Time to disband the Met?

[Pupp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57484219

There’s only so many apologies one Commissioner can credibly offer; surely?

[Pupp]

No magic wand to wield here, but this Spectator article from a few years ago seems remarkably prescient…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shocking-t...

We all deserve better in the metropolis; don’t we?

[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.

[Pupp]

Derek Smith said:

Tango13 said:

I'd say the Met succeeds in spite of the management/leadership, not because of it. In fairness to the Met the same could be said of a lot of organisations.

I think you are right. The influence of a chief officer on the street level operational PC and teams is vastly overrated, particularly by the chief officers themselves. In the case of Dick, and her performance, it increases the problems for those in boots.

There’s a lot wrong with the day-to-day policing in most forces, but, in general, officers tend to manage despite considerable problems, and demands pulling different ways.

Before accepting this deflection, shall we just pause and recall, for a moment, the two key words at issue here; ‘institutionally corrupt’?

It’s not about the figurehead; it’s not characterising the management approach or (in)effectiveness. It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).

That cannot be reconciled with these excuses in my view.

[Pupp]

Red 4 said:

N7GTX said:

Red 4 said:

Pupp said:

It is saying the organisation as a whole is rotten (my characterisation of what I have read).

The organisation as a whole is rotten ? That would seem to infer that corrupt practices are the norm or at least accepted/ ignored.

I don't think The Met is that different from many other UK forces and my experience is that corruption is not at all common place, nor is it accepted.
That is not to say that corruption/ criminal activities in the ranks does not happen - it does, but it is rare in the grand scheme of things.

But the panel disagree with your view though. Institutionalised corruption infers it is rife and/or commonplace? I suspect some of this view is down to Dick refusing the panel direct access to HOLMES as she was an assistant commissioner at the start of the inquiry and caused the hold up.

Institutionalised does indeed confer that practices are common place and the norm.
I think they chose the wrong word. You will never completely eradicate corruption in the police but to suggest it is rife, in my experience, is completely wrong.

Oh, come on... they took 8 years to compile a report comprising over 1200 pages of detailed analysis over 3 volumes, assisted by counsel, solicitors, and specialist researchers, after accessing evidence/records such as they were enabled to.... the word 'corruption' apparently appears over 700 times in the document (according to a FT report I have read). Given the collective expertise of the panel membership, I think they chose their words very carefully, specifically, and appropriately.

[Pupp]

Derek, if you’re going to use the thread as an opportunity to plug your books, shall I look the other way whilst you post up the ISBN numbers, and we can get it over with please?

[Pupp]

Other publications are available and far more current, like the 3 volumes of the Daniel Morgan report.

I am sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but I believe Derek’s book is discussing events and experiences well over 40 years ago; this thread is about the state of play now.

My ‘complaint’, which it expressly wasn’t, was a gentle nudge to get the discussion back on track from the rheumy-eyed nostalgia where it was being derailed to.