Met police institutionally racist, misogynistic, homophobic
Discussion
There’s some really good stuff on this thread. I just wanted to add my 2 pen’eth.
From what I ve heard of the report I think the generality of its conclusions are correct. As a poster said upthread somewhere the only way to deal with the cultural issues is to address them head on. Make it very clear that from this point forward none of that shut is acceptable and back that up with disciplining or sacking officers who cross the line. It will be a painful process and there will be plenty of people who grumble to their mates about wokism, but they can be invited to choose whether they wish to continue in the new improved culture and fit in or resign.
The part I am uncomfortable with is the political flavour and the dog whistle use of the term ‘institutional’. Not because I don’t think there are serious structural issues to address, but because it’s one of those terms that is superbly rhetorical. It is a term that is intended to imply on the one hand that the police as a body are racist, misogynistic and homophobic whilst at the same time implying that every officer in the force has those characteristics. The reader can choose how they receive that, and of course that is intentional. Of course in a literal sense neither is correct, but it does provide a battleground for debate.
Anyhow, back in the real world, times have changed. None of these highlighted behaviours are acceptable and the only way to fix it is to actually do something about it.
From what I ve heard of the report I think the generality of its conclusions are correct. As a poster said upthread somewhere the only way to deal with the cultural issues is to address them head on. Make it very clear that from this point forward none of that shut is acceptable and back that up with disciplining or sacking officers who cross the line. It will be a painful process and there will be plenty of people who grumble to their mates about wokism, but they can be invited to choose whether they wish to continue in the new improved culture and fit in or resign.
The part I am uncomfortable with is the political flavour and the dog whistle use of the term ‘institutional’. Not because I don’t think there are serious structural issues to address, but because it’s one of those terms that is superbly rhetorical. It is a term that is intended to imply on the one hand that the police as a body are racist, misogynistic and homophobic whilst at the same time implying that every officer in the force has those characteristics. The reader can choose how they receive that, and of course that is intentional. Of course in a literal sense neither is correct, but it does provide a battleground for debate.
Anyhow, back in the real world, times have changed. None of these highlighted behaviours are acceptable and the only way to fix it is to actually do something about it.
Armchair_Expert said:
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.
Was Lucy Letby's nickname amongst her colleagues "Baby Killer"? (Cousin's nickname was the rapist) Had Lucy Letby been previously reported by members of the public for abusing babies (Cousins had been previously reported for sexual offences, not followed up). 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.
Earthdweller said:
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
Armchair_Expert said:
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.
Letby's trial is ongoing, so she allegedly killed x babies.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.
Post Shipman, there was a judge-led enquiry and some major changes to the laws regarding Controlled Drugs were enacted. Just because there was little impact on the general public doesn't mean that nothing happened.
S600BSB said:
Earthdweller said:
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
Drive past the bit of the road where Sarah Everard was abducted and tell me it doesn't cross your mind what happened there and what lone women walking might think and worry about.
Here's another story of a police officer abusing his position (not the MET). You cannot blame people for being weary - illogical or not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-6...
Earthdweller said:
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
But 46 have been convicted with either violent (Murder, Assault, ABH, GBH) or sexual offences in the 4 years between March 16 and March 20.Data found here: https://www.met.police.uk/cy-GB/foi-ai/metropolita...
I have a brother who is ex-Plod (not Met), by the way, so not out to BIB-bash, but the Met does seem to have a bit of a problem.
ETA to change "charged" with "convicted"
S600BSB said:
Earthdweller said:
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
No idea who would want to be a police officer these days.
paulw123 said:
Bashing the police is sadly seen as ‘acceptable’ not so for the NHS.
No idea who would want to be a police officer these days.
When the whatabouttery and the "yeah, but" comparisons stop, and the police force own their issues, things can maybe start to move forward and change. Once they do change the perception will also change with it.No idea who would want to be a police officer these days.
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-03-23/met-tol...
