Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Mon Oct 30, 2023 6:09 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 3:14 pm
cvb wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 2:32 pm
Indeed.

Lets raise some money for some fine upstanding racists, it would appear.
Sadly the publicity has raised the total to over £65K now. I hope my adding the link here didn't do this.
Black officers are being pressured into donating.
Andy George, the president of the National Black Police Association, said he had received multiple accounts from black officers who felt pressed to give money to Jonathan Clapham and Sam Franks, who were sacked for gross misconduct last week.
...
George said the Met seemed unable to reform. “What this fund shows and what the Met has shown at this moment in time is that they do not want the accountability,” he said. “They don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.”
..
In a statement, [Bianca] Williams’ solicitor said of the crowdfunding page: “The comments of the apparently serving officers not only demonstrates an unwillingness to be held to account but it exposes just how toxic the culture in the Met is, and how far off change seems to be.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Sat Nov 11, 2023 11:26 pm

Six former Met police officers have been convicted of sending grossly offensive racist messages. Five pleaded guilty last month, while the sixth was was convicted earlier this week. They all served at one time or another in the Diplomatic Protection Group, now known as the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command, a unit that keeps coming up in cases like this.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this as they were all retired at the time that the messages were sent. I'm sure they were just as racist when they were working and their messages came up as part of a Met investigation but it feels like a combination of too little too late and also excessive for what were ultimately private conversations among a private group of people.
The charges, which relate to messages shared between September 2020 and 2022, came after a BBC Newsnight investigation in October last year which prompted a probe by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards.
My hope is that any lingering status and authority these people had in their communities by dint of being retired Met officers is now gone. They should be sentenced in early December.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Tue Nov 21, 2023 10:42 pm

A little round-up of the 'bad apples' that the Met insists aren't a sign of institutional failings.

Stephen Port
Eight Met officers - 5 still active, 3 former officers - are being investigated for gross misconduct in relation to their handling of the murders by Stephen Port. The IOPC regional director Steve Noonan has already begun tempering expectations,
“Though we have found an indication that the behaviour of these eight individuals may have amounted to gross misconduct, this does not necessarily mean disciplinary proceedings will automatically follow. Based on the evidence, at the conclusion of our investigation we will decide whether any officers should face disciplinary proceedings.”
Do as I say, not as I do
A Metropolitan police officer, PC Lauren Burns, who was part of a task force which specifically targets drug dealers has been sacked after she admitted using cocaine at a boat party.

Sex with a minor
An unnamed Metropolitan police officer in his 30s had sex with a missing 15 year old boy after meeting on Grindr according to his misconduct hearing. He has been dismissed without notice The officer was arrested but has faced no criminal charges after the CPS decided the case "did not meet the full test code for a criminal prosecution."

Sexual assault of a colleague
Met officer Detective Constable Justin Gilmore was found guilty of sexually assaulting a colleague. He was fined £1,000 and charged £1,500 in costs. He will now be subject to a gross misconduct hearing.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:10 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2023 9:06 pm
Opti wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2023 8:02 pm
I wasn't sure which thread to put this in. There must be some strange situation occurring to warrant Tasering a 12 year old girl ... twice.
I look forward to any justification that is used to justify this.
A bit more info. The incident occurred in January 2021 and a review occurred shortly after, which concluded that "no misconduct was identified".

The girl was in her own home and tasered twice.

She was apparently "threatening a woman with garden shears and a hammer."

This is a scary situation to find yourself in and I can understand why police were called. But I find it very concerning that they had no ability to de-escalate the situation and instead tasered her.
The misconduct hearing is taking place and more details are coming out. It seems that de-escalation wasn't even attempted,
PC Jonathan Broadhead fired his Taser at the girl twice within "approximately eight seconds" of entering her home in south-west London on 21 January 2021.
...
Giving evidence, Miss A said she feared the girl's behaviour may have been affected by consuming cannabis edibles, and said she called 999 after she started threatening her with the hammer and shears.

She claimed her daughter hit her with the hammer before police arrived, but said she was a safe distance away from her when officers got there and did not want her to be Tasered.
...
Ms Checa-Dover said "Child A is seen some way from the door, further along the hallway" and "appears to pick something up - now understood to be shears - from the floor".

She added: "The officer instructed her to put them down, which she did not do.

"She walked away from those present, moving up the stairs of the home.

"The officer didn't speak to Miss A to clarify the present situation or whether there was anyone else in the house; rather, he advanced into the house announcing he was a police officer with a Taser and soon thereafter using his Taser twice on her whilst she was on the stairs."
So, not only did he taser her while she wasn't posing an immediate threat to anyone, she was on the stairs. An archived document [PDF] from the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (part of the Royal College of Physicians) explains that the taser,
...passed short pulses of electricity into your body. The electricity made your muscles contract (go stiff). You may well have lost balance and fallen to the ground.
Losing your balance and falling to the ground can be dangerous at the best of times, when you're on the stairs it's potentially lethal.

