Commissioner of the Met should resign?

12346»

Comments

  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    From Ed Butts, the Police Violence Correspondent of Private Eye:

    .. Cressida Dick has defended the shocking scenes at the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard, saying trouble there only started as night fell.
    "During the day, the vigil was lovely and peaceful with Kate Middleton and other lovely women paying their respects in a lovely and dignified manner," Cressida told reporters.
    "But as night fell, they were joined by a group of men intent on causing trouble and provoking violence, described by one woman in attendance as 'the police'.
    "Once the police arrived it was inevitable that things were going to kick off, especially given that some of the women in attendance were seen brandishing floral tributes in an aggressive manner whilst others were in possession of sharp opinions.
    "You have to remember that this was taking place in South London. There's no telling how many of these women were wearing packpacks, and could later have jumped the barriers at Stockwell station and turned into international terrorists who would have to be gunned down and killed."
  • :lol:

    As usual, the Eye has it...

  • A vigil for a foreigner...

    I didn't have you down as the sort to exhibit prejudice against immigrants.

    (This is where I need a 'semi-serious' smiley, to indicate that I am making a serious point that whatever one thinks of someone or their role, their place of birth is in general not in itself a reason for criticism, but doing so in a friendly way rather than denouncing Alan as an evil racist).
    Penny S wrote: »
    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.

    I haven't noticed reports of large gatherings for Prince Philip, and if that's as far as it goes, then I'm not sure that there's a great deal to get worked up about.

  • I haven't noticed reports of large gatherings for Prince Philip, and if that's as far as it goes, then I'm not sure that there's a great deal to get worked up about.

    Well, there's a reason why you haven't seen reports of large gatherings for Prince Philip. I'll leave you to work out whether it's because there weren't large gatherings for Prince Philip, or because there weren't reports about large gatherings for Prince Philip.
  • Aahh but you see she's now Dame Cressida
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Interesting front page today's Guardian;

    Andy Cooke, retiring Chief Constable of Merseyside police, says if he was give £5bn to cut crime he would give £1bn to law enforcement and £4bn to tackling poverty.

    Do you think the Govt are listening, or care?
  • It's what the some-what (IMO) misleading "defund the police" movement is about* - rather than giving yet more more to the police to tackle the symptoms, spend money addressing the causes - poverty, mental health (which is also often linked to poverty), education etc. And, employ people who are actually skilled and trained to deal with these issues to do so, rather than have the police as the first responders for situations where their training is ill-suited to help and their presence often exacerbates a situation rather than helps.

  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    One of New Labour's notable successes was the Sure Start programme, that aimed to help families to avoid becoming 'problem families'. Whilst not 100% effective, nevertheless it has been shown to have improved many people's lives, and reduced the strain on the NHS, courts etc.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 4
    Another case from the UK - mentally and physically ill man electrocuted, kicked and beaten to death by a pair of coppers:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56979521

    Words fail me. Hateful littls shits. Clearly their victims' life meant absolutely nothing to them.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Would it be usual practice for Police people who were in a relationship to work together?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Huia wrote: »
    Would it be usual practice for Police people who were in a relationship to work together?

    Better for people who are in a known relationship to work together than two people who are in a secret relationship and are far more likely to be neglecting their duty

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited May 5
    .
  • Telford wrote: »
    Huia wrote: »
    Would it be usual practice for Police people who were in a relationship to work together?

    Better for people who are in a known relationship to work together than two people who are in a secret relationship and are far more likely to be neglecting their duty

    Do you have any proof that this rather general assertion might be true?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Huia wrote: »
    Would it be usual practice for Police people who were in a relationship to work together?

    Better for people who are in a known relationship to work together than two people who are in a secret relationship and are far more likely to be neglecting their duty

    Do you have any proof that this rather general assertion might be true?

    Yes I do but I am not going to name individuals of this forum.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 5
    Quite. Very sensible of you. I don't doubt that there are cases where *secret* liaisons may mean neglect of duty, but such would be very difficult to quantify.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Quite. Very sensible of you. I don't doubt that there are cases where *secret* liaisons may mean neglect of duty, but such would be very difficult to quantify.

    I just reckoned that couples who lived together don't need secret liaisons
  • JonahManJonahMan Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Quite. Very sensible of you. I don't doubt that there are cases where *secret* liaisons may mean neglect of duty, but such would be very difficult to quantify.

    I just reckoned that couples who lived together don't need secret liaisons

    They do if they have children!
  • Two police officers who tazered someone with an extraordinarily long charge, then when he was incapacitated they kicked and hit him with their baton. Why is whether or not the officers had a relationship even vaguely relevant?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Quite. Very sensible of you. I don't doubt that there are cases where *secret* liaisons may mean neglect of duty, but such would be very difficult to quantify.

    I just reckoned that couples who lived together don't need secret liaisons

    They do if they have children!

    Indeed. Best contraception known to mankind - existing children.
  • Two police officers who tazered someone with an extraordinarily long charge, then when he was incapacitated they kicked and hit him with their baton. Why is whether or not the officers had a relationship even vaguely relevant?

    I suppose the suggestion is that they are more likely to cover for each other / let each other get away with things they shouldn't. But given that in this case, both officers, quite literally, put the boot in, then their relationship doesn't seem terribly relevant. Unless this is a personals ad ("brutal thuggish cop seeks same")...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Two police officers who tazered someone with an extraordinarily long charge, then when he was incapacitated they kicked and hit him with their baton. Why is whether or not the officers had a relationship even vaguely relevant?

    It's not relevent at all unless one of them was trying to impress the other,
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    No, it is relevant. We all know how likely it is that one police officer will give testimony against another. Now make that other officer their actual partner or spouse.

    Sending them out together should never have happened, and their senior management is culpable in this.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, it is relevant. We all know how likely it is that one police officer will give testimony against another.

    And this kind of thing always gives lie to the 'few bad apples' explanation.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited May 6
    Few Bad Apples...... spoils the whole lot.

    Not

    Few Bad Apples .....does it really matter, it is only a few
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Few Bad Apples...... spoils the whole lot.

    Not

    Few Bad Apples .....does it really matter, it is only a few

    The fact that the allegedly good apples will close ranks with the bad shows they are not good apples at all.
  • That saying has been somewhat misunderstood - a few bad apples in a barrel or apple loft means that the whole lot is lost. Unless the bad apples are caught fast and eliminated early the rot goes through the whole store. I used to have a weekly job of checking the apples from our trees stored in a shed. If we didn't find any tainted apples quickly and remove them to go out for the birds or to use any edible portions, none of the apples lasted until spring.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    I had that apple checking job as a a child.....

    ( the smell as I walked down to the Apple store!!!)
Sign In or Register to comment.