Met police institutionally racist, misogynistic, homophobic
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I doubt people have much to worry about unless they're sharing racist filth with your friends.
A little more detail and an example here though.
Ex-Met officer guilty of sending racist message
I'm going to predict within a page or two we'll get "Is that all he said?".
There will be some who say that, but the point is that we should expect our police not to immediately assume that certain sections of society are guiltyA little more detail and an example here though.
Ex-Met officer guilty of sending racist message
I'm going to predict within a page or two we'll get "Is that all he said?".
If these posts are representative of wider attitudes then it's no wonder that there is little confidence in the Met to behave even handedly
MrBogSmith said:
Are we wanting to criminalise this type of expression or not? Where do ‘dark humour’ and jokes finish and ‘grossly offensive’ start?
It's contantly evolving, 40 years ago you could say stuff that would see you in court today on TV. Personally I think this progress is good.MrBogSmith said:
The people involved aren’t relevant, it’s the interpretation and application of the law.
These laws pre-date social media and arguably aren’t suitable for modern communications. From what I can see the courts are generally reluctant to convict people who send things like this or equal a nature over WhatsApp. For example also involving police officers (where the judge was quite scathing over the prosecution): https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-ne...
From a practical point of view two people can sit in a house and day all sorts of terrible things (like the ex-officers did). That’s perfectly lawful. However, if they commit them to WhatsApp suddenly it becomes a crime.
Are we wanting to criminalise this type of expression or not? Where do ‘dark humour’ and jokes finish and ‘grossly offensive’ start?
From my point of view I’m extremely reluctant to see communication restricted and criminalised. That’s obviously different from an employer’s internal misconduct / disciplinary thresholds. Naturally I’d expect people to lose their jobs for such behaviour.
Interestingly enough looking at the CPS guidance when the messages involve royals / politicians it requires a higher level of CPS scrutiny, so perhaps that was the variable.
They were naughty.These laws pre-date social media and arguably aren’t suitable for modern communications. From what I can see the courts are generally reluctant to convict people who send things like this or equal a nature over WhatsApp. For example also involving police officers (where the judge was quite scathing over the prosecution): https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-ne...
From a practical point of view two people can sit in a house and day all sorts of terrible things (like the ex-officers did). That’s perfectly lawful. However, if they commit them to WhatsApp suddenly it becomes a crime.
Are we wanting to criminalise this type of expression or not? Where do ‘dark humour’ and jokes finish and ‘grossly offensive’ start?
From my point of view I’m extremely reluctant to see communication restricted and criminalised. That’s obviously different from an employer’s internal misconduct / disciplinary thresholds. Naturally I’d expect people to lose their jobs for such behaviour.
Interestingly enough looking at the CPS guidance when the messages involve royals / politicians it requires a higher level of CPS scrutiny, so perhaps that was the variable.
They got caught.
They received a fair trial.
They were found guilty.
They were punished according to the law of the land.
The end.
smn159 said:
There will be some who say that, but the point is that we should expect our police not to immediately assume that certain sections of society are guilty
If these posts are representative of wider attitudes then it's no wonder that there is little confidence in the Met to behave even handedly
Of course we should.If these posts are representative of wider attitudes then it's no wonder that there is little confidence in the Met to behave even handedly
If you were black or brown or any other minority would you trust them to treat you fairly and impartially based on what we now know about them?
ZedLeg said:
MrBogSmith said:
Are we wanting to criminalise this type of expression or not? Where do ‘dark humour’ and jokes finish and ‘grossly offensive’ start?
It's contantly evolving, 40 years ago you could say stuff that would see you in court today on TV. Personally I think this progress is good.
MrBogSmith said:
aybe, I am just very reluctant to see private communications criminalised (I appreciate WA has been judged to be a ‘pubic network’ in case law).
So in your opinion hate speech, racism, homophobia, misogyny & similar are acceptable provided it's done on the quiet? Interesting to know.Hill92 said:
Worth reading the misconduct panel report. There was more to the story than the media reporting.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-poli...
The officer said she had previously informed her line manager of the connection and he told her that she didn't need to formally report the connection nor did he remove her from the priority offenders list work. The line manager claimed this conversation never happened but the panel found this evidence implausible given other witnesses and evidence presented.
The priority offenders list was supposed to have 20 individuals on it. When the officer was later asked to add another name she suggested that would take it over 20 names, she suggested to her line manager that her partner's nephew could drop off the list as one of the low risk individuals (they were all categorised by risk and this had been reviewed). She also said "if not him, can remove anyone else too". The decision was to be made by her line manager and another officer. In the event the name wasn't removed. The report doesn't really explain why nor how this came to be investigated.