Oh, and according to the other officer on the scene, her running upstairs wasn't a scared girl trying to get away from some scary-looking strangers, it was her gaining a "positional advantage".

You won't be surprised to learn that her mum regrets calling the police,
Miss A told the hearing she wanted the police to convince her daughter to put down the hammer and shears "by talking to her".
...
She added: "I wouldn't have called the police if I knew she would have been Tasered."

Asked if the experience has affected whether she would call the police again, she said: "If a child's involved, yes."
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:01 pm

Opti wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2023 8:02 pm
I wasn't sure which thread to put this in. There must be some strange situation occurring to warrant Tasering a 12 year old girl ... twice.
I look forward to any justification that is used to justify this.
The officer has been cleared of gross misconduct.

Despite firing his taser at a 10 year old girl twice 'within "approximately eight seconds" of entering her home' while she was fleeing upstairs,
The Met Police misconduct panel found the allegations were not proven and PC Broadhead's actions were based on an "honestly held belief" the girl presented a risk.
...
[Cdr Jon Savell] defended the force's use of Tasers, saying they "provide officers with the ability to de-escalate situations and protect others from harm".
...
Giving the panel's ruling, chair Catherine Elliot said: "Having considered the evidence in great detail... the panel has concluded that PC Broadhead's use of Taser on Child A was necessary, reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances. The allegations are therefore not proved."
All I can say is that they have a very different definition of 'de-escalate' than I do.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:58 pm

Metropolitan Police officer Jonathan Marsh has been found guilty of assault.
PC Jonathan Marsh, 33, went to a report of a man making threats to kill and damaging a shop in Atlanta Boulevard, Romford, east London, in November 2022. He mistook Rasike Attanayake, who had called 999, for the suspect, arrested him and punched him in the head... Mr Attanayake was arrested and later de-arrested at the scene.
He'll be sentenced on February 29th.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Tue May 07, 2024 3:44 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:58 pm
Metropolitan Police officer Jonathan Marsh has been found guilty of assault.
PC Jonathan Marsh, 33, went to a report of a man making threats to kill and damaging a shop in Atlanta Boulevard, Romford, east London, in November 2022. He mistook Rasike Attanayake, who had called 999, for the suspect, arrested him and punched him in the head... Mr Attanayake was arrested and later de-arrested at the scene.
He'll be sentenced on February 29th.
Sentencing only happened in April, and he got 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work. He was also to pay Mr Attanayake £1500 in compensation and a standard surcharge of £154.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Tue May 07, 2024 3:48 pm

A couple of Met officers who have recently hit the news:

Former officer jailed following conviction for multiple rapes
A former Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer has been jailed for a minimum of 14 years after being convicted of ten counts of rape and three counts of raping a child under 13. Cliff Mitchell, 24, was a serving police constable in Hounslow when a number of the offences were committed. He was also convicted in February of one count of kidnap and breach of a non-molestation order following a trial at Croydon Crown Court.
Met Police officer AirDropped explicit messages to passengers on c2c train
A serving police officer AirDropped sexually explicit messages to passengers on a c2c train. PC Luke Stokes was also found to have sent an unwanted sexually explicit personal image to a female colleague.
...
The [train] incident was investigated by [British Transport Police] and a file was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in November 2022. The CPS determined that it did not meet the threshold to bring a prosecution and no further criminal action would be taken.

After learning of this incident, a female colleague reported that former officer Stokes had sent an unwanted sexually explicit personal image to her in 2020. A voluntary interview under caution was carried out in May 2022. No further action was taken after it was determined the matter did not reach the evidentiary threshold for criminal charges to be brought.
...
PC Stokes, previously attached to the Met Police’s MO6 public order planning, would have been dismissed without notice if he was still serving. Stokes resigned from the Met in March this year
.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5539
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by jimbob » Tue May 07, 2024 4:06 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Tue May 07, 2024 3:48 pm
A couple of Met officers who have recently hit the news:

Former officer jailed following conviction for multiple rapes
A former Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer has been jailed for a minimum of 14 years after being convicted of ten counts of rape and three counts of raping a child under 13. Cliff Mitchell, 24, was a serving police constable in Hounslow when a number of the offences were committed. He was also convicted in February of one count of kidnap and breach of a non-molestation order following a trial at Croydon Crown Court.
Met Police officer AirDropped explicit messages to passengers on c2c train
A serving police officer AirDropped sexually explicit messages to passengers on a c2c train. PC Luke Stokes was also found to have sent an unwanted sexually explicit personal image to a female colleague.
...
The [train] incident was investigated by [British Transport Police] and a file was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in November 2022. The CPS determined that it did not meet the threshold to bring a prosecution and no further criminal action would be taken.

