Commissioner of the Met should resign?

1235

Comments

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.

    "A lot of black people are criminals"

    Let it sink in that you read that.
    The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses

    Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*

    Those are your words.

    Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go

    So you don't deny that you put the word *black* into your post?

    Keep digging...
    First used by you and Doc tor. Please be honest

    You miss the point, deliberately, because you know that it was YOU who made the assertion that a lot of black people are criminals.

    Congratulations

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Host Hat On

    Telford.

    Purgatory exists for serious discussion. That one word reply, capable of many interpretations and not addressing the point of your Shipmate's post really does not help. Given the heat in the thread, try harder to apply the cardinal principle of serious discussion.

    If you are concerned by this Host post or my previous one then raise your concerns in the Styx.

    Barnabax62
    Purgatory Host

    Host Hat Off
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    So did I.

    I have a question. It seems that, at first, the Police didn't do anything. Then, together, they started to move in to disperse the crowd. What triggered this? Or had they decided in advance to do this at a certain time? And how far up did the chain of decision-making go?

    From the looks of it, it goes up to the Home Secretary (link).

    I am totally surprised and astonished by this as you can imagine.
  • @Ricardus - I'm not.
    :disappointed:

    (But I suspect you are being ironic...).
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I am totally surprised and astonished by this as you can imagine.
    Who would have thought it from a minister in this government?

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 19
    My word - the Irony-O-Meters are working well today!
    :wink:

    Will Patel resign? No such luck...
  • GarasuGarasu Shipmate
    And another case of police misconduct.

    I actually want to believe in the police, but it's really difficult...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    From the article: he's been found guilty but let off community service - his lawyer says it would be "difficult for him to work with criminals".
    His lawyer left out the word "other".
    But maybe being a policeman means that even if you break the law and attack innocent people you're not a criminal.
  • Another point I spotted in the report was yet another attempt to use "he was drunk" as an excuse.

    It isn't.

    Yes, we all know being drunk lowers your inhibitions, and drunk you does things that sober you wouldn't do. That's an explanation. It's not an excuse. If drunk you is violent, or rapey, or whatever else, don't get drunk.
  • The West Country isn't having a good day either.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Read this in the 'i' newspaper earlier this week:

    In Alexandra Park, Hastings, Sussex 40 people, largely family groups, sang and held hands doing the 'Hokey Cokey'. Police urged people to abide by Covid regulations but took no further enforcement action.

    It must a policy decision from the government that the Metropolitan Police Force should have a 'hard as nails, take no prisoners' image. Maybe because it's in London there are more likely to be terrorists or armed gangs etc etc.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    Read this in the 'i' newspaper earlier this week:

    In Alexandra Park, Hastings, Sussex 40 people, largely family groups, sang and held hands doing the 'Hokey Cokey'. Police urged people to abide by Covid regulations but took no further enforcement action.

    Compare the policing of the Notting Hill carnival with the drugs policy of the Secret Garden Party (a police run drug testing service, so that festival goers could take their drugs safely).
  • Apparently the Home Office had discussed it all in a memo to the Met. I don't think Ms Patel is as innocent as she makes out.

    In public life these days, errors of judgement now seem badges of honour rather than sacking matters.
  • In public life these days, errors of judgement now seem badges of honour rather than sacking matters.
    Unless it's someone else who made the error of judgement.

  • Apparently the Home Office had discussed it all in a memo to the Met. I don't think Ms Patel is as innocent as she makes out.

    There is some evidence that she di her typical promises broken, manipulation, and a total ability to avoid any blame.

  • Perhaps we should be calling on the Chief Constable of the GMP to resign too.

    I'm sorry, but the only conclusion is that the police are out of control, have been for some time, and the last thing we should do is give them more power.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Perhaps we should be calling on the Chief Constable of the GMP to resign too.

    I'm sorry, but the only conclusion is that the police are out of control, have been for some time, and the last thing we should do is give them more power.

    My father was a County Councillor in the 70s and 80s. Having sat on a number of police related committees his conclusion was that most serving police officers, if they hadn't been working for the police, would be wanted by them.
  • *O brave new world, that has such people in it!*

    Except that it's nothing new...
    :disappointed:
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 23
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The Met. The force who killed an innocent man at Stockwell tube and immediately released a pack of lies to justify themselves? If a Met officer told me grass was green I'd stick my head out of the window to make sure.