Anyway, the panel concluded that she had not been dishonest or motivated by any benefit to her partner's nephew, which would have been gross misconduct and dismissal. Where she did get pulled up by the panel for discreditable misconduct was for failing to remind her line manager of the previously disclosed connection when she suggested the change.
Her line manager comes out of the report looking a lot worse than her TBH.
Only skim read it but I get the feeling they put a lot of effort into finding no wrong doing, under the watchful and culturally sensitive chairmanship of Akbar Khan. I wonder if they checked through her WhatsApp messages of the same period.https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-poli...
The officer said she had previously informed her line manager of the connection and he told her that she didn't need to formally report the connection nor did he remove her from the priority offenders list work. The line manager claimed this conversation never happened but the panel found this evidence implausible given other witnesses and evidence presented.
The priority offenders list was supposed to have 20 individuals on it. When the officer was later asked to add another name she suggested that would take it over 20 names, she suggested to her line manager that her partner's nephew could drop off the list as one of the low risk individuals (they were all categorised by risk and this had been reviewed). She also said "if not him, can remove anyone else too". The decision was to be made by her line manager and another officer. In the event the name wasn't removed. The report doesn't really explain why nor how this came to be investigated.
Anyway, the panel concluded that she had not been dishonest or motivated by any benefit to her partner's nephew, which would have been gross misconduct and dismissal. Where she did get pulled up by the panel for discreditable misconduct was for failing to remind her line manager of the previously disclosed connection when she suggested the change.
Her line manager comes out of the report looking a lot worse than her TBH.
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
aybe, I am just very reluctant to see private communications criminalised (I appreciate WA has been judged to be a ‘pubic network’ in case law).
So in your opinion hate speech, racism, homophobia, misogyny & similar are acceptable provided it's done on the quiet? Interesting to know.On a different note. This place is fundamentally important to your life. That’s why you keep returning after being banned on your old Rovinghawk profile (and subsequent ones).
Why not let some joy in your life?
The second hand car market is struggling at the moment. Ideal for buyers. Go on, treat yourself to a nice little hot hatch or something to lift the misery!
You can thank me later for the brilliant suggestion.
The thing that some don't seem to understand is that this only happened because someone made a complaint. Any conversation, regardless of venue or technology is subject to these laws.
You'll rarely see people being prosecuted for something said in private as even if someone complained it wouldn't meet the evidence standard. In this case there was verifiable proof thanks to the messages.
You'll rarely see people being prosecuted for something said in private as even if someone complained it wouldn't meet the evidence standard. In this case there was verifiable proof thanks to the messages.
MrBogSmith said:
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
aybe, I am just very reluctant to see private communications criminalised (I appreciate WA has been judged to be a ‘pubic network’ in case law).
So in your opinion hate speech, racism, homophobia, misogyny & similar are acceptable provided it's done on the quiet? Interesting to know.Please be advised that supporting racism etc. is not a good look.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Friday 8th December 15:10
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
aybe, I am just very reluctant to see private communications criminalised (I appreciate WA has been judged to be a ‘pubic network’ in case law).
So in your opinion hate speech, racism, homophobia, misogyny & similar are acceptable provided it's done on the quiet? Interesting to know.Please be advised that supporting racism etc. is not a good look.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Friday 8th December 15:10
No need to be mean :-(
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
k I’m sorry for the hot hatch suggestion.
No need to be mean :-(
If I sell my 911 I'll give it some thought.No need to be mean :-(
But if they’re that good…
MrBogSmith said:
hich one? My brother is constantly trying to get me to buy a GT3, but I hate the idea you have to get rinsed buying a used one because we’ve somehow allowed brands to make us feel like it’s a privilege to purchase from them.
But if they’re that good…
I think it was Clarkson who said that a Carrera 2 is enough for most people.But if they’re that good…
Mine's a heavily modified C2 with a few bits of GT3 nailed on. I bought it shortly after I sold my hatchback.
My cobra is in the kit car subforum.
Biggy Stardust said:
MrBogSmith said:
hich one? My brother is constantly trying to get me to buy a GT3, but I hate the idea you have to get rinsed buying a used one because we’ve somehow allowed brands to make us feel like it’s a privilege to purchase from them.
But if they’re that good…
I think it was Clarkson who said that a Carrera 2 is enough for most people.But if they’re that good…
Mine's a heavily modified C2 with a few bits of GT3 nailed on. I bought it shortly after I sold my hatchback.
My cobra is in the kit car subforum.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff