Met police institutionally racist, misogynistic, homophobic
Discussion
AW111 said:
Slightly OT, but when did the meaning of "a few bad apples" change?
The fulll phrase is "A few bad apples spoil the whole batch", ie rottenness spreads, but now it seems to be taken to mean "there's only a few bad-uns, so no big deal".
That's been a pet hate of mines for a while. It seems to have started in the US when talking about their police issues.The fulll phrase is "A few bad apples spoil the whole batch", ie rottenness spreads, but now it seems to be taken to mean "there's only a few bad-uns, so no big deal".
Biggy Stardust said:
AW111 said:
The full phrase is "A few bad apples spoil the whole batch", ie rottenness spreads.
A moment of unintentional honesty, perhaps?s1962a said:
I drive past the road that Sarah Everard was abducted on - I can't imagine what women walking alone late at night must think when a police car passes them or slows down. How is anyone to know whom from the Police is the bad apple?
In fairness, the report only mentions hundreds rather than thousands of officers so there is potential to encounter a good one.turbobloke said:
OK, thanks for chipping in, and from the final sentence above another question comes to mind if HR folks don't mind. Would details of the context need to be explicit in the contract of employment 'terms and conditions' e.g. these often cite specific behaviours classed as gross misconduct warranting instant dismissal, including types of serious misconduct outside the workplace which e.g. bring an employer into disrepute. I suspect the content alone of such WhatsApp messages may be sufficient, if they were made public or brought to HR attention, is that correct?
For harassment and bullying none of it needs to be set out in employment contracts generally. Setting it out does make it harder to play dumb and keeps blame off the employer, but ultimately everyone has obligations under the Equality Act. The kind of behaviour being discussed, offensive jokes and comments on WhatsApp, are unlikely to be an issue of disrepute, unless the person in question was sufficiently well known.For the likes of police, teachers etc. there will also be professional standards to consider, but I can’t comment on the details of that.
AW111 said:
Slightly OT, but when did the meaning of "a few bad apples" change?
The fulll phrase is "A few bad apples spoil the whole batch", ie rottenness spreads, but now it seems to be taken to mean "there's only a few bad-uns, so no big deal".
But the report says it is institutionally bad, does institutionally not mean normal within an organisation?The fulll phrase is "A few bad apples spoil the whole batch", ie rottenness spreads, but now it seems to be taken to mean "there's only a few bad-uns, so no big deal".
s1962a said:
I drive past the road that Sarah Everard was abducted on - I can't imagine what women walking alone late at night must think when a police car passes them or slows down. How is anyone to know whom from the Police is the bad apple?
Sorry but that’s just ridiculous Do you wonder every time you see a GP whether they are going to murder you?
Do you wonder every time you go into the hospital whether the nurse is going to poison you?
do you think Shipman, Allitt, Chui and others were just one off’s or all Dr’s and Nurses are murderers?
334 Dr’s have been struck off in the last 5 years for misconduct, often sexual and also for lying about their qualifications.. do you demand to see their proof of passing their professional exams before you let them treat you?
For context, over a quarter of a million people have served in the Met … there has been one that has abducted, raped and murdered a lone woman, just one in 194 years, just one
Electro1980 said:
turbobloke said:
OK, thanks for chipping in, and from the final sentence above another question comes to mind if HR folks don't mind. Would details of the context need to be explicit in the contract of employment 'terms and conditions' e.g. these often cite specific behaviours classed as gross misconduct warranting instant dismissal, including types of serious misconduct outside the workplace which e.g. bring an employer into disrepute. I suspect the content alone of such WhatsApp messages may be sufficient, if they were made public or brought to HR attention, is that correct?
For harassment and bullying none of it needs to be set out in employment contracts generally. Setting it out does make it harder to play dumb and keeps blame off the employer, but ultimately everyone has obligations under the Equality Act. The kind of behaviour being discussed, offensive jokes and comments on WhatsApp, are unlikely to be an issue of disrepute, unless the person in question was sufficiently well known.For the likes of police, teachers etc. there will also be professional standards to consider, but I can’t comment on the details of that.
Oliver Hardy said:
But the report says it is institutionally bad, does institutionally not mean normal within an organisation?
No, it just means that the organisation allowed the bad apples to get in and so write off the whole barrel, even if most of the apples are good. 99.9% of Met officers could be a combination of George Dixon, Nicholas Angel and Endeavour Morse but if the rules, structures, cultures and 'norms' of the organisation don't support them and their views, then the organisation is institutionally 'rotten' (to use that word as a substitute for the -ists/-istics/-phobics).
It doesn't matter if only one person out of a hundred spouts racist jokes in the workplace. If the other people don't feel confident to call it out or report it, and if that one person doesn't suffer any sort of check or censure, then the organisation is institutionally racist. If it's better for you to just laugh along or just stay quiet - better for your professional relationships, your place in the team, your career prospects - than to say or do anything about a colleague with a nickname 'The Rapist' then the organisation has institutional problems, even if the majority of its members aren't actually the problem.
