advertisement


Is the Metropolitan Police institutionally corrupt?

Andrew C! said:
@Ginger which elects of the Casey report are you referring to? It’s a big report.
Click to expand...

It is, isn't it? Yes I've read it - all of it. Can I sit here and recall all parts? No. Am I going to download it to cherry-pick in order to answer you? No, I'll go from memory.

There's the obvious misogyny and racial elements but what struck me most was my own interpretation: I saw a thread running through it of a lack of quality management, and centralised, knee-jerk control. And then a thread of failure to deliver policing for communities - no recognition of community representation about what those communities feel and need. Casey used the term: 'transmit only'. Senior managers and the Met exec being on 'transmit only'. Not listening, not receiving.

I think there's a very real question of what qualifies police managers to be so. What makes them a manager? By what qualification?
 
Ok, I now understand where you are coming from. On topic, can I ask you what part of the MHA you think the police are responsible for, and what area’s other agencies should deal with?

‘Policing for communities’. What about mental health care for communities, from all those who have a statutory responsibility to do so?

It is a police-bash thread, I’ll grant you. But to not consider wider obligations (legally and procedurally) of other agencies doesn’t help.
 
Andrew C! said:
Ok, I now understand where you are coming from. On topic, can I ask you what part of the MHA you think the police are responsible for, and what area’s other agencies should deal with?

‘Policing for communities’. What about mental health care for communities, from all those who have a statutory responsibility to do so?

It is a police-bash thread, I’ll grant you. But to not consider wider obligations (legally and procedurally) of other agencies doesn’t help.
Click to expand...


If I'm reading you correctly then I need to say that I'm not in the 'police bash' camp. But that doesn't mean I support unreservedly. Surely no-one can fail to agree that reform is due? However, I'd say that a wholesale national review of the policing function UK, is due. What do we want from policing? What are the responsibilities? What are the qualifications? The limitations and accountability?

Those limitations would draw us back into the MH question, amongst others. I don't think that MH was part of the context of the Casey report when she spoke about communities and their needs, but since you ask, I think the draw and demand upon policing (in respect of MH) is too great, but they (the police) should be a part of a multi-agency response, because MH often involves crime and often involves others in the community. Outright withdrawal probably isn't an option, but I do support the Commissioner if he seeks to draw others to the table, when I suspect previous efforts have failed. Maybe shock tactics are the only ones that will work.
 
Ginger said:
Those limitations would draw us back into the MH question, amongst others. I don't think that MH was part of the context of the Casey report when she spoke about communities and their needs, but since you ask, I think the draw and demand upon policing (in respect of MH) is too great, but they (the police) should be a part of a multi-agency response, because MH often involves crime and often involves others in the community. Outright withdrawal probably isn't an option, but I do support the Commissioner if he seeks to draw others to the table, when I suspect previous efforts have failed. Maybe shock tactics are the only ones that will work.
Click to expand...

I get this. The police bash wasn’t aimed at you. It was a general comment.

The Crime and Disorder Reduction Act actually obligates agencies to work together to reduce crime and promote public safety. Go figure…
 
Finnegan said:
Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but their liberty is suspended under a ‘section’ of the MHA. They are removed and detained under section 136 and are therefore ‘sectioned’ albeit not by MH practitioners and not to hospital under a 2 or 3, but still ‘sectioned’ under the MHA even though a lay person may associate being ‘sectioned’ with being detained in a MH facility.
Click to expand...


Ah, right. So if you get done for careless driving you've been sectioned for driving (section 3 , I think.) ??

Or warned for your conduct in public - sectioned for public order (section 5.)

Methinks you confuse section (commit compulsorily to MH hospital) with a section (numbered para) of legislation.
 
I linked yesterday to the Mind explanation of 'sectioning'. Their use of the word seems to cover all sections of the Act, including the lesser used sections. Here it is again for those who react but don't read.

"If you are sectioned, this means that you are kept in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. There are different types of sections, each with different rules to keep you in hospital."

The truth is that there has been a 44% increase in referrals to NHS mental health services between 2016-17 and 2021-22, from 4.4 million in 2016-17 to 6.4 million.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...ss-in-improving-mental-health-services-CS.pdf

It's hardly surprising that this is creating tensions as Government hasn't increased funding to keep pace but it's really not helped by Rowley putting his foot in it again.

"Hopefully, the response to his letter will convince Sir Mark to work with, rather than against, local health and care bosses. It should also focus the minds of politicians. It is widely recognised that failings in one public service have knock-on effects on others. The best-known example is the burden placed on hospitals by social care shortages. Sir Mark’s announcement has drawn attention to the impact on police of inadequate mental health provision."

Sir Mark knows that public confidence in the Met is at a low ebb. His task of rebuilding the organisation will not be made easier by fights with health bosses.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...health-ultimatum-a-deadline-is-not-a-solution
 
Andrew C! said:
I get this. The police bash wasn’t aimed at you. It was a general comment.
Click to expand...

As the member who started it I'm a bit concerned that you see this as a "police-bash thread" Andrew.

Discussing the findings of the Daniel Morgan report isn't police bashing.

Subsequent posts discussing controversial actions by the Met (strip searching children, arresting protesters etc) isn't police bashing.

I'm not sure dismissing discussion of the well documented failings of the Met as simply 'police bashing' by ignorant civvies who don't understand the job is helpful.
 
gavreid said:
"Hopefully, the response to his letter will convince Sir Mark to work with, rather than against, local health and care bosses. It should also focus the minds of politicians. It is widely recognised that failings in one public service have knock-on effects on others. The best-known example is the burden placed on hospitals by social care shortages. Sir Mark’s announcement has drawn attention to the impact on police of inadequate mental health provision."
Click to expand...

This I get. Sometimes you do have to push back with other service providers, to ensure they are fulfilling their obligations.

Something will come out soon again regarding out of hours Emergency Duty Teams(social care) being woefully understaffed, for example, because again that responsibility would have to fall on the only other 24 hour provider with any level of resource availability. Another example is the request for a safe and well visit of a person discharging themselves from a healthcare setting.

The reason I give these examples are because if the Met are doing any kind of internal review of capacity, these are the areas that can have the potential to free up resources.
 
paulfromcamden said:
As the member who started it I'm a bit concerned that you see this as a "police-bash thread" Andrew.

Discussing the findings of the Daniel Morgan report isn't police bashing.

Subsequent posts discussing controversial actions by the Met (strip searching children, arresting protesters etc) isn't police bashing.

I'm not sure dismissing discussion of the well documented failings of the Met as simply 'police bashing' by ignorant civvies who don't understand the job is helpful.
Click to expand...

Point taken, and understood. I'd add that generalising isn't helpful tho, is it. It's far better to discuss specifics. You are quite right to pull me up on my generalisation, but when I do it to others regarding general comments...

I don't view anyone as ignorant on here. I do view some as liking to be provocative, ironic, sarcastic and argumentative. But thats all IMHO.
 
Andrew C! said:
The reason I give these examples are because if the Met are doing any kind of internal review of capacity, these are the areas that can have the potential to free up resources.
Click to expand...

The example of Humberside is a good one. The Met is really not understaffed relative to the nhs or other areas of the public sector.
 
I suspect the policy re attendance only in life-threatening circumstances will be rolled out to other Forces.
Can you imagine being Social Worker on call after this statement? My partner is moving to a training role after 25 years in July. Good.
To be clear - the Social Worker will currently attend with support from Police if there is a risk-assessment flag from current or past presentation of aggression. Lines will now be redrawn and Care staff will be injured and killed.
 
paulfromcamden said:
As the member who started it I'm a bit concerned that you see this as a "police-bash thread" Andrew.
Click to expand...

PS, what did I 'start'? This thread - not correct. Bashing the police - not correct, either.

I would say that the Met's transparency and accountability clearly has been brought into question over a series of events, that have greatly undermined confidence. That will take some clawing back, and it won't happen overnight. For example, it took me 10 years to shift community confidence 10% in the area I policed. It's hard work.
 
gavreid said:
The example of Humberside is a good one. The Met is not really not understaffed relative to the nhs or other areas of the public sector.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. Staff up the other areas with the correctly qualified staff, so they fulfil their obligations. However, that means money.
 
I would add that my partner is overwhelming favourable in her opinion of the Police in Salford for their support. One dodgy moment (after the Officer had been head-butted) in 25 years when she made sure to be ever-present until the Policeman calmed down.
 
Weekender said:
I would add that my partner is overwhelming favourable in her opinion of the Police in Salford for their support. One dodgy moment (after the Officer had been head-butted) in 25years when she made sure to be ever-present until the Policeman calmed down.
Click to expand...
?

Sorry - your last sentence doesn't quite make sense to me?
 
Weekender said:
I would add that my partner is overwhelming favourable in her opinion of the Police in Salford for their support. One dodgy moment (after the Officer had been head-butted) in 25 years when she made sure to be ever-present until the Policeman calmed down.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the Police just need to be there. Throwing their toys out of the pram does nobody any favours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top