    Thanks Karl, tho' I had to check:

    That was war. He jumped the barrier didn't he?

    That was one of the lies they told to cover themselves.

    'He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers'.

    I beg his pardon.

    Even the Daily Telegraph at the time said 'Shot Brazilian 'did not jump barrier and run''.

    I beg his pardon.

    BBC 15 years later: Phillippa Kaufmann QC, representing cousin Patricia Armani da Silva, said these reports were "false".

    She said initial reporting suggested Mr de Menezes ran through a ticket barrier "wearing suspicious clothing" and failed to stop.

    Ms Kaufmann said: "This gave the impression that Jean Charles was not an entirely innocent victim, and appeared to mitigate the enormity of the police error.

    "It subsequently transpired that all of the early assertions about Jean Charles' behaviour were false."

    I beg his pardon.

    This should be headlined everywhere.
  • I don't know why it would be headlined. A lot of people accept that you can be fitted up.
  • I don't know why it would be headlined. A lot of people accept that you can be fitted up.

    Well, quite.

    Of course, no police officers, serving or past, will ever face scrutiny let alone a criminal investigation for this.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I don't know why it would be headlined. A lot of people accept that you can be fitted up.

    Well, quite.

    Of course, no police officers, serving or past, will ever face scrutiny let alone a criminal investigation for this.

    for 90% of values of "this" involving police committing a crime
  • Or this, for that matter.

    A BBC reporter tweeted (now deleted) that the protests were peaceful until the police turned up mob-handed. They attacked the crowd with dogs, vans and pepper spray. The crowd fought back.
  • Did anyone ever seriously believe that the Police told the truth when they were on the back foot?
  • Lots of people implicitly trust the police - not all of them white, middle class people, but often white middle class people - because they've never had any bad experiences with them, or when told of those who have, will always fish up an excuse as to why the police acted like they did.

    It's not until it happens to them that might change their mind. Might.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Lots of people implicitly trust the police - not all of them white, middle class people, but often white middle class people - because they've never had any bad experiences with them, or when told of those who have, will always fish up an excuse as to why the police acted like they did.

    It's not until it happens to them that might change their mind. Might.

    Having a riot stick waved in your face for no reason, by a screaming Policeman, tends to make most people re-evaluate IME
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    It can be more subtle than that. I was once at an NUT meeting from which I could see a car stopped on the motorway slip road without anyone doing anything to suggest a break down for some time. Later that day there was an attack on a local slip road in which a security van was robbed, so I called the police in case there was a connection. When I said where I was (and I would class the NUT as being equivalent to th ePolice Federation) the officer I spoke with made derogatory remarks about unions and possible speakers from the Labour party.
    On another occasion, when I went into the local nick to identify some computer equipment stolen from the school, the officer I was with thought it was funny to tell the custody officer that I was being brought in for soliciting.
    And being stopped by two lads with no reason to do so, and then them not letting me proceed unless I produced ID (we are not required to carry ID, or have the driving licence in the car) was a bit negative.
    They don't do things to endear them to their employers.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    And I could add to @Penny S ’s list.

    By the time I had reached twenty, i knew better than to Automatically trust a police officer, just because they were the police.

    That is damning
    And very sad.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    However, to be absolutely fair, there was the incident one evening on the South Circular. My friend and I had been collecting water plants, with permission, to add to the flora of a park, unofficially. We stopped and he unloaded and dropped the bin bags over the fence and went off to get the trolley to move them. I normally drove off at this point and went round the block, so as not to attract attention or inconvenience traffic. But before I could get into gear, a policewoman tapped on the passenger window, having drawn up in the car now parked behind me. Her male colleague was with her. After the ID incident some years before, I was not happy with their appearing like that. It's possible they were checking I was OK, but they asked me what I was doing, so to some expressions of disbelief, I told them, drew their attention to the plants, which they didn't check, and explained that we had arrived so late because of having a meal after collecting the plants. They let me go, so that was OK. No problems there, despite being seriously weird. They didn't even wait for the appearance of the trolley and the explanation that the plants would be locked in the park shed overnight.
    But you don't know which sort of police you are going to meet.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    But you don't know which sort of police you are going to meet.
    How many sorts are there? Are there any who will deal honestly even when they have been in the wrong?