2xChevrons said:
Oliver Hardy said:
But the report says it is institutionally bad, does institutionally not mean normal within an organisation?
No, it just means that the organisation allowed the bad apples to get in and so write off the whole barrel, even if most of the apples are good. 99.9% of Met officers could be a combination of George Dixon, Nicholas Angel and Endeavour Morse but if the rules, structures, cultures and 'norms' of the organisation don't support them and their views, then the organisation is institutionally 'rotten' (to use that word as a substitute for the -ists/-istics/-phobics).
It doesn't matter if only one person out of a hundred spouts racist jokes in the workplace. If the other people don't feel confident to call it out or report it, and if that one person doesn't suffer any sort of check or censure, then the organisation is institutionally racist. If it's better for you to just laugh along or just stay quiet - better for your professional relationships, your place in the team, your career prospects - than to say or do anything about a colleague with a nickname 'The Rapist' then the organisation has institutional problems, even if the majority of its members aren't actually the problem.
turbobloke said:
2xChevrons said:
Oliver Hardy said:
But the report says it is institutionally bad, does institutionally not mean normal within an organisation?
No, it just means that the organisation allowed the bad apples to get in and so write off the whole barrel, even if most of the apples are good. 99.9% of Met officers could be a combination of George Dixon, Nicholas Angel and Endeavour Morse but if the rules, structures, cultures and 'norms' of the organisation don't support them and their views, then the organisation is institutionally 'rotten' (to use that word as a substitute for the -ists/-istics/-phobics).
It doesn't matter if only one person out of a hundred spouts racist jokes in the workplace. If the other people don't feel confident to call it out or report it, and if that one person doesn't suffer any sort of check or censure, then the organisation is institutionally racist. If it's better for you to just laugh along or just stay quiet - better for your professional relationships, your place in the team, your career prospects - than to say or do anything about a colleague with a nickname 'The Rapist' then the organisation has institutional problems, even if the majority of its members aren't actually the problem.
Although I will say it’s not everywhere, far from it and there are plenty of teams/units where that behaviour would not be tolerated, condoned or accepted but once it gets into a team/unit it is like a cancer that needs very quick surgery to remove before it spreads
Weak leadership, and lack of confidence in supervising officers and the system to:
A) take you seriously
B) protect you
If you make an allegation is a massive problem
Whistleblowers in the Police have unfortunately in the past been seen as the problem not a gateway to the solution, people would prefer to keep their heads down and see/hear no evil
That culture has to change and it can only be driven from the top down and with strong supervision that staff have the confidence in and support from
Earthdweller said:
On this day 6 years ago PC Keith Palmer gave his life protecting London, whilst we remember his sacrifice let’s also remember that 99% of officers are like him, not like another who also served in that same unit and shamed us all
[/footnote]
Here here. For every rotten apple there are 100s more who bleed and sweat for the job working at 110% of their maximum capacity on EVERY shift. [/footnote]
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Earthdweller said:
On this day 6 years ago PC Keith Palmer gave his life protecting London, whilst we remember his sacrifice let’s also remember that 99% of officers are like him, not like another who also served in that same unit and shamed us all
[/footnote]
Here here. For every rotten apple there are 100s more who bleed and sweat for the job working at 110% of their maximum capacity on EVERY shift. [/footnote]
Earthdweller said:
That’s quite accurate a summary, I couldn’t argue against any of it
Although I will say it’s not everywhere, far from it and there are plenty of teams/units where that behaviour would not be tolerated, condoned or accepted but once it gets into a team/unit it is like a cancer that needs very quick surgery to remove before it spreads
Weak leadership, and lack of confidence in supervising officers and the system to:
A) take you seriously
B) protect you
If you make an allegation is a massive problem
Whistleblowers in the Police have unfortunately in the past been seen as the problem not a gateway to the solution, people would prefer to keep their heads down and see/hear no evil
That culture has to change and it can only be driven from the top down and with strong supervision that staff have the confidence in and support from
It's notable that when the prisoner was being tortured in Peterlee nick it was a surprisingly long time before a decent officer turned up to stop it, the rest of them ignoring the screaming as if it was just another day at work.Although I will say it’s not everywhere, far from it and there are plenty of teams/units where that behaviour would not be tolerated, condoned or accepted but once it gets into a team/unit it is like a cancer that needs very quick surgery to remove before it spreads
Weak leadership, and lack of confidence in supervising officers and the system to:
A) take you seriously
B) protect you
If you make an allegation is a massive problem
Whistleblowers in the Police have unfortunately in the past been seen as the problem not a gateway to the solution, people would prefer to keep their heads down and see/hear no evil
That culture has to change and it can only be driven from the top down and with strong supervision that staff have the confidence in and support from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ues4-y2m_kk
I appreciate it's not the Met but it does suggest a certain culture with the nice men in uniforms.
turbobloke said:
Thanks for clarifying, and not wanting to turn the thread into a BiB Q/A lockout (I'll stop asking) what if any action would be taken against say a family member or friend responsible for sending the reportable message? Thanks again, over and out.
