advertisement


Met police to hand in weapons and stop killing black Britons

Here's the plan. You raise a new unit of police, a hundred or two, trained properly, no recruits/culture contamination from the existing Met. You then pick a relatively isolated district of appropriate size, and they relieve the Met there. Keep doing like that, ramping up the scale, until you have replaced the entire Met.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Here's the plan. You raise a new unit of police, a hundred or two, trained properly, no recruits/culture contamination from the existing Met. You then pick a relatively isolated district of appropriate size, and they relieve the Met there. Keep doing like that, ramping up the scale, until you have replaced the entire Met.
Click to expand...
There's also the risk that these new units get habituated into the Met's own ways before the job's complete, so as well as that, from the centre out, I'd also look at eating into the Met from the edges inward. So units on the borders of Essex, Herts, Cambs, Surrey, Kent, etc, are taken on by the respective forces for those areas.
 
As the process went on the best individuals in the existing Met would seek opportunities elsewhere, and the remaining met would more and more be a concentration of deadwood and bad ones. Support for getting rid of them ASAP would grow.
 
Finnegan said:
An opposing view to the one that sees defunding the Met as a glib soundbite could cite that, had the Met been defunded, or the chronic dysfunction seriously addressed rather than being allowed to flourish for decades, then perhaps the Ian Tomlinson and Sarah Everard might still be alive.
Click to expand...
What's glib is suggesting that defunding will address the problem for which the solution is very complex and which needs to address "a chronic dysfunction" of an organisation employing thousands.
"Knock it down and start again" is part of the idiocy that gave us Brexit. Destroying something that is imperfect is easy. Any child that ever smashed a toy knows how to do that. Now build something better. Oh, not so easy, is it?
 
Why should we go on allowing public money to be used to prop up this sh1t show? Racist, misogynist, corrupt to and from the core. What more is there? What are they doing with the 100s or probably 1000s nationwide that should never have been appointed? I bet diddly squat, which amounts to a deliberate policy by default. What is the purpose of the police today other than to protect property and to act as a pseudo army to guard against civil unrest? They hardly stop crime and solve very little.
 
This government's approach to struggling public services is to sell them. Given the Met is already in thrall to various interests, the job is half done already.
 
We have the most racist govt since ww2 with two of the top jobs being done by people of colour. The Met is merely the paramilitary wing.



gavreid said:
Why should we go on allowing public money to be used to prop up this sh1t show? Racist, misogynist, corrupt to and from the core. What more is there? What are they doing with the 100s or probably 1000s nationwide that should never have been appointed? I bet diddly squat, which amounts to a deliberate policy by default. What is the purpose of the police other than to protect property and to act as a pseudo army to guard against civil unrest.
Click to expand...
 
stevec67 said:
What's glib is suggesting that defunding will address the problem for which the solution is very complex and which needs to address "a chronic dysfunction" of an organisation employing thousands.
"Knock it down and start again" is part of the idiocy that gave us Brexit. Destroying something that is imperfect is easy. Any child that ever smashed a toy knows how to do that. Now build something better. Oh, not so easy, is it?
Click to expand...
I gave a basic outline of a process. I certainly never said it would be easy.
 
stevec67 said:
Remarks like "Now and start again" imply that it is easy. So do remarks like "then we won't be funding a bunch of racist thugs in uniform".
Click to expand...

The Met has been found, on more than one occasion, to be institutionally racist, sexist and corrupt. It therefore follows logically that defunding the Met results in no longer funding racist and sexist cops. Any notion of it being easy and unproblematic to overcome is entirely an interpretation that you have brought to the argument.
 
Finnegan said:
The Met has been found, on more than one occasion, to be institutionally racist, sexist and corrupt. It therefore follows logically that defunding the Met results in no longer funding racist and sexist cops. Any notion of it being easy and unproblematic to overcome is entirely an interpretation that you have brought to the argument.
Click to expand...

First the Government has to recognise that there's a 'problem' and then it has to have the will to do something - both look like insurmountable obstacles, far greater than establishing an inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

It turns out that the Dover petrol bomber was a known facsist and Tommy Robinson supporter and yet there has been no recognition of this from police or home office or a counter-terrorist operation.
 
gavreid said:
It turns out that the Dover petrol bomber was a known facsist and Tommy Robinson supporter and yet there has been no recognition of this from police or home office or a counter-terrorist operation.
Click to expand...
I'm still puzzled that he appears to have killed himself after the attack. That doesn't make sense, unless it was an accident - perhaps he set himself on fire or something?
 
gavreid said:
First the Government has to recognise that there's a 'problem' and then it has to have the will to do something - both look like insurmountable obstacles, far greater than establishing an inquiry and acting on its recommendations.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It appears to many people as insurmountable due to being premised on the argument, implicitly or explicitly, that the police perform the necessary function of maintaining order and cohesion and without whose agency large scale disorder would occur. I agree with your opinion of the purpose of the police force and their questionable function in detecting and preventing crime. It seems misplaced to look to an agency to uphold the law that is itself riddled with criminality and corruption.
 
Fair point. But it's unlikely somebody fit enough to petrol bomb a building then drive away would have been at death's door, so suicide or misadventure of some sort seems more likely. My fault for inferring suicide, probably some form of accident then.
 
stevec67 said:
Remarks like "Now and start again" imply that it is easy. So do remarks like "then we won't be funding a bunch of racist thugs in uniform".
Click to expand...

I was being somewhat facetious Steve. I'm not sure how to go about changing the Met, but ISTM that something big needs to be done. Unfortunately I can't see much happening under the current shower of excrement.
 
Finnegan said:
It’s not, in my view, particularly apt to compare serious sexual assault, battery, misogyny, racism and corruption with damp and wood rot. Of course the debate in relation to how and with what it is replaced needs to take place. The implication that defunding the Met would lead to a significant breakdown of law and order is a valid, if speculative, point. However, numerous investigations have highlighted how the Met does not act as a neutral, disinterested body that upholds the law without fear or favour. It is a law unto itself with a long established dysfunctional culture whose officers react with defensiveness and closing ranks when accusations of malpractice are levelled. In that context it is far from glib to demand its defunding.

An opposing view to the one that sees defunding the Met as a glib soundbite could cite that, had the Met been defunded, or the chronic dysfunction seriously addressed rather than being allowed to flourish for decades, then perhaps the Ian Tomlinson and Sarah Everard might still be alive.
Click to expand...
It was a glib soundbite because it had no substance behind it.

Taken a face value it meant stop funding the Met immediately, which is ridiculous. It is not speculative to suggest a breakdown of law and order is valid, it is a sure and certain consequence of getting rid of the Met before there is something to replace it.

Policing London clearly needs structural and cultural reform. Arguably, the structural issues are most easily settled. The Square Mile has its own Police - the City of London Police. It is not beyond the wit of man to disband the monolith that is the Met and create more localised, autonomous policing units. If these are staffed by existing officers the cultural issues will not disappear overnight but might be more easily managed. Reform will be expensive and slow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top