matticus
Guru
Well knock me down with a feather - a unit specifically created to carry guns and shoot people with them, and it turns out they have different rules?!?
Wow ...
Can the (Met) police ever change?
- Thread starter glasgowcyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Wow ...
newfhouse
pleb
What Casey is saying is that the same rules about behaviour, accountability, and trust should apply, but often don’t, to an even greater extent than other parts of the Met.
matticus
Guru
In which case, it seems you are better at expressing such thoughts in print than Casey!
newfhouse
pleb
Did you read the report or just the news article? She’s very clear in the original.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
On this point the report is very clear however it's 200 pages alltough @newfhouse posted to newspapers writing about the same report, both basically say the same so that goes under-reported.
But if you read the full report she actually has a few chapters about it, but it's clearly an report in response too rather than an indept review, racism for example is mentioned, their are i think two instances where they describe racism regarding new recruits but that's where it stops.(maybe 2 sentences alltogether) While they write pages describing in detail how women are mistreated.(the reports was a response on the Sarah Everheard case. )
Which i think is a missed opportunity, but for the likes of Casey it's just securing income for the next job.
All uphill
Well-Known Member
I think that comment says much more about you than her.
matticus
Guru
Yes I did - or rather the pages about MO19 you referenced. It may go into more detail, but I think using the phrase
"normal rules do not seem to
apply or be applied in MO19"
in the chapter summary comes across as flippant, and ill thought-through.
Anyway, that's a report taking a wider view, and is thus by-the-by, as we don't (yet) know exactly what happened in this specific, and we certainly don't know if there was racist motivation(s).
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
it's an typical report built upon the consultant based economy, pointing out points but not go deeper into them because it's not your current assignment.
Any report made with intentions of making things better would take everything in account, but we seem to have forgotten about that because current society rewards this kind of event based reports.
Pale Rider
Veteran
I dunno about reports, I avoid them like the plague, but experience tells me coppers are a strange body of men (and women), but armed coppers are stranger than most.
Police forces are known for their self-forming cliques and teams, so I can well imagine the Met firearms mob see themselves as superior to the woodentops and behave in a way of which most rank and file coppers wouldn't approve.
Worth bearing in mind that firearms jobs are reasonably common, but discharging a lethal weapon is very rare.
This means that nearly every copper who shoots someone will have never shot anyone before, even though they have years of firearms experience and lots and lots of training.
The last police shooting inquest I covered involved three armed response vehicles, so six armed coppers.
All had 10 years or more in firearms, but none had ever shot anyone using lethal ammunition.
In this case they tried to disable the suspect with a ballistic round, sometimes called a rubber bullet.
He went down after the first one, but got up again, so they hit him with another, but again he got up - in an even worse temper as you may imagine.
What did it is he levelled his pistol at one of the cops.
This brought forward two rounds from a carbine.
No one gets up from that.
Some speculation this was a 'suicide by cop', in other words the person knew if he pointed a realistic weapon at a polis or a member of the public, the police will pull the lethal trigger.
Police forces are known for their self-forming cliques and teams, so I can well imagine the Met firearms mob see themselves as superior to the woodentops and behave in a way of which most rank and file coppers wouldn't approve.
Worth bearing in mind that firearms jobs are reasonably common, but discharging a lethal weapon is very rare.
This means that nearly every copper who shoots someone will have never shot anyone before, even though they have years of firearms experience and lots and lots of training.
The last police shooting inquest I covered involved three armed response vehicles, so six armed coppers.
All had 10 years or more in firearms, but none had ever shot anyone using lethal ammunition.
In this case they tried to disable the suspect with a ballistic round, sometimes called a rubber bullet.
He went down after the first one, but got up again, so they hit him with another, but again he got up - in an even worse temper as you may imagine.
What did it is he levelled his pistol at one of the cops.
This brought forward two rounds from a carbine.
No one gets up from that.
Some speculation this was a 'suicide by cop', in other words the person knew if he pointed a realistic weapon at a polis or a member of the public, the police will pull the lethal trigger.
Fab Foodie
Guru
2 questions:
Do you believe we need armed officers in the UK?
If at the interview it's mentioned that if by discharging your weapon in the line of duty you may be charged with murder, how many officers do you think you would recruit?
Do you believe we need armed officers in the UK?
If at the interview it's mentioned that if by discharging your weapon in the line of duty you may be charged with murder, how many officers do you think you would recruit?
newfhouse
pleb
Unfortunately, yes.
It is.
Probably fewer now the hypothetical murder charge is a reality, but who knows? I expect quite a few old sweats will be looking at taking retirement sooner than otherwise planned, leaving vacancies for more of the recent intake to fill. What could possibly go wrong?
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
A other topic in a few weeks/months/years titled something like ''Why do so many armed police officers get killed doing their job?''
multitool
Pharaoh
They don't.
Six officers have been killed in the last decade, and none of them were armed officers.
In that same period the police have killed 30.
newfhouse
pleb
Say it ain’t so.
Police officers are switching off their body-worn cameras when force is used, as well as deleting footage and sharing videos on WhatsApp.
A BBC investigation has uncovered more than 150 reports of camera misuse by forces in England and Wales - described as "shocking" by a leading officer.
In one case, siblings faced a two-year legal battle over footage showing officers' use of force against them.
The Home Office says police use of cameras must be lawful and justified.
The roll-out of body-worn cameras, costing at least £90m over the past decade, was intended to benefit both victims and the police - protecting officers against malicious complaints and improving the quality of evidence collected.
But during a two-year investigation, the BBC has obtained hundreds of reports of misuse from Freedom of Information requests, police sources, misconduct hearings and regulator reports.
The cameras were introduced to improve policing transparency, but we found more than 150 camera misuse reports with cases to answer over misconduct, recommendations for learning or where complaints were upheld.
The most serious allegations include:
"Those incidents go to the heart of what undermines confidence in policing," he says.
He believes more footage should now be released in order to improve public trust.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66809642
Police officers are switching off their body-worn cameras when force is used, as well as deleting footage and sharing videos on WhatsApp.
A BBC investigation has uncovered more than 150 reports of camera misuse by forces in England and Wales - described as "shocking" by a leading officer.
In one case, siblings faced a two-year legal battle over footage showing officers' use of force against them.
The Home Office says police use of cameras must be lawful and justified.
The roll-out of body-worn cameras, costing at least £90m over the past decade, was intended to benefit both victims and the police - protecting officers against malicious complaints and improving the quality of evidence collected.
But during a two-year investigation, the BBC has obtained hundreds of reports of misuse from Freedom of Information requests, police sources, misconduct hearings and regulator reports.
The cameras were introduced to improve policing transparency, but we found more than 150 camera misuse reports with cases to answer over misconduct, recommendations for learning or where complaints were upheld.
The most serious allegations include:
- Cases in seven forces where officers shared camera footage with colleagues or friends - either in person, via WhatsApp or on social media
- Images of a naked person being shared between officers on email and cameras used to covertly record conversations
- Footage being lost, deleted or not marked as evidence, including video, filmed by Bedfordshire Police, of a vulnerable woman alleging she had been raped by an inspector - the force later blamed an "administrative error"
- Switching off cameras during incidents, for which some officers faced no sanctions - one force said an officer may have been "confused"
"Those incidents go to the heart of what undermines confidence in policing," he says.
He believes more footage should now be released in order to improve public trust.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66809642
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Is that a complaint, or, a compliment?
Would you rather there were more police killed and fewer terrorists/criminals?