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 26
    Mr Boogs was a long haired hippy in the ‘70s (he still is!) but he drove his Mum’s brand new car. His name is John Smith.

    The police were horrible to him, many times, assuming the car was stolen and that he’d made up his name.
  • A friend went out for a meal with her brother in a far-flung part of the county, and got lost coming home. Apparently one of the signs of a drunk driver is driving very slowly and braking a lot - as one might do when lost on winding country lanes. Anyway, a police car spotted her doing this, and pulled her over. The officer was generally unpleasant to her about her perceived drunkenness (without actually getting as far as getting the breathalyser out), when a voice from the other side of the car observed that he was doing it all wrong, and should have done it this way. Sticks head right into car "And how do you know this then, Mr Smartypants?"

    Answer: "PC123 Smith, This County's Constabulary, I have your shoulder number, I know your superintendent and this will be on his desk first thing tomorrow morning!"

    Funny - but how likely are most people to be giving a serving officer a lift? Then it's not so funny.
  • This is the latest finding from our state's Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. Just another minor example to add to many previous.
  • No. They are simply doing the bidding of their bosses. The tactic is pretty blatant - discourage all public protests.
  • It's certainly out of the control of the community it pretends to serve.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Re Bristol events; I heard on BBC radio news that someone was being prosecuted for 'endangering life by placing a lit object under a police vehicle with officers inside'.
    Now I don't in any way support police inpatience, ineptitude and aggression at protests but to die inside a burning vehicle (were that to result from such an action) sounds horrific. So sometimes the police have to take back control of the situation otherwise you could end up with mob rule and even innocent bystanders could then be maimed or worse.
  • No one's arguing that setting fire to a police van, while there's someone in it, isn't a crime.

    What is being argued is that deliberately targeting reporters, driving that same van into a crowd of protesters, using riot shield edges to batter downwards on the heads of seated peaceful members of the public, using anti-terror legislation to legitimise terrorising innocent people in their homes, and general thuggery, isn't a crime - because it's the police doing them.
  • Apparently the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset isn't looking to renew his contract.

    I'm not upset by that.
  • The question is this: should he be allowed to resign or should he actively be sacked and questions raised about pension entitlement (one of the best schemes in the UK)
  • Are we expecting the police to break up the vigil for Prince Philip outside Buckingham Palace in the same way that they broke up the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common?
  • A vigil for a foreigner who happened to marry into an obsolete institution that should have no part in a modern democracy and died at a very good old age will be considered far more legit than a vigil for a young woman murdered for walking by a police officer. It's part of the topsy-turvy world we live in, that an old man scrounging off the state is deemed more important than a young woman with all her life before her.
  • Are there many BAME people at the Prince Philip vigil?
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 10
    I had no idea that a crowd would Not be broken up.

    It ‘s really not a good look.
  • Are there any people at a Prince Philip vigil, anywhere?
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    On the news showing the salute from Woolwich Barracks there was a fringe along the area of people watching. Not sure if that counts as a vigil.
  • A vigil for a foreigner who happened to marry into an obsolete institution that should have no part in a modern democracy and died at a very good old age will be considered far more legit than a vigil for a young woman murdered for walking by a police officer. It's part of the topsy-turvy world we live in, that an old man scrounging off the state is deemed more important than a young woman with all her life before her.

    Tbf you could argue they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t a) two vigils treated differently = unfair vs b) you’ve done the same thing again have you learned nothing from the last one ?

    Treating it differently would have more credibility though, if they had admitted they’d mishandled the previous vigil.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    There's also a legal difference between now and then, in that we're no longer under 'stay at home' rules.
  • Still 'stay local', so that would make journeys of more than a few miles as illegal as before. And, the number of people who can gather outside isn't much different.

    But, a "we got it wrong with the Sarah Everard vigil and won't be repeating those mistakes in policing vigils for Prince Philip" would be welcome.
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited April 11
    In England, whilst we are advised to minimise travel, there is no longer a legal requirement to stay local.
Sign In or Register to comment.