Enfield boy
pfm Member
Innocent until it becomes impossible to hide the truth.
Quick bit of maths. 800 male officers are being investigated concerning in excess of 1000 individual sexual and domestic abuse claims. There are 34,244 officers in the met. 10,386 are female, meaning there are 23,858 male officers. That means 1 in 30 (actually 29.8) serving male officers have had claims of sexual and domestic abuse made against them. Many of these individuals have multiple claims.I heard this morning that some 800 Met police officers are under investigation for allegations of rape or similar serious misconduct.
Completely agree with all your post (edited just for brevity). I'd say the primary purpose, arguably the only purpose, of the vetting is to prevent these sort of undesirables. The police makes great play of holding itself to higher standards. Time they stood up and made it true.<snip> One of the main objectives of their recruitment and vetting procedures should be weeding these scumbags out.
Completely agree with all your post (edited just for brevity). I'd say the primary purpose, arguably the only purpose, of the vetting is to prevent these sort of undesirables. The police makes great play of holding itself to higher standards. Time they stood up and made it true.
If only there was that level of consideration, planning and forethought.Absolutely. I'd further add that it should probably not come as much of a surprise that the two nastiest recent cases came from the diplomatic and political security detail. If one were cynical, one might wonder if there is a conscious effort by the met and wider police force to retain a few bastards for the arms of the police (TSG & parliamentary & Diplomatic protection) that are, effectively, private security bovver boys for the ruling class and their private interests.
When I worked with vulnerable adults, a requirement of the job was a two yearly criminal record check. It’s inconceivable that the likes of Carrick and Couzens could have remained on active duty if an effective vetting procedure was in place. The ones who knew and either condoned or ignored this are every bit as culpable. A rotten, irredeemably corrupt organisation. Disgusting.The history of any of these men would preclude them from holding the level of clearance required to do a vast number of other public sector jobs
This is how it seems from watching a fair bit of footage from the hunt sabs. Aside from the actual illegal hunting of wild animals with dogs, it's astonishing what the hunt and their supporters get up to that the police will not investigate and prosecute. I'd go as far as to suggest that they're actually complicit in some of it.Absolutely. I'd further add that it should probably not come as much of a surprise that the two nastiest recent cases came from the diplomatic and political security detail. If one were cynical, one might wonder if there is a conscious effort by the met and wider police force to retain a few bastards for the arms of the police (TSG & parliamentary & Diplomatic protection) that are, effectively, private security bovver boys for the ruling class and their private interests.
When I worked with vulnerable adults, a requirement of the job was a two yearly criminal record check. It’s inconceivable that the likes of Carrick and Couzens could have remained on active duty if an effective vetting procedure was in place. The ones who knew and either condoned or ignored this are every bit as culpable. A rotten, irredeemably corrupt organisation. Disgusting.
Would that process have barred individuals if they had never been convicted of a criminal offence? Seems unlikely you could stop someone doing the job based on an accusation or "everyone knows they're a wrong 'un".
[edit]
I am assuming that the two you named hadn't been convicted.
Totally. They're incomparable scenarios. In the two recent high profile cases of Met Police Officers murdering and raping, their offending, and any subsequent intimidation of victims and witnesses, was predicated on the authority conferred on them by their status as police officers. I'm not sure a teacher of children with special needs would be able to command similar fear based solely upon their occupation and status.
Not to the best of my knowledge. But it seems there had been enough red flags to have suspended both from duty pending investigation long before their behaviour was brought to the attention of the wider public.Would that process have barred individuals if they had never been convicted of a criminal offence? Seems unlikely you could stop someone doing the job based on an accusation or "everyone knows they're a wrong 'un".
[edit]
I am assuming that the two you named hadn't been convicted.
We really need to dismantle the police as we know it, doubt there is the political will for this though.
Vetting is one thing but allowing a known sex offender to serve for 18 years is unforgivable. Every single person in the chain of command who was complicit in this should be sacked & their pension revoked.