Cressida Dick steps aside as head of the Met

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

More Met in general than the previous head, but what an absolute bin fire. Investigations ongoing into over 1000 allegations of sexual or domestic abuse relating to 800 serving officers, with the Rowley case being the grim cherry on the top.

I'm usually pretty supportive of the Met in these things, there's bound to be a few dodgy people in an organisation of that side who are clever enough to hide their character through vetting. However, hearing the timelines with Carrick I really couldn't see how he got through initial vetting let alone the progression into firearms and diplomatic protection where I assume they would need DV level security checking. I know there were no convictions but surely the number of unproven but seemingly unrelated things he was reported and investigated for would have cast sufficient doubt to not allow him to progress even if it wasn't enough to sack him.

It's not just confined to the Met either, there have been several senior officers sacked or who 'took early retirement' in Gwent recently including someone I worked with years ago before he joined the force.

I think when 2% of the workforce is under investigation we can firmly dismiss the 'few bad apples' line. That's halfway to a management endorsement.

I think when it gets to that level (like the Catholic Church and MPs) you have to ask yourself if your organisation attracts these people, does it transform people or is this behaviour in all of us and the job facilitates it?

I think it's the first in as much as there are a small element in all those organisations that see it as a way of gaining access to what motivates them.

rick_chasey

I think the problem with rozzers looking after themselves is, in part, you have to because the actual criminals make the job quite dangerous.

I think we've had the discussion before and someone, I think SC, mentioned how a lot of police spend a lot of time fending off spurious claims from criminals puporting to be victims of police mishandling when they're just trying to wriggle out of whatever they're accused of.

It's a dangerous job - I certainly wouldn't want to spend my life knee deep in criminality and heading to where stuff you don't want to happen is happening.

So I think then the leap from looking after each other for good reason to bad is pretty small.

As ever, I suspect cuts to policing etc make the job difficult so well meaning people find it harder to stay and nefarious people stay as they have ulterior motives.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Another elephant in the room - police recruitment is self selecting for the personality types causing many of the issues. i.e. it is a role with the exercise of power, which can be quite attractive to some people. Young men, mainly.

42% of recruits since 2020 have been female. My daughter was determined to join from the age of 12 and was a police cadet for several years, she eventually got put off partly due to ex-police officers she had lecturing on her criminology degree and partly when seeing the impact on the work / life balance of her best friend (who has since been off sick with stress having had to help keep her sergeants guts inside his body when he was stabbed). I also have a friend who gave up a career in IT to join the police in his 40s.

I applied when I was about 20 (didn't get in as my eyesight didn't meet the standards back then, everything got relaxed a few years later). I don't think I've got any major personality flaws that would make me want to abuse my power, I wanted to do it to try to help my community - sounds cheesy but I suspect it is still the reason most people do it.

Despite these cases and the 2% figure RJS mentions I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the job are doing it for the right reason.

I don't doubt it, but the nature ofnthe work must surely encourage a certain type, as compared to the population as a whole.

Let me flip it around - are you saying your daughter doesn't experience issues within the force from the sort of personality traits we are discussing here?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Another elephant in the room - police recruitment is self selecting for the personality types causing many of the issues. i.e. it is a role with the exercise of power, which can be quite attractive to some people. Young men, mainly.

42% of recruits since 2020 have been female. My daughter was determined to join from the age of 12 and was a police cadet for several years, she eventually got put off partly due to ex-police officers she had lecturing on her criminology degree and partly when seeing the impact on the work / life balance of her best friend (who has since been off sick with stress having had to help keep her sergeants guts inside his body when he was stabbed). I also have a friend who gave up a career in IT to join the police in his 40s.

I applied when I was about 20 (didn't get in as my eyesight didn't meet the standards back then, everything got relaxed a few years later). I don't think I've got any major personality flaws that would make me want to abuse my power, I wanted to do it to try to help my community - sounds cheesy but I suspect it is still the reason most people do it.

Despite these cases and the 2% figure RJS mentions I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the job are doing it for the right reason.

I don't doubt it, but the nature ofnthe work must surely encourage a certain type, as compared to the population as a whole.

Let me flip it around - are you saying your daughter doesn't experience issues within the force from the sort of personality traits we are discussing here?

My daughter didn't join in the end, she became a probation officer instead. However, I don't doubt there are issues and it certainly looks like the vetting process isn't as robust as it should be. Apart from teachers I reckon I know more people working as police officers than any other profession so maybe my view is skewed.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I think the problem with rozzers looking after themselves is, in part, you have to because the actual criminals make the job quite dangerous.