After learning of this incident, a female colleague reported that former officer Stokes had sent an unwanted sexually explicit personal image to her in 2020. A voluntary interview under caution was carried out in May 2022. No further action was taken after it was determined the matter did not reach the evidentiary threshold for criminal charges to be brought.
...
PC Stokes, previously attached to the Met Police’s MO6 public order planning, would have been dismissed without notice if he was still serving. Stokes resigned from the Met in March this year
.
Well, the first one, at least one of the attempted violent child rapes was was 2023, so there's no reason why the Met would have have suspected their vetting procedures were inadequate. It's not as if there had been high profile cases beforehand
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Fishnut » Tue May 07, 2024 4:41 pm

This might have something to do with it,
Nearly 18,000 police officers were hired virtually by forces... Many of the recruits – at the same time the Government was trying to hire another 20,000 officers - may have never had a face-to-face chat with their force before they started.

A total of 17,750 recruits were hired using virtual interviews, Freedom of Information requests seen by LBC have revealed.
...
Four forces including the Met never suspended face-to-face recruitment completely. [my emphasis]
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by snoozeofreason » Fri Nov 08, 2024 5:50 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2023 5:05 pm
Officer NX121, the person who shot Chris Kaba, has been denied anonymity by the Old Bailey and will be named in January.
The judge has decided that, although the officer’s name and possibly date of birth will be made public, their address will not be shared and there will be restrictions preventing photos or court sketches.
I am aware that this affair is now slightly old news. But I have just been rereading some of the Secret Barrister's writing on the law relating to self-defence, and it brought this case back to mind. The jury in the trial of this police officer didn't need much time to arrive at their not guilty verdict, and I suspect that this was because the law left them little option. The net effect is that a prosecution that might have been supported by those with questions about police conduct has made such questions harder to ask. I can't help wondering whether there might have been a degree of cynical calculation on the part of the CPS (and miscalculation on the part of anyone who thought that the case might have been a good way of holding the police to account).

When considering whether to prosecute, the CPS are supposed to ask themselves two questions. The first - and the only one that would be relevant here - is whether a jury, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant. I am aware that there are folk on this site whose knowledge of the law has been arrived at by going to law school, rather than just reading the Secret Barrister, so I am happy to be contradicted, but I can't see how a jury that had been properly directed as to the law on self-defence could possibly have convicted in this case, and I can't see how the CPS could have thought otherwise.

A jury considering a claim of self-defence would be directed also be required to itself two questions. The first question for the jury is whether the defendant genuinely believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself or others from harm. The important point is that the question concerns the genuineness of this belief. Outside of a court you might want to argue about whether a trained police officer should have made a more cool-headed assessment of the risks and the necessity for force, but in court the issue would be whether he genuinely believed what he claimed to have believed, not whether he should have believed it. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, who would have been faced with the more or less impossible task of persuading a jury that the officer's claimed fears for his safety and that of his colleagues were not genuinely held, in a situation where any civilian would be scared witless.

The second question for the jury is whether the amount of force used was reasonable, given the dangers as the defendant believed them to be. Outside of a murder trial one might be interested in whether the officer was following whatever rules of engagement applied to the situation that he found himself in. In court, considerably more lattitude would be afforded. The key principle was set out over half a century ago by Lord Morris in the court of appeal. "A person defending himself," Morris said, "cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively though necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken." Again, the question concerns what the defendant honestly and instinctively thought, not what guidelines and training should have led him to think.

It's worth pointing out that the latitude afforded by the law on self-defence can apply in situations where the police are victims, rather than instigators, of lethal force. An example would be Kenneth Noye, who pitchforked to death an officer who had entered the grounds of his property while investigating his involvement in the Brinks Mat robbery. Noye was able to argue successfully that he thought his life was in danger.

In an ideal world, the CPS should have stuck to their prosecutorial code here, and explained clearly that, whatever questions anyone might have about the conduct of the police operation, there was no possibility that a prosecution for murder would succeed and it would be counter-productive to launch one. Those critical of the police should have approved of such a decision, because they should have recognised how a murder case would tend to narrow the scope for questions about police conduct down to those admissible in such a case, and also recognised that the case was never going to result in a conviction. The reasons why that didn't happen are understandable, but they have led to an outcome that should leave both critics and defenders of the police unhappy (obviously the reaction to it has been further coloured by information about Kaba released after the trial - but that has no relevance to the likelihood of the prosection succeeding because the defence would not have been able to introduce it, and perhaps more importantly, wouldn't have needed to).
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by snoozeofreason » Fri Nov 08, 2024 6:10 pm

snoozeofreason wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2024 5:50 pm
stuff
Just for clarity, the reason why I framed that post as a response to Fishnut was so that you could follow the up arrow to see her detailed commentary on the case, rather than reiterating all the details myself. It's not because I was critical of anything she said.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

Post Reply