Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Casey Review Report
22 Answers
is here
shortish - 363 pages which means the pundits have had time to read it
https:/
Trenchant views - "and in the queue, interests of the Londoners come last".
"The Met has failed to protect the public against officers who abuse women" - oo-er Chief Constable!
Abers, need a question: er once you have waded thro it, what do you think?
shortish - 363 pages which means the pundits have had time to read it
https:/
Trenchant views - "and in the queue, interests of the Londoners come last".
"The Met has failed to protect the public against officers who abuse women" - oo-er Chief Constable!
Abers, need a question: er once you have waded thro it, what do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Met have *always* been a rogue constabulary. Almost every other police force has had a low opinion of the body, as a whole, and the officers as a group of individuals.
They relaxed/reduced the joining-requirements to encourage recruitment and as a consequence got far too many manifestly unsuitable applicants who weren't weeded out during the application process.
It is a shame that this is one area where 'market-forces' cannot be applied and a private service be set-up as competition in order to 'keep the King's peace'.
They relaxed/reduced the joining-requirements to encourage recruitment and as a consequence got far too many manifestly unsuitable applicants who weren't weeded out during the application process.
It is a shame that this is one area where 'market-forces' cannot be applied and a private service be set-up as competition in order to 'keep the King's peace'.
//They relaxed/reduced the joining-requirements to encourage recruitment and as a consequence got far too many manifestly unsuitable applicants who weren't weeded out during the application process.//
Interesting, any ideas how you weed out unsuitable applicants? Unless they are openly a problem, which most wont have been at interview, unless you have some sort of lie detector that works.
There are a few problems with the Met. Head of the list has to be the "woke" agenda from the top, that has meant the respect of authority is lost at the lower ranks and breeds this sort of behaviour. Couple that with the closing of Hendon and loss of central training (which can help weed out the wrong uns) and its a recipe for disaster.
Of course the drive for diversity hasnt helped either, standards lowered to get people in and of course the sort of people you get in are not the sort you want in authority.
However it is easy to sit and bash the Police, the majority of whom wish to do a good job nicking criminals (not mean tweets), so we need out of the box thinking. I'm glad to see some of the suggestions follow on from what I said the other week i.e. to split the Force (and yes it needs to be back to a Force) down into manageable chunks.
Interesting, any ideas how you weed out unsuitable applicants? Unless they are openly a problem, which most wont have been at interview, unless you have some sort of lie detector that works.
There are a few problems with the Met. Head of the list has to be the "woke" agenda from the top, that has meant the respect of authority is lost at the lower ranks and breeds this sort of behaviour. Couple that with the closing of Hendon and loss of central training (which can help weed out the wrong uns) and its a recipe for disaster.
Of course the drive for diversity hasnt helped either, standards lowered to get people in and of course the sort of people you get in are not the sort you want in authority.
However it is easy to sit and bash the Police, the majority of whom wish to do a good job nicking criminals (not mean tweets), so we need out of the box thinking. I'm glad to see some of the suggestions follow on from what I said the other week i.e. to split the Force (and yes it needs to be back to a Force) down into manageable chunks.
///Interesting, any ideas how you weed out unsuitable applicants? ///
The systems that other Police Forces implemented had, by and large, a better level of success. The rules and standards that other county constabularies had in place for applicants were relaxed, for the Met, because it needed to be a larger force to deal with our capital city.
The systems that other Police Forces implemented had, by and large, a better level of success. The rules and standards that other county constabularies had in place for applicants were relaxed, for the Met, because it needed to be a larger force to deal with our capital city.
I still fail to see what something was like 50 years ago has to do with what they are today, apart from yes they havnt changed.
As for the other forces, they have not been so hamstrung with the diversity quotas in addition they are massive compared to other forces.
Also, perhaps cases in other forces havnt come to light yet?
As for the other forces, they have not been so hamstrung with the diversity quotas in addition they are massive compared to other forces.
Also, perhaps cases in other forces havnt come to light yet?
I still fail to see what something was like 50 years ago has to do with what they are today, apart from yes they havnt changed.
I still fail to see what something was like now, 25 50 years ago has to do with now, apart from yes they havent changed.
that is the point: they havent changed despite notice
I still fail to see what something was like now, 25 50 years ago has to do with now, apart from yes they havent changed.
that is the point: they havent changed despite notice
"Of course the drive for diversity hasnt helped either, standards lowered to get people in and of course the sort of people you get in are not the sort you want in authority."
How does that work?
With no drive for a diverse Met in the 70s, why was it so riven with racism?
With a current drive for diversity - how does the report highlight racism within the force?
By expanding the force to include more women and non-white officers, why would the Met be shown as institutionally racist and sexist?
Surely the opposite would be true?
How does that work?
With no drive for a diverse Met in the 70s, why was it so riven with racism?
With a current drive for diversity - how does the report highlight racism within the force?
By expanding the force to include more women and non-white officers, why would the Met be shown as institutionally racist and sexist?
Surely the opposite would be true?
NJ
Only pointing out that statistically it's much more likely - seeing as the overwhelming majority of the Met Police are white, also I can't remember any stories of black officers being disciplined for showing overtly racist attitudes to white members of the public.
By the way NJ. You once referred to the McPherson report as 'ludicrous'. Have you read this one and come to the same conclusion?
Only pointing out that statistically it's much more likely - seeing as the overwhelming majority of the Met Police are white, also I can't remember any stories of black officers being disciplined for showing overtly racist attitudes to white members of the public.
By the way NJ. You once referred to the McPherson report as 'ludicrous'. Have you read this one and come to the same conclusion?
No I haven't read this one yet, sp.
I had a certain sympathy with the police when the McPherson report was published, principally because of some of its recommendations. I have less now, not because of the racial aspect necessarily but because of the overall quality of some of the officers. I can understand some recruits slipping through the vetting net - it's difficult to determine a person's attitudes, predalictions and habits in a few short sessions. But many officers have been found to be lacking long after they joined the force and nothing has been done about them. That's unforgiveable.
I had a certain sympathy with the police when the McPherson report was published, principally because of some of its recommendations. I have less now, not because of the racial aspect necessarily but because of the overall quality of some of the officers. I can understand some recruits slipping through the vetting net - it's difficult to determine a person's attitudes, predalictions and habits in a few short sessions. But many officers have been found to be lacking long after they joined the force and nothing has been done about them. That's unforgiveable.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.