Since I joined the police, it has always felt that we'll get over the latest scandal. The public love us after all. The corruption of the 1970s was dealt with. Everything carried on until all of a sudden we were all institutionally racist. This caused some consternation, but it was clear that this judgement was clearly political. The then Commissioner capitulated and eased his way into the House of Lords.
At the time I remember wondering why the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service did not stand up for his officers and staff. He was the most senior police officer in Britain. What did he have to fear? I had become fully aware of the insular determination of senior officers to achieve the next rank at all costs by that stage of my career, so I wondered why the one at the top had no bottle. Why did he not simply tell his critics where to go?
After that, I remained astounded by the way the media ruled the policing agenda. I don't see any issues with serious crime being reported and investigated accordingly, but it started to concern me when I became involved in murder investigations. Some terrible and horrific cases were categorised differently because there was little media interest. Rewards offered were lower because the press were disinterested. Those in a position of power within the police made decisions based only on their own career progression which became intimately linked to their public profile as defined by the media. Each senior officer knew that they would not be supported by more senior officers should the media decide otherwise. In my naivety I believed that my more senior colleagues would set aside their personal ambitions to bring the bringers of death to justice. No. Merely a performance indicator for which they competed with other like individuals to seek the shilling of the one who sits higher in the tree. It is only with hindsight that I realise that.
After the racism, the old allegation of violence came to the fore. Left-wing double-think justified middle-class students rioting. A violent TSG officer battered a passer-by and has thankfully been put on trial. That is right. I remained secure.
Now.
The Met Police remain deeply corrupt. Those at a senior level become blinded by the offer of power and status, they rub shoulders with people of influence and sup willingly from the same trough. A £12,000 freebie is apparently normal and does not impact on police integrity apparently.
I say we are corrupt. No. Not everyone. As I write, police officers of junior rank are doing the job they are paid to do. We are becoming more and more of a minority. Fuck them all.
Posts
19 comments:
I agree with every word. When I retired in 1986, after 25 years working for a living if you get my drift, TJF -the Job was fucked. Now its's TJAF - absolutely fucked
Let's face it - there has always been a degree of 'freebies' (corruption?) in the police. Garages paid out £2 per vehicle in my day, for removing crashed vehicles. I mentioned this to a relative of mine who headed-up a crash repair firm, and he said that the insurance company automatically paid for it, and if the cop didn't take it, they still billed for it and had it themselves. I often wondered who would believe a cop under those circumstances, should he be so accused!
The CID to my certain knowledge, 'had drinks' with top villains, certainly up to Det Supt rank, as indeed have I. BUT....I have to say that no bloody way would this stop us from doing our job, though I fully accept that; it is wrong, and hardly gives the public much confidence. Let's face it, times have changed, and so must we, I guess.
Sympathies. It isn't just policing, however. The same seems to be true in most professions - and even in business. As a young RAF recruit in the early 1970s, I looked at senior officers in the armed forces with respect; I might not have liked them but I was convinced of their sense of duty and some sort of 'comradeship'. Later, when I entered industry & business worlds, the senior dudes had a strong sense of right & wrong and had pretty high standards of behaviour. Now . . .I'm not so sure.
The common denominator seems to be the evaporation of integrity as a requirement for senior office. Compare Profumo with, say, Mandelson. The latter isn't fit to lick the former's boots when it comes to being 'honourable', yet he seems to have done incredibly well for a man who has never had a proper job, built or run a business.
I might have missed something, but am I right in thinking there was a step change downwards in top level behaviour during the Blair/Brown years? Don't think I believe that 30-40 years ago was a golden age - it wasn't, but the proportions between scrotes and squires have moved for the worse.
We have changed from needing 'integrity' - something that is quite hard to measure, but you know it when you see it - to needing certain boxes to be ticked. Compliance with rules & regulations without an underlying sense of discretion, propriety and the spirit of the thing doesn't make it right - and that is where we're at.
Ray.
As a citizen who for many years voiced concerns at the decline of police standards, I welcome such sincere posts and hope to see many more - and equally honest responses.
Actively encouraged by Gadget, the banning of my concerns from appearing on police blogs and the many crude and scurrilous police attempts to discredit me, were further symptoms of a profession in freefall.