I think we've had the discussion before and someone, I think SC, mentioned how a lot of police spend a lot of time fending off spurious claims from criminals puporting to be victims of police mishandling when they're just trying to wriggle out of whatever they're accused of.

It's a dangerous job - I certainly wouldn't want to spend my life knee deep in criminality and heading to where stuff you don't want to happen is happening.

So I think then the leap from looking after each other for good reason to bad is pretty small.

As ever, I suspect cuts to policing etc make the job difficult so well meaning people find it harder to stay and nefarious people stay as they have ulterior motives.

it is the time that you have a possible prison sentence hanging over you that is the problem.

This may sound bad but his offence was to hit an armed man in the face with the butt of his gun. So rather than shooting a bloke he took the riskier option and had that handing over him for several months was it was investigated.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

Despite these cases and the 2% figure RJS mentions I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the job are doing it for the right reason.

I'm sure they are, but 2% is way too high a figure, and somehow you have to empower the 98% who are in it for the right reason to get rid of the 2% who aren't.

If I relate that to our training, it means that you continually instil into the 98% the absolute legal and moral duty to report *any* suspicions you have, however close you are to a person, and however unsure you are about doing it; being very clear about the forms of concern; and having very clear and easy-to-access channels to voice those concerns. Then it's up to the safeguarding officers to do their job.

You're never going to get through to the abusers, but unless you get through to the 98% that one of the most important parts of the job is making sure that abusers get rooted out, then the whole organisation will get rightly accused of not taking the issue seriously enough.

Pross

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

Despite these cases and the 2% figure RJS mentions I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the job are doing it for the right reason.

I'm sure they are, but 2% is way too high a figure, and somehow you have to empower the 98% who are in it for the right reason to get rid of the 2% who aren't.

If I relate that to our training, it means that you continually instil into the 98% the absolute legal and moral duty to report *any* suspicions you have, however close you are to a person, and however unsure you are about doing it; being very clear about the forms of concern; and having very clear and easy-to-access channels to voice those concerns. Then it's up to the safeguarding officers to do their job.

You're never going to get through to the abusers, but unless you get through to the 98% that one of the most important parts of the job is making sure that abusers get rooted out, then the whole organisation will get rightly accused of not taking the issue seriously enough.

2% under investigation doesn't necessarily equate to 2% doing anything wrong though (although conversely 2% being under investigation doesn't necessarily mean the number doing wrong isn't greater either).

I've had reason in the past to make a formal complaint to the police (many years ago) and do think the process is badly flawed. In my case the investigating officer came to see me when 'my solicitor' (sister's boss doing me a favour) was on leave and talked me into accepting an apology with the officers in question getting a bit of a talking to. I guess no-one really wants to be the one investigating their colleagues and being hated within your own place of work.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

. I guess no-one really wants to be the one investigating their colleagues and being hated within your own place of work.

That's the culture that needs to change, from top to bottom.

MattFalle

Pross said:

. I guess no-one really wants to be the one investigating their colleagues and being hated within your own place of work.

they are more than happy to see the vacancy, research the vacancy, go through the interview process and take the pay cheque at the rnd of the day though aren't they?

just #fuckingweak #fuckingcorrupt

briantrumpet

One of the 'trick' multiple choice questions is always along the lines of "Whose responsibility is safeguarding pupils and staff?", and the answer is, obviously, "Everybody's". If that's not the culture, then it's not going to work. But it is the job of the safeguarding team to persuade the organisation that this isn't 'woke box-ticking', and it is front and centre for the whole organisation.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

. I guess no-one really wants to be the one investigating their colleagues and being hated within your own place of work.

That's the culture that needs to change, from top to bottom.

I they ever find H?

MattFalle

No Braverman you incompetent, racist dotard - it does not form part of an going unrelated enquiry.

itis a completely new enquiry where people are held accountable for turning a blind eye to their collleagues' heinous actions

#fucktheTories

MattFalle

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

Pross

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

rjsterry

MattFalle said:

No Braverman you incompetent, racist dotard - it does not form part of an going unrelated enquiry.

itis a completely new enquiry where people are held accountable for turning a blind eye to their collleagues' heinous actions

#fucktheTories

Saw a reference to Priti Patel as the thinking man's Suella Braverman.
In fairness to the former, she did appear genuinely interested in tackling violence against women.

MattFalle

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

MattFalle

rjsterry said:

MattFalle said:

No Braverman you incompetent, racist dotard - it does not form part of an going unrelated enquiry.

itis a completely new enquiry where people are held accountable for turning a blind eye to their collleagues' heinous actions

#fucktheTories

Saw a reference to Priti Patel as the thinking man's Suella Braverman.
In fairness to the former, she did appear genuinely interested in tackling violence against women.

Patel tried to bring in legislation about all this the Braverman has left sitting in her pending tray.

Patel picked up on this in the Commons today.

Pross

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

I don't really think it matters that our police chiefs aren't good public speakers, providing they are good police chiefs. Its the latter that's been causing problems over the years.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

I don't really think it matters that our police chiefs aren't good public speakers, providing they are good police chiefs. Its the latter that's been causing problems over the years.

I suspect that woman who writes for The Telegraph will explain it is because they've become so woke and are appointing people to fulfill their diversity targets.

You can actually join the police at Superintendent level now without having previously worked in the police. I still can't decide if this is a good or bad thing - it is mainly a managerial role at that level so a strong management background could be useful but then even in that role a strong knowledge of what is involved in police work is likely to be a significant benefit. From people I know in the job opinions vary on whether it is a good idea at that leel but you can also go straight in as an Inspector which they are all agreed is a bad thing as it tends to be a more operational rank. Having people with managerial experience outside the force could be a benefit in these sorts of situations though.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

I don't really think it matters that our police chiefs aren't good public speakers, providing they are good police chiefs. Its the latter that's been causing problems over the years.

they're rubbish atboth.

at that levelof any organisation, especially emerg servs, you don't eed some one that you look at and go 'buffoon'

MattFalle

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

if she is head of professionalism then God help us all.

MattFalle

MattFalle

total farce - interested in nothing but looking after themselves

and they wonder why people think they are corrupt liars

#headingtotheLodge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/17/no-met-officers-facing-disciplinary-inquiry-over-david-carrick

orraloon

Oh leave it MF.

So a limited number of polis turn out to be barstewards. Not all polis are barstewards.

So a limited number of military personnel turn out to be barstewards. Not all military personnel are barstewards, are they?

A limited number of clergy turn out to be barstewards. Not all clergy are barstewards, are they?

However, not so sure about #toryscum MPs.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

Pross said:

MattFalle said:

As an aside, anyone else notice how the Met rolled out the token female senior officer to make yesterday's statement and that one couldn't even string two words together.....

The Deputy Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners are female. The one doing the media rounds today is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of professionalism so it falls under her remit, nothing to do with tokenism.

I don’t think the mess they have on their plate needs people to try to invent new things to criticise.

she was trash. end of.

something like this you need someone with gravitas, knowledge, confidence, empathy, trust, not someone who can't read words on a bit of paper.

She may be trash but she is the head of professionalism with the Met so it is literally her job to be responding to questions on the subject.

I don't really think it matters that our police chiefs aren't good public speakers, providing they are good police chiefs. Its the latter that's been causing problems over the years.

I suspect that woman who writes for The Telegraph will explain it is because they've become so woke and are appointing people to fulfill their diversity targets.

On the contrary, she thinks a fictional policewoman should be brought in to sort it out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/01/17/happy-valleys-catherine-cawood-could-sort-met-just-shame-fictional/

Stevo_666

MattFalle said:

total farce - interested in nothing but looking after themselves

and they wonder why people think they are corrupt liars

#headingtotheLodge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/17/no-met-officers-facing-disciplinary-inquiry-over-david-carrick

Thought you'd be quite keen on the Police
https://youtu.be/N5X8eQ3nYAs

MattFalle

Stevo_666 said:

MattFalle said:

total farce - interested in nothing but looking after themselves

and they wonder why people think they are corrupt liars

#headingtotheLodge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/17/no-met-officers-facing-disciplinary-inquiry-over-david-carrick

Thought you'd be quite keen on the Police
https://youtu.be/N5X8eQ3nYAs

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

Stevo_666

MattFalle said:

Stevo_666 said:

MattFalle said:

total farce - interested in nothing but looking after themselves

and they wonder why people think they are corrupt liars

#headingtotheLodge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/17/no-met-officers-facing-disciplinary-inquiry-over-david-carrick

Thought you'd be quite keen on the Police
https://youtu.be/N5X8eQ3nYAs

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

Even in 1981 it was a case of 'We take absolutely anyone'

slowmart

Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, has been front and centre in todays news. Thats leadership. He’s currently restructuring his leadership team, the change in tone and culture will need lower ranks to buy into and embed these beliefs and behaviours.

A culture change of this magnitude has been done before, when the RUC was abolished and replaced with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

According to our despicable Home Secretary, there may be worse to come.

I don’t doubt many current officers will be thinking long and hard this evening about their personal responsibility, those officers who aren’t are probably looking over their shoulder with an eye on the exit. I suppose one indicator of forward movement will be the number of officers who leave the force with either a boot print on their behind or leave voluntarily with the writing on the wall.

Only the strong application of weeding out individuals who are unsuitable will accelerate and sustain change.