I can only guess that those on here looking to downplay this haven't read the report. I'd urge them to do so, even just the summary of the findings at the start.
If more people could be arsed to read even some of the report we'd have fewer stupid sounding 'bashing the police' and 'you have to be a wolf to catch a wolf' type comments.
Maybe.
If more people could be arsed to read even some of the report we'd have fewer stupid sounding 'bashing the police' and 'you have to be a wolf to catch a wolf' type comments.
Maybe.
Earthdweller said:
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
Someone I know who is a teacher was commenting yesterday at how low the bar seems to be for police. How behaviours that would get you banned from teaching, and potentially schools closed for safeguarding failures, have been dismissed or resulted in very minor penalties.
The issue doesn’t seem to be that the police are being bashed, but that some forces have hidden behind “we have a hard job” for too long and have played the victim rather than addressing issues.
Earthdweller said:
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
This is by no means making excuses, but bad apples walk amongst us day in day out, whatever your profession. A lot you just don't know about.
For my first job many many years ago I worked in IT, and had access to the HR mailbox that captures all mails that were deemed inappropriate by the email software. Some of the things captured from people who were just crazy for a work environment. It really gave you an idea of what people really thought and liked. Funnily enough, a lot of the porn was sent by women to their own private accounts.
Digga said:
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.
This seems to echo what my mate experience when he had the pleasure of being dragged down to London for the riots. Met top brass told them not to engage or get out of vehicles in certain areas. They seem to have ignored it and went about engaging with the people out and about. Apparently this was a revelation as it was ignore or interrogate type scenarios by the Met. Sounds like they were scared of the communities they supposedly looked 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.
Listening to the new bloke in charge, he comes across as a bit of a politically motivated PR friendly wet blanket when maybe it needed a no nonsense character instead in the shape of a John Stevens type
Four Litre said:
This is by no means making excuses, but bad apples walk amongst us day in day out, whatever your profession. A lot you just don't know about.
For an important institution such as the police force, everything must be done to weed out these bad apples and take a zero tolerance approach to any shortcomings. One racist, sexist, homophobic incident and you are out. No excuses.Four Litre said:
For my first job many many years ago I worked in IT, and had access to the HR mailbox that captures all mails that were deemed inappropriate by the email software. Some of the things captured from people who were just crazy for a work environment. It really gave you an idea of what people really thought and liked. Funnily enough, a lot of the porn was sent by women to their own private accounts.
Did you write this example to counter the inappropriate whatsapp messages sent by the met police, or the sexism that exists?smn159 said:
I can only guess that those on here looking to downplay this haven't read the report. I'd urge them to do so, even just the summary of the findings at the start.
If more people could be arsed to read even some of the report we'd have fewer stupid sounding 'bashing the police' and 'you have to be a wolf to catch a wolf' type comments.
Maybe.
I can summarise the thread now, after much back and forth, nobody will be able to come up with a solution that will work.If more people could be arsed to read even some of the report we'd have fewer stupid sounding 'bashing the police' and 'you have to be a wolf to catch a wolf' type comments.
Maybe.
I would be happy if all male officers were replaced by female ones, I mean that would be a 'solution' to most of the problems but, its not logistically workable, viable or, legal.
The problems in the Met are not a solvable problems, over time, the problem will reduce naturally but you won't ever entirely eliminate problem officers, such is the human conditioning (physical and mental) required to be a police officer in Central London.
tty cops to catch criminals is bizarre. How much sCarl_Manchester said:
The problems in the Met are not a solvable problems, over time, the problem will reduce naturally but you won't ever entirely eliminate problem officers, such is the human conditioning (physical and mental) required to be a police officer in Central London.
Low hanging fruit:- Dodgy whatsapp/social media messages - you get the sack
- Make lewd, racist, homophobic or inappropriate comments - you get the sack
- Act in an unprofessional manner - you get the sack
- Do background checks on all public facing staff to ensure nothing untoward is missed
That would go a long way to reducing some of these issues
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff