), so it begs the question, how can she continue to be employed by the police?
She won’t have lied under oath but it appears she has lied, as soon as you start telling lies as a cop then you should go the distance immediately. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff