advertisement


Challenge plain-clothes officers, Met Police says

If the review Dick’s launching is anything other than a whitewash she’ll simply obstruct it and then deny its findings, as she did with the inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan and it’s cover up, which found the Met to be institutionally corrupt. Were any attempts at reform made following that report? Has the force become less institutionally racist since the Macpherson Report? LOL.

On the basis of the consequences of those reports you would have to say that the organisation is unreformable. Why would anything change now? The same situation that led to Morgan’s murder and its coverup - corrupt police, corrupt right wing government, corrupt journalists, working together - is if anything *worse* today than it was when Morgan got an axe in his head. There’s no incentive for any of them to change.
 
Morgan offered Bob Mortimer a job at twice his wages as a solicitor at the time.
Fortunately Bob declined the offer.
 
Andrew C! said:
Hi Paul. Appreciate your comments. Numerous posters have, quite openly, done as you have described. I too have clearly said that the cultural issues prevalent should be grasped and tackled.

I guess my point is that all I’m after is balance. We don’t see outrage at a custody sgt being murdered by an armed detainee (no doubt with serious repercussions for other staff involved in that suspects detention), but we do get this thread.

You are right tho. It’s a forum. I’ve been on it long enough to know it is selective in what posts are created and contributed to. I should know better.;)
Click to expand...

Like any corner of the Internet it also has a few posters with a prevalence for shit-stirring with an undertone of nastiness about subjects they know are likely to be divisive. One of the many reasons I have stayed away from this thread as I knew what it would entail sadly!
 
SugaBear said:
Thank ****!! Labour probably do though.
Click to expand...

I have always felt that looking at a matter from the point of view of a credible victim is a good place to start. I can think of instances where such a view yielded very positive outcomes, but others not so. Let’s not forget that the inability to reduce attrition rates at court is not necessarily solely the fault of an investigating team.
 
<moderating>

Sock puppet removed. Probably a far-right racist prick van driver from Brighton & Hove, one who I’m very tempted to publicly dox with links to his business if he shows his face back here ever again. He’s spent way too much time smearing his shit over my website, if I was any nearer I’d do the same to his van.
 
Tony L said:
It appears a misogynist doesn’t think there is anything wrong with misogyny. Who’d have guessed? #ToryTaliban
Click to expand...

I’ve served under both Tory and Labour governments. Don’t kid yourself that one was/is any better than the other…
 
Patsy Stevenson, who was pictured being held on the ground and arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil, has said 50 police officers and security guards have contacted her on Tinder.

"They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said 'I'm a police officer'," she said. "I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying 'look we can see you', and that, to me, is terrifying. They know what I went through and they know that I'm fearful of police and they've done that for a reason."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58805186
 
Cav said:
Yet she has made no formal complaint against any of these officers?
Click to expand...
What would be the basis of the complaint? And what force would she submit the complaint to (I'm assuming that even if self-identified as police, the specific force won't be mentioned)? And if you think 'this looks like deliberate intimidation' would be sufficient grounds, what do you imagine the police response would be likely to say? I'm imagining something like 'No offence identified; you join Tinder, you get approaches. Get over it', but couched more subtly, obvs.
 
“It's absolutely crucial that the Wayne Couzens inquiry is a statutory one. There is a Lords amendment being put forward to the policing bill for that to happen – we need the Labour frontbench to back it, and for the government to change course.

Why does it matter that the inquiry is a statutory one? Only need to read about the Daniel Morgan review to find out why. Without statutory powers, it couldn't compel witnesses to testify, couldn't compel the Met to disclose documents in a timely manner & was delayed by Patel.”

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1445777578229321735?s=21

https://labourlist.org/2021/10/pres...unch-statutory-inquiry-into-couzens-failings/
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
What would be the basis of the complaint? And what force would she submit the complaint to (I'm assuming that even if self-identified as police, the specific force won't be mentioned)? And if you think 'this looks like deliberate intimidation' would be sufficient grounds, what do you imagine the police response would be likely to say? I'm imagining something like 'No offence identified; you join Tinder, you get approaches. Get over it', but couched more subtly, obvs.
Click to expand...
Well she is sufficiently concerned to tell the BBC. I know nothing of Tinder but it seems there are photos. In the current climate, I doubt that the Police or IPOC would be so dismissive as you suggest nor do I think your being so defeatist does women any favours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top