Recognition and admission of the topic vices are the first stages in rectification, which is the good news. The bad news is quite serious. It is highly likely that multiple incidents, where police become targets for no reason other than blind hatred of a particular uniform, will dominate future headlines. At best, police are probably two decades removed from citizen forgiveness and will never re establish an important social position they once held (with a degree of fondness), in the middle of the last century.
Interesting comments. I agree there has always been an element of freebies for police - known as Good To Police (GTP) This still goes on, with several places giving police officers free coffee for example. The police warrant card used to be known as the Disco Pass, ie it gave you free entry to clubs. When the police first walked the beat, they were universally distrusted, and were often given severe beatings. Over time the situation changed, with the public recognising the need for a police force. This got to the stage where the police were always believed - and this lead to suspects being beaten and fitted up. There is a element of rose tinted specs about the police in the 1970s - Suspects are no longer beaten up in the cells. Is this because the police officers are different, or because the courts no longer believe the word of an officer?
The police have become a tool of politics. They are not directly controlled by politicians, but once a politically motivated law is passed we enforce it. With gusto. This can only be changed by a huge number of laws being revoked, and those left being only what the public want. The police can then withdraw from public life and spend the time preventing and detecting crime and keeping the Queen's peace! Sound familiar?
Are you seriously suggesting that more than HALF of all police officers are corrupt?
You are talking crap.I hope you wrote this to get a reaction from all the antis-MTG etc-and will you then shoot them down.
Jaded
Where did I say half of all police officers are corrupt? I meant that some senior officers - quite a number - are obsessed with their own career progression. They will do nothing that may be contrary to the views of politicians in power or the press. This may involve acting in a way contrary to what is expected by the so-called community they are supposed to serve. This also includes not supporting junior officers if there is any potential at all for a negative impact on the senior's promotion opportunities.
The police service should serve all equally without fear or favour. Anything other than that is wrong.
@ Jaded
I am not anti police and I give my support and backing to decent officers with decent motives. At no small cost to myself, I once provided physical assistance to police who proved themselves to be no better than criminals. You must agree that it is essential for citizens to have full trust in that uniform.
I highlight your own actions when you misrepresented WWD, your colleague, on this blog. I have previously accused you of dishonesty because the use of lies or the stretching of truth appears to be ingrained.
Such vices bring all police into disrepute.
Your dishonesty defines you as anti police - please give a little thought to this before unleashing an uncontrolled and obscene rant to further prove my points.
@Jaded, Mr WWD said that "we are becoming a minority" which is not the same as "we are a minority".
I think it was Sir Ian who said recently that while he acknowledged that there would always be some corruption (police officers being drawn from the human population) it was generally small-scale and confined to lower ranks. Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
It is clear to me as a mere taxpayer that while cash donations and freebies may be rare, there has been wholesale corruption by politics and wanting to be seen to be on the side of whoever is in power this year.
This is fundamentally wrong and goes against what taxpayers expect.
Ian Blair also claimed that politicians held too much of a hold over the police as evidenced by the removal of one Commissioner (himself) then the resignation of the next. The hypocrisy and arrogance of the man knows no bounds. He was the most political leader the police have ever had. He was a flag waving supporter of New Labour, slavishly forcing a diversity based agenda with all the thought control that entailed. Eventually got burnt though...
He said "the Met police remain deeply corrupt".A sweeping statement that I would like quantified.
MTG-you are now talking your usual rubbish: "not anti-police?".You appear on every blog with where the word police is mentioned and twist the thread for your own ends.And as someone who appears to be an excellent word-smith,I don't think the word crap is "unleashing an uncontrolled and obscene rant" do you?.
Jaded
@ Anonymous
"He said "the Met police remain deeply corrupt".A sweeping statement that I would like quantified."
Quantified ?? Well I can't actually weigh it but I can illustrate it abundantly. From the bottom to the top and institutionally. A few examples from the public domain .......
At the bottom: In 2009 it was revealed that one third of officers and staff who'd been issued with corp credit cards had misused them and the problem was too big to be dealt with.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5998737/Police-amnesty-for-officers-who-misused-credit-cards.html
At the top: Misuse of the Terrorism Act 2000. "Sections 44 to 47 of the 2000 Act came into force on February 19, 2001. A rolling programme of successive section 44 authorisations, each covering the whole of the Metropolitan Police area and each for the maximum permissible period of 28 days, had been made and confirmed ever since that time."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6986235.ece
The effect of that was to have London, for eight years, constantly under a state of emergency. This was clearly not the intention of Parliament.
Responsibility for this abuse must lie with the Chief Commissioners through that time and whoever rubber stamped it at the Home Office.
Where are CC's Stevens and Blair now ?? On the ermine.
Institutionally: Colin Stagg. ' “I am quite satisfied that this amounts to misconduct in the investigation and prosecution of this case and I categorise it egregious,” Lord Brennan concluded.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4525913.ece
After the case against him was thrown out in '94 for contravening PACE I recall seeing Condon saying he was proud of the officers involved.
They should've been sacked without a reference for what they got up to.
"Even after the case collapsed, the Metropolitan Police said they were not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder."
Why not ?? The Met's an organisation not a person, it can't have an opinion. It's supposed to investigate, not decide that after barking up the wrong tree it's had enough and not going to play anymore.
Institutionally: THe killing of Azelle Rodney.
"At the Royal Courts of Justice Sir Christopher Holland said if the police marksmen were granted immunity from prosecution those involved, including the officer who opened fire, would give full accounts of their actions."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11697078
People licenced to carry firearms should be accountable when they use them. They're police officers, not actors in some film noir. An unarmed man is dead, there should be consequences.
Institutionally: The late career of Andy Hayman.
Why was he still in post after the nonsense of his appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee in '06 ??
http://worldwearydetective.blogspot.com/2006/03/daydream-nation.html
Why was he still in post after the debacle at Forest Gate when an innocent man was almost killed ??
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article672883.ece
Why was he still there until .... "Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police Authority and the commissioner, assistant commissioner Andy Hayman has decided to retire from the Metropolitan police service." .... he had to bolt before he got his expenses investigated ??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/04/menezes.uksecurity
If you live in London you just shake your head at all this. The Met needs a thorough flushing but there's no one prepared to take it on.
Thanks for your research Sam! Andy Hayman...he pops up on LBC radio in London fairly often spouting rubbish. I detest the man...
@Sam_m
1)Credit Cards
1183 officers had misused them – not criminally – putting a personal purchase through then refunding it, or using it to buy work items that should have been bought through other procurement systems (which as every cop knows are slow and highly priced).
50 were referred to IPCC, 5 went to court.
Out of 50,000 officers and staff that’s not exactly institutionalised and they were identified by an internal audit. A healthy sign that corruption is not endemic.
2)Rolling s44 authorities.
Yes they were authorised for the whole of the year. Was it lawful? Yes, until it was challenged at the EHCR. Corruption? Who gained out of that. The police got slightly more powers to stop and search people. I hope you don’t just subscribe to the view that the police are a jackbooted organisation intent on taking over London.
Misguidedly and probably stupidly the commissioners used their new lawful powers to put in place what they saw as extra powers to protect the people in London. We don’t just stop and search people for fun - I am not clear how exactly it is police corruption though. I don’t know who’s gained out of that situation
3)Colin Stagg investigation.
Yes it was a cock-up. Depending on who you believe it was a misuse of a UC driven either by the SIO or the advising psychologist. Yes they clearly should have kept the investigation open, investigating stranger murder is not quite as easy as it appears on the TV. Incidentally the investigation was reviewed and Napper was identified and convicted.
Again corruption? It was a cock up. It might show incompetence in investigation, but for the few high profile cocked up investigation there are numerous extremely good investigations and convictions unreported.
The few cock-ups are often brought into the spotlight by the police themselves arresting the correct offender or reviewing case material. It is hardly institutional incompetence.
A corrupt organisation would simply leave the innocent in prison and refuse to review and reinvestigate.
4)The Azelle Rodney shooting and immunity from prosecution.
I agree police officers should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. As expected all involved provided statements about the shooting.
When their actions were investigated and one officer ” E7 “was interviewed under caution he elected to exercise his right to remain silent. The IPCC had access to his statement, vast amounts of intel as well as all other information about that event. It was passed to the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
Given that police officers already have to provide a statement detailing their actions in a shooting incident – which is a hell of a lot more than a member of the public has to - if you are now proposing that police officers now have no right to silence when being interviewed on suspicion of committing a criminal offence then that is a giant leap further then calling us all corrupt.
5)Hayman
I really know nothing about him. Which is probably a good thing. He does appear typical of the senior management in many organisations , not least the police, who having climbed to the top of the greasy pole, have fingers in so many pies (or other orifices) that extracting them easily is difficult and painful. It is the downside to any bureaucratic organisation with a requirement to bend over backwards in the interests of fair employment conditions when it comes to getting rid of anybody for anything, especially when that person is right up at the top.
In terms of corruption – he might be, so on an individual level you might have one there.
The only way I can make any sense of your post is if you are using the term police “corruption” to mean the general abuse of police as being abusers of their power and trying to oppress the free.
Which I don’t think is the way the word was used or intended in WWD’s post.
The worst thing about this corruption scandal is the easy ammo it provides to every anti-police commentator to take a swipe at the cops.
Tang0
WWD,
My comments appear to be disappearing into your spam filter :-(
Tang0
The real problem is that senior officers have looked across the river that divides them from the political paty of society and they believe they are entitled to sup from the same spoon as those that hold political office. That is the mistake they have made, they have had their ego's rubbed and they love the attention that they received forgetting all the while that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
They have betrayed all those decent hard working police officers who work day in day out to keep us safe.
Never have so many been betrayed by so few.
Off-topic, WWD but as a police critic with a sense of fair play, I warm to a special showing of police bravery and determination which appears in many tabloids.
Please accept my own compliments and admiration, PC Pascoe, for a job well done.
@ Anonymous 23:58
I take abuse of power to be indicative of corruption.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
You don't seem to have understood my post and from your riposte to it I'm not sure you've really read it. I find what you've written to be obfuscatory and full of sophistry.
I'm not going to go through it all again but two examples.
The killing of Azelle Rodney: "At the Royal Courts of Justice Sir Christopher Holland said if the police marksmen were granted immunity from prosecution those involved, including the officer who opened fire, would give full accounts of their actions."
Note, not about the right to silence or a fair hearing but "immunity from prosecution".
An unarmed man is dead and his killer and companions want IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.
The credit card abuse: I don't care how many of the Met establishment weren't issued with them. Of the ones who were, one third of them chose not to distinguish between their own money and the Met's.
You observe "..they were identified by an internal audit". An audit is a waste of time if you don't act on what it turns up. The failure to sanction all the offenders is a sign of the sickness of the system, not its health.
From the link I gave above with that .... Jenny Jones, of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said training and guidance is "not enough" and some disciplinary action should be taken.
"I find it unacceptable that the police have just let these officers go with guidance. They must have known what they were doing was wrong."
If you don't understand why the examples in my previous post show cause for concern, then you are part of the problem.
"The worst thing about this corruption scandal is the easy ammo it provides to every anti-police commentator to take a swipe at the cops." ....Quite.
Utterly pointless even raising points with you since your mind is entirely made up.
You don't have a problem with police corruption you have a problem with the police.
Credit cards - you suggest the problem was "too big to be dealt with" - an alternative view would be "too minor to matter".
F@k me I might be guilty of that - I'm sure I've used a job credit card to buy some kit for the office which has been cheaper, quicker and better than waiting for a lengthy and slow procurement system to produce something which is worse quality and more expensive. I suspect you might struggle to prosecute that in a court of law, or even dismiss my corrupt ass for it. Regardless of what Jenny Jones - that staunch supporter of the the police would argue.
Azelle Rodney? I'm sorry am I missing something here. you want inquests be able to compel witnesses to give evidence? The officer has provided a full statement. He doesn't have to say anything else. If there was another process in place that would require him to speak perhaps they would use it. But there isn't. Perhaps it's worth waiting for the inquest to see what "corrupt practices" that is covering up. The answer - I will bet money - is none. Though I am quite prepared to await the outcome and apologise at legth should it transpire that the officer has covered up a criminal act.
If you can't see the difference between police corruption as described in both WWD post and the scandals that have beset the Met and generalised anti-police abuse then you join the ranks of the anti-police commentators whose constant whine provides me with reassurance that I don't yet live in a police state.
Cheers
Tang0
Post a Comment