|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 18, 2022 18:06:52 GMT
You really don't do nuance do you. Also if you want to be a good copper then avoid reading too much Hesiod. It could turn you illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 18, 2022 18:11:56 GMT
What's a "Systemic" bias anyway? Is it like "Institutional Racism" - something that doesn't actually exist but we have to pretend that it does? If you honestly beleive that supervisors aren't reluctant to tackle black and Asian staff then you seriously need to take your head out of your arse. Systemic bias just means the system is biased. Like for example if we had a system of employing one woman for every one man and yet less women applied for the job - that would be systemic bias. I agree that scandals will always continue, it requires courage to come out against an officer especially if a number are protecting drugs gangs and it could be dangerous. It happened to a friend that moved station, he moved again. He recently retired. And a friend whose brothers friend was at inspector level had a firearm because of the assassination risk from crime gangs in London. The racism from officers is harder to crack unless they can break social media sites or record them. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 18, 2022 18:40:06 GMT
I know next to nothing about the problems within the Met, but I don't understand what Casey might bring to the party. Having read one of her reports I was left with the impression it was designed to produce the result required by the investigation's commissioner (the one I read was subsequently heavily criticised). Does anyone know why the Baroness was Chosen? You appear to think you know enough to comment, so why do you think the Baroness was Chosen…? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 18, 2022 18:50:45 GMT
I know next to nothing about the problems within the Met, but I don't understand what Casey might bring to the party. Having read one of her reports I was left with the impression it was designed to produce the result required by the investigation's commissioner (the one I read was subsequently heavily criticised). Does anyone know why the Baroness was Chosen? You appear to think you know enough to comment, so why do you think the Baroness was Chosen…? I know a little about the work Casey has done, but I've genuinely no idea why she might have been chosen for this particular issue. It strikes me as an odd choice. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 18, 2022 20:10:11 GMT
...Having read one of her reports I was left with the impression it was designed to produce the result required by the investigation's commissioner... Aren't all of these inquiries? In my view, they are pretty much all designed to obscure the real problems and ensure that the chosen patsy gets the blame while the establishment gets off Scot free. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 18, 2022 20:17:04 GMT
The MacPherson report was another one: While everyone got excited about “Institutional Racism” the real issues went unaddressed.
And here we are: 26 years on and still talking about the same issues. As we doubtless still will be in another 26 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 19, 2022 9:05:10 GMT
...Having read one of her reports I was left with the impression it was designed to produce the result required by the investigation's commissioner... Aren't all of these inquiries? In my view, they are pretty much all designed to obscure the real problems and ensure that the chosen patsy gets the blame while the establishment gets off Scot free. No doubt there's an element of truth in that, but Casey appears singularly ill equipped to handle this kind of inquiry - or so it seems to me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 19, 2022 10:12:29 GMT
She was apparently Tony Blairs' "Homelessness Tsar". From the Graun (sorry): "Her outburst [at an after-dinner speech to senior police] this summer seemed to be wholly unacceptable behaviour. I would have thought it was a breach of the civil service code. Now she has been promoted. It's extraordinary."
A recording of the expletive-sprinkled speech was leaked to the Daily Mail... The incident suggested both that she had made enemies within the hierarchy of the civil service and that she had secured the prime minister's backing. She apologised, kept her job and retained her privileged position of reporting directly to Mr Blair - access interpreted as a snub to the home secretary.
And now she writes a report criticising others for allegedly doing the same.
So ironically, maybe she is more qualified than we thought. But hypocrisy, much?
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 19, 2022 13:19:48 GMT
Anyone producing a warts and all report on the Met is likely to be the target of those mostly-unidentified Right-leaning unofficial pro-police spokesmen, who usually provide misleading info whenever police methods and tactics are questioned. I had no info on Baroness Casey, but a quick Wiki scan of her career and experience, suggests she's probably an ideal selection: 2 Career 2.1 Rough Sleepers' Unit 2.2 Anti-Social Behaviour Unit 2.3 Respect Task Force; crime adviser 2.4 Victims' Commissioner 2.5 Troubled Families programme 2.6 Rotherham investigation 2.7 Review of community cohesion and extremism 2.8 Rough sleeping taskforce 2.9 International homeless work en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Casey,_Baroness_Casey_of_Blackstock New Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said the problems Baroness Casey's report into the Met exposes are "appalling" - and that hundreds of officers should be sacked immediately. Sir Mark has said "I agree we need to be quicker and more decisive in how we use existing police regulations to remove - at the earliest possible stage - those who should not be in policing." Let's see what happens... |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 19, 2022 13:49:58 GMT
See my posts above and we'll have the same conversation in 26 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 19, 2022 14:40:41 GMT
Anyone producing a warts and all report on the Met is likely to be the target of those mostly-unidentified Right-leaning unofficial pro-police spokesmen, who usually provide misleading info whenever police methods and tactics are questioned. I had no info on Baroness Casey, but a quick Wiki scan of her career and experience, suggests she's probably an ideal selection: 2 Career 2.1 Rough Sleepers' Unit 2.2 Anti-Social Behaviour Unit 2.3 Respect Task Force; crime adviser 2.4 Victims' Commissioner 2.5 Troubled Families programme 2.6 Rotherham investigation 2.7 Review of community cohesion and extremism 2.8 Rough sleeping taskforce 2.9 International homeless work en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Casey,_Baroness_Casey_of_Blackstock New Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said the problems Baroness Casey's report into the Met exposes are "appalling" - and that hundreds of officers should be sacked immediately. Sir Mark has said "I agree we need to be quicker and more decisive in how we use existing police regulations to remove - at the earliest possible stage - those who should not be in policing." Let's see what happens... It may be me, but I have no idea how you came to the conclusion she might be the ideal selection. I would have thought a senior KC with a criminal practice would be the sort of person to deal with this kind of inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 19, 2022 16:18:19 GMT
Well, there we are — you actually had an axe to grind after all…
PS — I’m taking it on trust that you’re not ex-job, or an “associate”
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 19, 2022 16:27:04 GMT
Well, there we are — you actually had an axe to grind after all… And the dildo of irony strikes again. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 19, 2022 18:03:14 GMT
Well, there we are — you actually had an axe to grind after all… PS — I’m taking it on trust that you’re not ex-job, or an “associate” I'm sure there is some logic in there somewhere. Perhaps you'd explain? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 19, 2022 22:42:53 GMT
Systemic bias just means the system is biased. Like for example if we had a system of employing one woman for every one man and yet less women applied for the job - that would be systemic bias. I agree that scandals will always continue, it requires courage to come out against an officer especially if a number are protecting drugs gangs and it could be dangerous. It happened to a friend that moved station, he moved again. He recently retired. And a friend whose brothers friend was at inspector level had a firearm because of the assassination risk from crime gangs in London. The racism from officers is harder to crack unless they can break social media sites or record them. It's right to privacy. You monitor private conversations then you break the Human Rights Act. The thing is the officers were probably having a laugh and a joke but some people are humourless and take everything literally. As if the officers had not got enough problems to deal with already. |
|
