Yeah the police are definitely the victims here. Good point well made.
UK Policing
- Thread starter Sara125
- Start date
Bit of a daft comment Pex. Even for you.
I think everyone wants a better Police service but I guess ignoring part of the issues within it is okay and not in the spirit of this echo chamber.
I mean it’s a scathing report into how the police are failing rape victims and you’ve literally picked out a line which paints the police as the victims.
That is literally what you did though. Even saying the bit about police being overworked is “the real crux of the matter”.
Rather than, you know, the rape victims who the police are blaming for being victims.
Again it’s not. I’m literally showing what the independent report recommended was one of the reasons why this culture has developed.
I guess it suits better not to explore that though.
Let’s be clear, there’s unquestionably issues with resourcing and funding in the police, but the issues we see day in day out are not excused or explained solely by that issue. There’s deep-seated problems with racism and sexism in our police forces that we see evidence of on a regular basis and “but we’re overworked” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) distract from that.
Unless you honestly expect us to believe that better funding and higher pay would make these people suddenly stop their “explicit victim-blaming”?
Because there’s a significant gap in logic between some of the potential problems with failing to track repeat suspects or poor investigation and just flat out victim blaming and failing to be human beings.
I know your natural reaction in this thread is defend the police because you’re a copper, but you need to take a step back sometimes and try to look at these reports objectively.
The problems are way bigger than funding.
It’s not simply being overworked is it though.
The de-funding of the police service since Cameron and austerity has had a wider reaching impact than that and a continued knock on effect on things like the quality of recruitment, morale, corruption etc.
If you don’t see the link between these things that’s because you don’t want to. It’s really that simple.
I’ve not once said it’s the only problem, clearly that’s not the case as the Met continue to show us, but if people want to have a genuine discussion about making improvements without being disingenuous and point scoring to suit personal biases, then these aspects need to be recognised and acknowledged.
No words.
Another, completely one off, bad apple. Nothing to see here folks.
Imagine being accused once every 18 months or so of r**e and SA like clock work by different women, and your bosses just shrug and no one thinks to investigate. Probably had him saved in their phones as "Rap*y David".
Mentions in the article that the police were made aware of him several times.
Oops sorry, let me get to the real crux of the matter…the MET were probably too over-worked, traumatised and inexperienced to adequately deal with the cretin
Oops sorry, let me get to the real crux of the matter…the MET were probably too over-worked, traumatised and inexperienced to adequately deal with the cretin
Taken from a sky news article about the situation:
PC David Carrick - who was known to his colleagues as "B*****d Dave" - entered guilty pleas when he appeared at London's Southwark Crown Court on Monday. He served with the Met Police's parliamentary and diplomatic command.
The Met is not fit for purpose.
ACAR
This is scandolous, and the administrative shambles that enabled this is the worrying thing. Can we trust the Met Police has the systems and culture in place to protect us?
How can we even be asking that question?
How can we even be asking that question?
Phew, for a moment I thought the nickname was ironic and he was known to be the sort of well balanced individual you hope a policeman is.
you don’t have to be sexist or racist to work in the police force but i’ve heard on your interview they’ll plant a black woman from hr on the reception desk and if you don’t give her a load of shite you never get called back for the second round.
Ffs. They've came out with that thinking it makes them sound better aswell.
I know! Imagine trying to save face with that line as someone whos job it is to protect and serve?Amazing how straight faced they are about it. The next question we need to ask The Met is the nicknames for every office. Well thats Bastard Dave because he's a cruel bastard, over here is PC Steve Doglover Smith because he fecks the police dogs and on patrol currently is PC Calum Taser black kids for no reason Thomson......
"we call him Stella cause he's a wife beater *chuckles* but he's a good lad"
To be fair to Calum he does the paperwork on time every time and we all know what a chore that is
Supposedly he was in the same unit as Wayne Couzens.
And he gets to see out his days on a protected wing. In essence, the only thing being taken from him is his freedom.
Yeah I saw this.
I don’t know what to say about the Met anymore. Time after time after time. The more you read about it the more questions need to be asked about the leadership in the force over the past decade.
The new Commissioner is going to have to totally transform things from top to bottom if he intends to restore public confidence. It literally must be hanging by a thread.
It's almost less of an issue that they keep letting these people in, the Met is such a big organisation some bad apples are bound to slip through, but that these people keep getting promoted to positions of real responsibility. I'd half understand if these people managed to keep on the right side of disciplinary action and never made it past the bottom rung, but both him and Couzens were firearms officers. Surely there is some kind of vetting to get that job.
"Say if there are 10,000 officers in the MET and five percent are rapists. That's still only 500."
I wouldn't call this case a bad apple slipping through. Allegations spread over 20 years. That's downright negligence.
It feels like a moving the problem type of thing. I’d assume the parliamentary and diplomatic protection group has a lot less public interaction than a regular officer
A ‘bad apple’ didn’t slip through. The MET turned a blind eye to 9 allegations. He was vetted at least three times and passed, even being promoted to another department…all of this after he had several allegations.
It’s clear as day why Cressida Dick was so revered by those alongside and underneath her - because she was weak as piss and fostered a lax environment with zero accountability. Of course you’re going to be upset if your boss is sacked if it means you can no longer get away with doing whatever you like.
In fairness it’s a lateral move to specialise rather than a promotion as such. There’s an internal process but nothing to the level of a promotion board.
Bottom rung or not though it need’s to be better. People must have had concerns about this one just like Couzens.
Impossible task by virtue of process. The met intend on tackling this issue by being more transparent and by changing how robustly they deal with serious allegations. They’ve been very rubbish at doing it up until now (and not because of some mass conspiracy as people want to believe, it’s definitely more of an incompetency issue) but there appear to be genuine attempts to get better. But that does mean we’re going to get more and more of these stories. And fundamentally speaking this will never not be a problem to be honest. The met don’t hire folk from some special pool of honourable human beings.
Nobody joins the met and starts a development programme on how to be a rapist, racist, killer etc. You are one of those things and you join the met, because you know you’re placing yourself in a position of power that will facilitate you doing these things.
I think the realistic goal is to eliminate the number of wrong uns as quickly as possible. But there’s no vetting or hiring process you can do that’ll prevent these types joining the met. I know allegations on their own that don’t lead to convictions are essentially pointless but when you’re in the met if you have more than a few serious allegations regardless of outcome there needs to be action, and I believe that is actually something that’s now come into play. That should prevent people hanging around for years and years moving through departments with multiple allegations on their name.
The mets problem is there’s far too much ‘kicking the can down the road’ and a passing the buck mentality. People seem to not want to make big decisions, afraid of getting rid of people etc.
They’re also very hush hush even when it would benefit them to not be. And that’s not even just to the public, they’re not particularly transparent with their own officers either.
Take your last post for example, you had to explain that this guy wasn’t promoted up the ranks and so the process of vetting wouldn’t have been particular stringent. But people don’t know this and you see it on here and other places, people saying this and that should be done and you’re sat there thinking “what the hell are you talking about”… but the met won’t explain this stuff to the public.
Corrupt police investigating corrupt police.
So what kind of outcome do you expect.
In a few years time there will be the same headlines.
So what kind of outcome do you expect.
In a few years time there will be the same headlines.