In the case of the Superintendent mentioned above, she was one of 17 in a WhatsApp group, her sister sent a child abuse video to the group wanting it to be investigated. The sister had received it from her boyfriend.The sister was found guilty of distributing an indecent image of a child and was sentenced to 100 hours' community service and lost her job as a social worker.
The sister's boyfriend was convicted of two counts of distributing an indecent photograph of a child, and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image portraying a person having sex with a horse. He was handed an 18-month sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was suspended for two years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10426501/cop-career-...
QuartzDad said:
turbobloke said:
Thanks for clarifying, and not wanting to turn the thread into a BiB Q/A lockout (I'll stop asking) what if any action would be taken against say a family member or friend responsible for sending the reportable message? Thanks again, over and out.
In the case of the Superintendent mentioned above, she was one of 17 in a WhatsApp group, her sister sent a child abuse video to the group wanting it to be investigated. The sister had received it from her boyfriend.The sister was found guilty of distributing an indecent image of a child and was sentenced to 100 hours' community service and lost her job as a social worker.
The sister's boyfriend was convicted of two counts of distributing an indecent photograph of a child, and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image portraying a person having sex with a horse. He was handed an 18-month sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was suspended for two years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10426501/cop-career-...
All told, some way above the offensive joke context.
Observation.
Lucy Letby killed "x" amount of babies - an appalling reflection on the NHS. Regarded as an anomoly but there are others, like Shipman. No wider impact or media frenzy.
Couzins kills Sarah E - an appalling reflection on the Met. That case is not regarded as an anomoly but there are others, like Carrick. National impact and frenzy, and threats of disbanding.
I'm not defending the additional press coverage and issues the Met have faced, but I am really interested in the entirely different response both cases have provoked within the media and country. The former is practically forgotten, the latter won't ever go away.
Lucy Letby killed "x" amount of babies - an appalling reflection on the NHS. Regarded as an anomoly but there are others, like Shipman. No wider impact or media frenzy.
Couzins kills Sarah E - an appalling reflection on the Met. That case is not regarded as an anomoly but there are others, like Carrick. National impact and frenzy, and threats of disbanding.
I'm not defending the additional press coverage and issues the Met have faced, but I am really interested in the entirely different response both cases have provoked within the media and country. The former is practically forgotten, the latter won't ever go away.
I've told this before on here, but a very good friend of mine was in the police (now early retired) here in the Mids and was involved with the 2012 Olympics policing in London. He was tasked with couple of carriers of officers and given an area to look after.
He was told, you don't patrol here on foot. He asked why. He'd worked in some very poor, rough areas and also 'ghetto' areas where there was fairly clear racial delineation of populations. There was no specific reason give, so he decided to patrol to the best of his and his team's ability.
Long story short, on a foot patrol through a "no go" park the public were slightly bemused to see police. Even more bemused to be politely engaged by them. Over the course of numerous encounters and conversations, it became clear to my mate that the Met knew the square root of zero about the communities and people they were supposedly serving. He was appalled.
He was told, you don't patrol here on foot. He asked why. He'd worked in some very poor, rough areas and also 'ghetto' areas where there was fairly clear racial delineation of populations. There was no specific reason give, so he decided to patrol to the best of his and his team's ability.
Long story short, on a foot patrol through a "no go" park the public were slightly bemused to see police. Even more bemused to be politely engaged by them. Over the course of numerous encounters and conversations, it became clear to my mate that the Met knew the square root of zero about the communities and people they were supposedly serving. He was appalled.
Armchair_Expert said:
Observation.
Lucy Letby killed "x" amount of babies - an appalling reflection on the NHS. Regarded as an anomaly but there are others, like Shipman. No wider impact or media frenzy.
Couzins kills Sarah E - an appalling reflection on the Met. That case is not regarded as an anomaly but there are others, like Carrick. National impact and frenzy, and threats of disbanding.
I'm not defending the additional press coverage and issues the Met have faced, but I am really interested in the entirely different response both cases have provoked within the media and country. The former is practically forgotten, the latter won't ever go away.
The trial is still ongoing, innocent until proven guilty...Lucy Letby killed "x" amount of babies - an appalling reflection on the NHS. Regarded as an anomaly but there are others, like Shipman. No wider impact or media frenzy.
Couzins kills Sarah E - an appalling reflection on the Met. That case is not regarded as an anomaly but there are others, like Carrick. National impact and frenzy, and threats of disbanding.
I'm not defending the additional press coverage and issues the Met have faced, but I am really interested in the entirely different response both cases have provoked within the media and country. The former is practically forgotten, the latter won't ever go away.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff