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

[jimbob]

This 'rebellion' is a result of police officers being made to be accountable for their actions. If you need more evidence of how broken our policing system is, look no further.

Thank you Fishnut.

Yes.

This is the view of "Nessie" on ISF, who's a retired Scottish policeman, and whose views on policing changed during the trial of Simon Hardwood for manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st14170493

All the armed cops who have reacted by handing in their guns, because one of them has been charged with murder should consider that soldiers did not hand in their guns, when other soldiers have been charged with murder. Response police did not hand in their tasers and refuse to arrest people when a response cop was charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson.

Baroness Casey called the Met firearms officers a clique, who thought themselves an elite and who carried an authority beyond their rank. This proves they think they are special, and somehow not to be held accountable as others are.

The cops who have handed in their tickets, should never be allowed to carry a gun again, and all should be investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, for what is a concerted attempt to stop the prosecution of one of their little group.

[Fishnut]

If a newspaper carried such biased commentry on a current court case the editor would get done for contempt of court.

Why are government ministers allowed to get away with it?

Many on social media have been asking the same question.

This is the view of "Nessie" on ISF, who's a retired Scottish policeman, and whose views on policing changed during the trial of Simon Hardwood for manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st14170493

I completely agree with Nessie, particularly with regards to potentially perverting the course of justice. In a weird way though the officers who are resigning are doing us all a favour. They are saving us the trouble of having to fire them, and I sincerely hope the Met recognises how unsuited to their roles they were and doesn't allow them to reapply. Unfortunately, given one of the reasons they were allowed to act with such impunity was the problems with replacing officers if they did resign, I suspect that they will be welcomed back if they asked. And right on cue....

[Fishnut]

It's fascinating and highly revealing to see how the police and government have responded to the arrest of officer NX121 compared to their response to the Casey Review. Following the publication of the Casey review all they've done is downplay, quibble about what 'institutional' means, and belabour their belief that it's just a 'few bad apples' while ignoring its recommendations despite being thoroughly evidenced and highly reasonable, especially given the extent of the rot that was found.

Following the arrest of officer NX121 we've seen a 'rebellion' by the officers in the Specialist Firearms Command due to them 'protesting' their colleague's arrest (the irony of them being encouraged to protest while their colleagues routinely arrest people for trying to exercise their right to protest isn't lost on me) that has led the Met to call in the SAS. A call they have since cancelled following the Home Secretary calling for a review and promising that she will follow the recommendations of that review,

Privately senior sources insisted the home secretary, Suella Braverman, had convinced police leaders she was serious about introducing changes if recommended by the review, with firearms officers believing they risk being persecuted for carrying out their duties and using force.

Along with an open letter written by Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, this has apparently been enough to 'ease' the 'concerns' of the officers sufficiently for them to return to patrolling our streets while in possession of deadly firearms.

Sir Mark Rowley's Open Letter to the Home Secretary
The open letter is worth examining. I'm going to go through it, quoting large parts.

In the UK we proudly police by consent, embracing the principles of accountability, transparency and independent scrutiny. It is essential that we have a system which commands the confidence of officers and the communities they serve.

Of course, where wrongdoing takes place the public expect us to be held to the highest standards. I have been clear on this in all areas of policing, and the use of force must be no exception.

The system that judges officers' actions should be rooted in integrity and decisions should be reached swiftly, competently and without fear or favour.

These opening lines are likely the only part where I will agree with Sir Mark. If we were to describe the current justice system, "swift" is most definitely not a term we would use. Indeed, Chris Kaba's parents have complained about the slowness of the system. On 5 September 2023, a year after Chris was killed, they put out the following statement,

We demand a charging decision without further delay. Throughout the last year there has been a lack of urgency.

Our family, alongside the community who have supported us over the past year, have been consistent in our call for accountability.

We believe that it was possible within six months of Chris being killed both for the IOPC to complete a well-resourced and effective criminal investigation and for the CPS to provide us with a charging decision.

It is almost unbelievable that a year on we still wait for answers. It is agonising not knowing the CPS decision.

It is unacceptable that we have been failed by the CPS, which has not completed its task urgently or in a timely fashion.

We very much hope that the CPS decide in days (not weeks or months) from now in favour of a prosecution and that the truth will emerge, without further delay, through criminal proceedings.

Our family and community cannot continue waiting for answers.

Chris was so loved by our family and all his friends. He had a bright future ahead of him before his life was cut short. We must see justice for Chris.”

Back to Sir Mark's open letter...

Equally important to speed is that, as he said, investigations should be conducted "competently and without fear or favour". Here we have an arrest following a year-long investigation. Nowhere has anyone - including Sir Mark - suggested that the investigation has been incompetent or prejudiced. Now officer NX121 has been arrested and released on bail the judge has banned the publication of any information about the defendant, including their description in order to avoid prejudicing the trial, which has been provisionally set for 9 September 2024 - just over 2 years after Chris' death.

Yet despite this arrest being at the end of a long - too long? - and impartial investigation we have seen people outraged. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have implied they think that arresting the officer was wrong. I can't understand how that isn't contrary to the desire to have investigations be conducted 'without fear or favour'. How is anyone in the future going to investigate a similar case properly if they know that if they decide to charge an officer the f.cking Prime Minister is going to say they were wrong? This is the complete opposite of having investigations be conducted without 'fear or favour' and any competent Commissioner would be calling out the Prime Minister and Home Secretary for interfering in an ongoing criminal investigation.

A review is needed to address accountability mechanisms, including the policies and practices of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Crown Prosecution Service, ideally with a focus on the threshold for investigating police use of force and involvement in pursuits.

The Casey Review - published in March of this year - found that the Met in general and the Specialist Firearms Command in particular overwhelmingly lacked accountability. Officers in the Command were allowed to act with impunity - as we have seen so glaringly over the last few days - and expect to be above the law.

There's a saying "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". It feels so apt in this case. These officers are being held to the same standard as anyone else and because they are so unused to it they think they're being treated unfairly. If any of us killed someone while at work then serious questions would be asked. Rightly so. Yet the impression I'm getting from Sir Mark, Suella and Rishi is they think that because these officers are permitted to use deadly force we shouldn't ever question whether they were right to do so. That's insane. We should question them more! They have the authority to kill people, we need to make sure they're only doing so when absolutely necessary and no other options were available. They keep saying about how they have to react quickly, as if that means that we have to accept that mistakes are going to be made and lives lost but it's somehow worth it for the greater good (the greater good). The last thing we want is trigger-happy officers being given guns, safe in the knowledge that if they do kill someone no-one's going to ask questions and will instead protect them at all costs. We need those officers to be scared that if they pull the trigger to shoot someone, their decision will be scrutinised to the nth degree to ensure they made the right call in ending another person's life.

I have spoken publicly in recent weeks about the need to let the police police. Our commitment to delivering change in the Met is unflinching and we are making positive progress, but that progress is undermined by a system not set up to help officers succeed. I have identified pursuits and use of force as areas where we see the most glaring unfairness.

The Casey review has made it quite clear that letting the 'police police' can only be permitted alongside deep-seated reform of the institution. Sir Mark has made it quite clear that he will implement as few of the Review's recommendations as he possibly can and refuses to accept that there are any institutional problems. He is resolute in his belief that it is a 'few bad apples' and even when those apples wave massive flags screaming 'here we are, we're bad apples' he refuses to see them for what they are and instead welcomes them back when they calm down after their tantrums.

I actually agree with Sir Mark that the system is not set up to help officers succeed, but I doubt he means it the way I do. The Casey review went into great detail about how officers in the BCUs are treated poorly and given little support to do their jobs well. It detailed a culture where non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual officers were bullied and belittled, both by peers and superiors. They were routinely excluded from opportunities that would allow them to advance in the organisation and found that complaining would make the situation worse. The Casey Review gave many recommendations on how to reverse this culture and help these officers succeed, yet Sir Mark refused to accept that there were any 'institutional' issues which means that any progress that is made will be piecemeal, slow and easily reversed.

I make no comment on any ongoing matters that are sub judice but the issues raised in this letter go back further.

Accountability matters, but we should not have allowed ourselves to develop a system where police officers get investigated for safely pursuing suspects, just because the suspect acts recklessly and as a result injures themselves or someone else.

This is unfair on our officers and discourages them from chasing down criminals.

I think these are a set of very telling sentences.

Sentence one - I'm not commenting on Chris Kaba.

Sentence two - officers should be allowed to pursue suspects (I'm not talking about Chris here, honest)

Sentence three - officers shouldn't be discouraged from chasing down criminals (I promise, I'm really not talking about Chris here).

Note how we go from 'pursuing suspects' to 'chasing down criminals'. Remember, Chris was neither. He wasn't named in the briefing on the night of his killing. He wasn't a suspect. He wasn't a criminal. He was an innocent man driving a car at night. The car he was driving did not - as far as we can tell from publicly available reports - belong to a suspect. It was merely 'linked' to an 'incident' involving firearms.

Now, of course, Sir Mark has made it clear in that first sentence that he's not talking at Chris but even if we take him at his word it's telling how he is amping up the threat in the following sentences. And it's clear he thinks there are parallels otherwise why discuss them?

Accountability matters, but we should not have allowed ourselves to develop a system where police officers get investigated for safely pursuing suspects, just because the suspect acts recklessly and as a result injures themselves or someone else.

Ah, victim blaming! I knew we'd get there eventually. It's not the police's fault that Chris acted recklessly. If only he'd acted rationally when blocked in by armed police cars in a residential street he'd still be alive today.

Why shouldn't you have a system that investigates officers when someone gets injured? Can you really be 'safely pursuing' if someone ends up injured? Surely you should be trying to prevent injuries? Doesn't investigating them sound like a good idea to help you learn how to improve procedures and minimise risk? Doctors routinely do morbidity and mortality conferences to analyse adverse outcomes with the aim of learning how to prevent them in the future and improve best practice. Why are the police so against learning from their mistakes?!

It's interesting that in the scenario described about it's only the suspect acting recklessly that could possibly cause someone to be injured. None of the officers involved could act recklessly. It's also interesting that even if injury occurs to a third party as a result of the actions of the suspect no-one's interested in learning how to prevent that in the future. If you get hurt or killed as a result of your colleague chasing a suspect then no-one's interested in learning how to protect your replacement. Sounds great (!).

This is unfair on our officers and discourages them from chasing down criminals.

Why is it unfair? If your actions lead to the injury or death of another then shouldn't you want to know that you did the right thing, and if you didn't want to do instead?

Armed officers know they need to justify their actions, especially when lethal force is used. They are extremely well trained and an intrinsic part of their training reinforces that shots can only be fired if absolutely necessary to save life.

So why are they so against actually justifying those actions? If they are 'extremely well trained' and only shoot when 'absolutely necessary' then they have nothing to fear. It's just a routine investigation that they go through to reassure them and everyone else that they acted responsibly. Who would be against that?

That last part got my brain whirring: "shots can only be fired if absolutely necessary to save life". This suggests that Chris was killed because he was posing an imminent threat to the lives of others. But was he? He was in a car, which can be deadly (you only need to see the number of pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cars to know that). But was killing him 'absolutely necessary'? He was cornered. I don't know what distance away from him the police vehicles were but I doubt they were sufficiently far to let him accelerate to any great extent - it wouldn't be a very good trap otherwise. Plus the police officers could hide behind their vehicles. If they were worried about the car being used to hurt people they could have used any number of devices to impede its travel. He couldn't escape in the car which only meant escaping on foot. They had no evidence he had a firearm - the car was, after all, only 'linked' to a firearms incident and we still don't know what that means and even if there was one in the car they had no evidence that it was within arms reach. They may have suspected he had a weapon but nothing to confirm those suspicions and nothing to demonstrate - as far as I can see - that shooting him through the head was 'absolutely necessary to save life'.

Officers are individually responsible and accountable for their actions. Consequently, we have one of the safest models of armed policing in the world.

First off, if you think the system is fine then why is the review necessary? Secondly, if officers are 'individually responsible and accountable' then why are you so against them having their actions scrutinised?

The fact Sir Mark and others are so eager for this review concerns me deeply. It suggests that they've been assured it will be favourable to them rather than be allowed to draw its own conclusions. So much for investigating 'without fear or favour'. They want to be able to act with impunity. To kill people without ever having to justify their actions; without ever risking serious consequences for acting rashly or carelessly. Police are given a huge amount of power and privilege over the rest of us and there is absolutely nothing wrong with us wanting to be assured that they are acting responsibly. That the Met sees this as preventing them from doing their job is incredibly concerning and suggests they have no intention of actually reforming for the better.

[Fishnut]

In the open letter Sir Mark said,

Accountability matters, but we should not have allowed ourselves to develop a system where police officers get investigated for safely pursuing suspects, just because the suspect acts recklessly and as a result injures themselves or someone else.

This is unfair on our officers and discourages them from chasing down criminals.

This morning, two officers on marked police motorcycles followed the motorcyclist after he went through a red light on Oxford Street. According to the Met (so take with a pinch of salt) the motorcyclist failed to stop for the officers then turned onto Tottenham Court Road and crashed with a taxi and a bin. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene while the passenger was taken to hospital with leg and arm injuries. Nothing has been said about the status of the taxi, its driver or any passengers.

The article notes that the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards has begun an investigation. I wonder if Sir Mark would approve, or if he thinks investigating two officers on motorbikes engaging in what sounds like a high speed pursuit of someone for driving through a red light is 'unfair'.

[jimbob]

It's fascinating and highly revealing to see how the police and government have responded to the arrest of officer NX121 compared to their response to the Casey Review. Following the publication of the Casey review all they've done is downplay, quibble about what 'institutional' means, and belabour their belief that it's just a 'few bad apples' while ignoring its recommendations despite being thoroughly evidenced and highly reasonable, especially given the extent of the rot that was found.

Following the arrest of officer NX121 we've seen a 'rebellion' by the officers in the Specialist Firearms Command due to them 'protesting' their colleague's arrest (the irony of them being encouraged to protest while their colleagues routinely arrest people for trying to exercise their right to protest isn't lost on me) that has led the Met to call in the SAS. A call they have since cancelled following the Home Secretary calling for a review and promising that she will follow the recommendations of that review,

Privately senior sources insisted the home secretary, Suella Braverman, had convinced police leaders she was serious about introducing changes if recommended by the review, with firearms officers believing they risk being persecuted for carrying out their duties and using force.

Along with an open letter written by Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, this has apparently been enough to 'ease' the 'concerns' of the officers sufficiently for them to return to patrolling our streets while in possession of deadly firearms.

Sir Mark Rowley's Open Letter to the Home Secretary
The open letter is worth examining. I'm going to go through it, quoting large parts.

In the UK we proudly police by consent, embracing the principles of accountability, transparency and independent scrutiny. It is essential that we have a system which commands the confidence of officers and the communities they serve.

Of course, where wrongdoing takes place the public expect us to be held to the highest standards. I have been clear on this in all areas of policing, and the use of force must be no exception.

The system that judges officers' actions should be rooted in integrity and decisions should be reached swiftly, competently and without fear or favour.

These opening lines are likely the only part where I will agree with Sir Mark. If we were to describe the current justice system, "swift" is most definitely not a term we would use. Indeed, Chris Kaba's parents have complained about the slowness of the system. On 5 September 2023, a year after Chris was killed, they put out the following statement,

We demand a charging decision without further delay. Throughout the last year there has been a lack of urgency.

Our family, alongside the community who have supported us over the past year, have been consistent in our call for accountability.

We believe that it was possible within six months of Chris being killed both for the IOPC to complete a well-resourced and effective criminal investigation and for the CPS to provide us with a charging decision.

It is almost unbelievable that a year on we still wait for answers. It is agonising not knowing the CPS decision.

It is unacceptable that we have been failed by the CPS, which has not completed its task urgently or in a timely fashion.

We very much hope that the CPS decide in days (not weeks or months) from now in favour of a prosecution and that the truth will emerge, without further delay, through criminal proceedings.

Our family and community cannot continue waiting for answers.

Chris was so loved by our family and all his friends. He had a bright future ahead of him before his life was cut short. We must see justice for Chris.”

Back to Sir Mark's open letter...

Equally important to speed is that, as he said, investigations should be conducted "competently and without fear or favour". Here we have an arrest following a year-long investigation. Nowhere has anyone - including Sir Mark - suggested that the investigation has been incompetent or prejudiced. Now officer NX121 has been arrested and released on bail the judge has banned the publication of any information about the defendant, including their description in order to avoid prejudicing the trial, which has been provisionally set for 9 September 2024 - just over 2 years after Chris' death.

Yet despite this arrest being at the end of a long - too long? - and impartial investigation we have seen people outraged. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have implied they think that arresting the officer was wrong. I can't understand how that isn't contrary to the desire to have investigations be conducted 'without fear or favour'. How is anyone in the future going to investigate a similar case properly if they know that if they decide to charge an officer the f.cking Prime Minister is going to say they were wrong? This is the complete opposite of having investigations be conducted without 'fear or favour' and any competent Commissioner would be calling out the Prime Minister and Home Secretary for interfering in an ongoing criminal investigation.

A review is needed to address accountability mechanisms, including the policies and practices of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Crown Prosecution Service, ideally with a focus on the threshold for investigating police use of force and involvement in pursuits.

The Casey Review - published in March of this year - found that the Met in general and the Specialist Firearms Command in particular overwhelmingly lacked accountability. Officers in the Command were allowed to act with impunity - as we have seen so glaringly over the last few days - and expect to be above the law.

There's a saying "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". It feels so apt in this case. These officers are being held to the same standard as anyone else and because they are so unused to it they think they're being treated unfairly. If any of us killed someone while at work then serious questions would be asked. Rightly so. Yet the impression I'm getting from Sir Mark, Suella and Rishi is they think that because these officers are permitted to use deadly force we shouldn't ever question whether they were right to do so. That's insane. We should question them more! They have the authority to kill people, we need to make sure they're only doing so when absolutely necessary and no other options were available. They keep saying about how they have to react quickly, as if that means that we have to accept that mistakes are going to be made and lives lost but it's somehow worth it for the greater good (the greater good). The last thing we want is trigger-happy officers being given guns, safe in the knowledge that if they do kill someone no-one's going to ask questions and will instead protect them at all costs. We need those officers to be scared that if they pull the trigger to shoot someone, their decision will be scrutinised to the nth degree to ensure they made the right call in ending another person's life.

I have spoken publicly in recent weeks about the need to let the police police. Our commitment to delivering change in the Met is unflinching and we are making positive progress, but that progress is undermined by a system not set up to help officers succeed. I have identified pursuits and use of force as areas where we see the most glaring unfairness.

The Casey review has made it quite clear that letting the 'police police' can only be permitted alongside deep-seated reform of the institution. Sir Mark has made it quite clear that he will implement as few of the Review's recommendations as he possibly can and refuses to accept that there are any institutional problems. He is resolute in his belief that it is a 'few bad apples' and even when those apples wave massive flags screaming 'here we are, we're bad apples' he refuses to see them for what they are and instead welcomes them back when they calm down after their tantrums.

I actually agree with Sir Mark that the system is not set up to help officers succeed, but I doubt he means it the way I do. The Casey review went into great detail about how officers in the BCUs are treated poorly and given little support to do their jobs well. It detailed a culture where non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual officers were bullied and belittled, both by peers and superiors. They were routinely excluded from opportunities that would allow them to advance in the organisation and found that complaining would make the situation worse. The Casey Review gave many recommendations on how to reverse this culture and help these officers succeed, yet Sir Mark refused to accept that there were any 'institutional' issues which means that any progress that is made will be piecemeal, slow and easily reversed.

I make no comment on any ongoing matters that are sub judice but the issues raised in this letter go back further.

Accountability matters, but we should not have allowed ourselves to develop a system where police officers get investigated for safely pursuing suspects, just because the suspect acts recklessly and as a result injures themselves or someone else.

This is unfair on our officers and discourages them from chasing down criminals.

I think these are a set of very telling sentences.

Sentence one - I'm not commenting on Chris Kaba.

Sentence two - officers should be allowed to pursue suspects (I'm not talking about Chris here, honest)

Sentence three - officers shouldn't be discouraged from chasing down criminals (I promise, I'm really not talking about Chris here).

Note how we go from 'pursuing suspects' to 'chasing down criminals'. Remember, Chris was neither. He wasn't named in the briefing on the night of his killing. He wasn't a suspect. He wasn't a criminal. He was an innocent man driving a car at night. The car he was driving did not - as far as we can tell from publicly available reports - belong to a suspect. It was merely 'linked' to an 'incident' involving firearms.

Now, of course, Sir Mark has made it clear in that first sentence that he's not talking at Chris but even if we take him at his word it's telling how he is amping up the threat in the following sentences. And it's clear he thinks there are parallels otherwise why discuss them?

Accountability matters, but we should not have allowed ourselves to develop a system where police officers get investigated for safely pursuing suspects, just because the suspect acts recklessly and as a result injures themselves or someone else.

Ah, victim blaming! I knew we'd get there eventually. It's not the police's fault that Chris acted recklessly. If only he'd acted rationally when blocked in by armed police cars in a residential street he'd still be alive today.

Why shouldn't you have a system that investigates officers when someone gets injured? Can you really be 'safely pursuing' if someone ends up injured? Surely you should be trying to prevent injuries? Doesn't investigating them sound like a good idea to help you learn how to improve procedures and minimise risk? Doctors routinely do morbidity and mortality conferences to analyse adverse outcomes with the aim of learning how to prevent them in the future and improve best practice. Why are the police so against learning from their mistakes?!

It's interesting that in the scenario described about it's only the suspect acting recklessly that could possibly cause someone to be injured. None of the officers involved could act recklessly. It's also interesting that even if injury occurs to a third party as a result of the actions of the suspect no-one's interested in learning how to prevent that in the future. If you get hurt or killed as a result of your colleague chasing a suspect then no-one's interested in learning how to protect your replacement. Sounds great (!).

This is unfair on our officers and discourages them from chasing down criminals.

Why is it unfair? If your actions lead to the injury or death of another then shouldn't you want to know that you did the right thing, and if you didn't want to do instead?

Armed officers know they need to justify their actions, especially when lethal force is used. They are extremely well trained and an intrinsic part of their training reinforces that shots can only be fired if absolutely necessary to save life.

So why are they so against actually justifying those actions? If they are 'extremely well trained' and only shoot when 'absolutely necessary' then they have nothing to fear. It's just a routine investigation that they go through to reassure them and everyone else that they acted responsibly. Who would be against that?

That last part got my brain whirring: "shots can only be fired if absolutely necessary to save life". This suggests that Chris was killed because he was posing an imminent threat to the lives of others. But was he? He was in a car, which can be deadly (you only need to see the number of pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cars to know that). But was killing him 'absolutely necessary'? He was cornered. I don't know what distance away from him the police vehicles were but I doubt they were sufficiently far to let him accelerate to any great extent - it wouldn't be a very good trap otherwise. Plus the police officers could hide behind their vehicles. If they were worried about the car being used to hurt people they could have used any number of devices to impede its travel. He couldn't escape in the car which only meant escaping on foot. They had no evidence he had a firearm - the car was, after all, only 'linked' to a firearms incident and we still don't know what that means and even if there was one in the car they had no evidence that it was within arms reach. They may have suspected he had a weapon but nothing to confirm those suspicions and nothing to demonstrate - as far as I can see - that shooting him through the head was 'absolutely necessary to save life'.

Officers are individually responsible and accountable for their actions. Consequently, we have one of the safest models of armed policing in the world.

First off, if you think the system is fine then why is the review necessary? Secondly, if officers are 'individually responsible and accountable' then why are you so against them having their actions scrutinised?

The fact Sir Mark and others are so eager for this review concerns me deeply. It suggests that they've been assured it will be favourable to them rather than be allowed to draw its own conclusions. So much for investigating 'without fear or favour'. They want to be able to act with impunity. To kill people without ever having to justify their actions; without ever risking serious consequences for acting rashly or carelessly. Police are given a huge amount of power and privilege over the rest of us and there is absolutely nothing wrong with us wanting to be assured that they are acting responsibly. That the Met sees this as preventing them from doing their job is incredibly concerning and suggests they have no intention of actually reforming for the better.

Just a few bad apples. Only about 3% are suspended for suspected gross misconduct.

I'm not sure what the average percentage is in most organisations, but almost vanishingly rare, I'd imagine.

[Allo V Psycho]

FWIW, I think that the Met are IR, M and H, as in the thread title. And I think Rowley's comments are highly loaded.
But, with Fishnut's account, there are some things that puzzle me. (At work, so can't do further research).
Did the police know who they were following? That Chris' name wasn't given at the briefing doesn't absolutely mean they didn't have an ID. Following someone with convictions for gun and knife crimes, and presumably with recent threats of violence against a woman, may change perceptions.
The car/cars with no lights on: does this mean no headlights or no blue lights?
The marked car waiting in the side road: if it was intended to replace or reinforce the unmarked car with a marked one, this could make sense. Did the police force Chris to turn into this street, or did he do so unexpectedly? What's the evidence it was an actual trap, and if so, how did they make Chris turn into the street?
Had Chris already crashed into police cars before the shot? Was Chris' care moving or stationary at the time of the shot? How far was the shooter from the car?
Why charge the shooter with murder, rather than manslaughter? (IANAL). Is it because it's harder to prove murder which I'd guess requires premeditation on the part of that individual? Is this a device to make being found guilty more difficult?
From what I've read (which may of course be inaccurate) I can make a variety of narratives, and I can't distinguish between them. perhaps the trial will bring greater clarity.

[discovolante]

Murder means intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm. There's no requirement for premeditation other than the intent at the time. The CPS would decide on the charge so I suppose it depends how corrupt you think they are. A person found not guilty of murder can still be found guilty of manslaughter.

More info here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... nslaughter

[Fishnut]

FWIW, I think that the Met are IR, M and H, as in the thread title. And I think Rowley's comments are highly loaded.
But, with Fishnut's account, there are some things that puzzle me. (At work, so can't do further research).
Did the police know who they were following? That Chris' name wasn't given at the briefing doesn't absolutely mean they didn't have an ID. Following someone with convictions for gun and knife crimes, and presumably with recent threats of violence against a woman, may change perceptions.
The car/cars with no lights on: does this mean no headlights or no blue lights?
The marked car waiting in the side road: if it was intended to replace or reinforce the unmarked car with a marked one, this could make sense. Did the police force Chris to turn into this street, or did he do so unexpectedly? What's the evidence it was an actual trap, and if so, how did they make Chris turn into the street?
Had Chris already crashed into police cars before the shot? Was Chris' care moving or stationary at the time of the shot? How far was the shooter from the car?
Why charge the shooter with murder, rather than manslaughter? (IANAL). Is it because it's harder to prove murder which I'd guess requires premeditation on the part of that individual? Is this a device to make being found guilty more difficult?
From what I've read (which may of course be inaccurate) I can make a variety of narratives, and I can't distinguish between them. perhaps the trial will bring greater clarity.

I've had pretty much the same questions.

The statement put out at the beginning of the inquest last year says,

According to police logs and accounts received to date by officers, the Audi was recognised by officers parked at the side of the A202 in Camberwell Green in an unmarked armed response vehicle (ARV). The officers then started to follow the vehicle and circulated this via police airwaves at around 9.52pm.

They don't say whether Chris was identified or not. Given it was almost 10pm in early September it would be dark out and any illumination would be provided by street lights and headlights from other cars. It looks like the speed limit on the A202 is 20mph - Google Street view was taken from October 2022 and speed limits are painted on the road, but don't look fresh. From the weather reports I can find it was a clear night so no rain or fog to obscure visibility.

I don't know which side of the road the police vehicle was parked in relation to the direction of Chris' travel. I don't know how busy with traffic the road was and I don't know at what distance they spotted him. The road does appear to have regularly-spaced street lighting but I don't know how bright it is. It could be that they spotted his car from a good distance and had sufficient lighting to recognise him as someone already known to them, or it could be that they spotted the car as it passed them and they weren't able to tell anything about the driver, or anything in between.

In terms of how they followed him, I'm confused too. I don't know whether they mean they followed without headlights or just without anything to indicate they were a police car. Driving without headlights would, I'd imagine, make you stand out more rather than less given the ambient lighting would mean you were visible, so I'd hope it's just without police lights but really want clarification there.

If you put in the A202 in Camberwell Green and Kirkstall Gardens, where Chris was killed, into Google Maps, it gives a travel time of about 17 minutes. That's with daytime traffic. The police spotted the car and called it in at around 9.52pm, and Chris turned into Kirkstall Gardens at 10.07pm, which is 15 minutes. That suggests that he was driving at the speed limit and there wasn't a 'pursuit' in the sense of him accelerating to try to escape them, and them trying to keep up with him. That suggests to me that he was unaware he was being followed.

Right, re-reading the statement it looks like an additional vehicle had parked in Kirkstall Gardens waiting for Chris to pass the junction and continue along New Park Road, but instead he turned into Kirkstall Gardens and found the police car sitting there.

At around 10.07pm, Mr Kaba made a left turn from New Park Road onto Kirkstall Gardens. Already present on Kirkstall Gardens was a marked police armed response vehicle. The marked ARV had parked on Kirkstall Gardens with the intention of joining the other police vehicles behind the Audi once it had passed the junction. One of the officers inside the marked ARV was NX121.

So it sounds increasingly like everyone was caught unawares. Chris had no idea he was driving into a trap and the police had no idea they had made once. Even if Chris had driven perfectly, indicating properly and slowing down to go into Kirkstall Gardens, the officers waiting there would only have had a few seconds to prepare themselves. That may have played a role in his death - if their plan to corner him at a different location had been scuppered and they were having to think on their feet then it feels more likely that people will be jumpy and prone to miscalculate.

It also sounds like there was one vehicle in Kirkstall Gardens and multiple police vehicles already behind Chris as he was driving on New Park Road. So more vehicles behind than in front.

It's not clear how the car in Kirkstall Gardens was parked. If they were waiting to pull out of the junction I imagine they'd be fairly close to it, and if they were ready to pull out then they likely had the engine running and were able to simply pull across the entrance to Kirkstall Gardens rather than out into New Park Road.

Some searching has found this photo in The Sun,

Kirkstall Gardens.jpg (40.39 KiB) Viewed 11884 times

Chris' car is, I'm guessing, the one in the middle with the front driver door open. I'm not sure which of the other vehicles were involved in the incident. The vehicle waiting in Kirkstall Gardens was marked so I'm going to assume that's the one bumper to bumper with Chris' car with the code JRM on its roof. I don't know if the white car to the side was involved or belongs to someone in the street. Same with the blue van. I'm going to assume they are just in the wrong place at the wrong time given they seem to be in parking bays and don't look like the sort of vehicles police would use, even unmarked.

I'm very curious about the positioning of JRM. It's quite far back in the road for someone who is expecting to be joining a 'chase' on the main road. Did they reverse down once they realised Chris was turning down the road to give a bit more space for him to be trapped by the other vehicles behind? If Chris had rammed it I'd have expected it to be positioned differently. Maybe he tried to squeeze between it and the white car and realised it wasn't going to happen, I don't know. It's also not clear if vehicles were moved to enable access by paramedics. We are seeing the aftermath and while it is frozen in time, it is frozen after the events, not necessarily at the moment of the shooting.

The grey car behind Chris' car is, I suspect, the car that was initially following him. I don't know if the two cars blocking the entrance are also from the evening. Given that the statement says he was followed by multiple vehicles and given that there are better ways of cordoning off an active investigation site I'm going to guess they were involved in some way.

What's interesting is the presence of the other marked car to the rear of Chris' car. The statement says there was a single marked car in the street so that would suggest that it was following Chris. So this is looking like 4 cars following him, 3 unmarked and 1 marked.

Once Mr Kaba made the left turn the decision was taken to perform an ‘inline extraction’. Armed officers exited their vehicles and approached the Audi. The evidence suggests that contact was made between the Audi driven by Mr Kaba and the police vehicles.

I'm still not clear on what an 'inline extraction' is but having re-read this part several times I think the next sentence is trying to explain it - the officers walk towards the person they want to 'extract'. That it says 'officers' indicates there are multiple people walking towards Chris and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that most or all are armed.

I find it interesting how vague the description is about the 'contact' between Chris's car and the police vehicles. It's very hard to determine any sort of sequence of events. I can think of multiple possible scenarios but none can currently be substantiated due to the lack of information available. Given Chris' family have been shown bodycam footage of the events leading up to his death I'm surprised at the vagueness here. I don't know if that's just what is done in these sorts of statements, or if it's a way of trying to hide culpability.

One plausible scenario is that JRM had parked between the blue van and white car in order to completely block the road and Chris collided with them because who the f.ck expects a vehicle to be blocking your path like that?

Maybe its my lack of training, but I can't imagine approaching a car when I believe the driver is prepared to run me over, especially when other options are available (like, not approaching and waiting for a few moments for everyone to take stock). This makes me think that the officers felt safe enough to approach rather than finding other methods of resolving the situation.

I've just found this photo of the car:

Clean shot.jpg (9.69 KiB) Viewed 11884 times

That is a very clean shot.

While I have many questions about the details of the events that led to Chris' death, the available information still does not lead me to think that shooting him was "necessary to save lives".

[Allo V Psycho]

Thanks, FIshnut, that's very helpful, and rules out a number of possibilities.

[Fishnut]

There's still fewer than normal armed officers on the streets of London. I really hope someone will be doing a comparison of relevant data to see whether this has had a negative impact on the safety of Londoners.

Sir Mark Rowley said,

“Officers are extremely anxious … A lot of this is driven by families. Many of them are under pressure from their partners, wives, husbands, parents, children … The core of this issue is not protest, the core of this issue is real personal anxiety.”

He added: “They are frustrated that it can be five-plus years later that all these accountability processes finish but they fully welcome that accountability and recognise it’s so critical for families and communities to have trust in the policing.”

Funny how these concerns have only arisen now, rather than, say, before they volunteered for the role. Almost like now they know that they might actually be accountable they are seeing the downsides to carrying weapons.

I think it's important to note that nothing has happened - there's been no change in the law, in the guidance, anything. The only thing that has happened is that an officer has been arrested on suspicion of murder following a year-long investigation into his conduct. By all means complain about the length of time it takes to do these investigations, but don't pretend that the timeframe has suddenly got longer. They've always been slow to investigate (and if they're upset about this, then they should be livid at how long it takes rape victims to get justice, if they're even able to).

These officers are only concerned because they have been shown they may have to face the consequences of their actions. If that's making them afraid to carry a gun then good. If they don't trust themselves to use them in a way that can be quickly and easily justified then they shouldn't be on the streets.

[Grumble]

Is the marked vehicle behind a police car or an ambulance car?

Ignore me, going to the original photo on the S*n shows it’s a police car

[Boustrophedon]

Why charge the shooter with murder, rather than manslaughter? (IANAL). Is it because it's harder to prove murder which I'd guess requires premeditation on the part of that individual? Is this a device to make being found guilty more difficult?
From what I've read (which may of course be inaccurate) I can make a variety of narratives, and I can't distinguish between them. perhaps the trial will bring greater clarity.

This. And after a not guilty verdict, the IPCC will not dare to second guess the jury so the PC will return to work with an unblemished record.

[discovolante]

See my post above.

[Fishnut]

Jermaine Baker was shot and killed on 11 December 2015 by a Met police officer referred to as W80.

Izzet Eren and Erwin Amoyaw-Gyamfi were arrested by police in October 2015 while riding a stolen motorbike and carrying loaded guns (PDF). They were charged and pleaded guilty in November and were due back at Wood Green Crown Court on 11 December 2015 for sentencing.

Police had intelligence indicating there was going to be an attempt to assist Eren in escaping from custody while he was being transported to court. It wasn't known if the conspirators were going to help Amoyaw-Gyamfi escape as well.

Eren was a "senior member of a familial Turkish crime group who had returned to the UK in breach of the a deportation order, having been sentenced for drugs trafficking offences" and he was wanted in Turkey for murder.

Police proposed to have covertly armed officers surveil a stolen Audi they believed to be intended to be used in the attempt to free Eren and the Serco van transporting Eren and Amoyaw-Gyamfi. This proposal was approved.

Police had fitted a tracker and audio probe to the car and this had revealed that the only weapon in the vehicle was a replica. This vital intelligence failed to be communicated to the team.

The car was parked near to the court at 8am on 11 December 2015. Inside were Jermaine Baker, Nathan Mason and Gokay Sogucakli. Jermaine was in the front passenger seat. At about 9am the order was given to arrest the occupants. During the attempted arrest, Jermaine was shot in the neck and killed.

There was an inquiry, launched in 2020 and concluded in 2022. The report is 244 pages long and warrants reading. I've given parts a quick skim. There's a detailed discussion about the car windows being fogged up (it's a winter morning and there's 3 guys in the car) and the consequences of this. Once I've finished going through the Stephen Port report I'll have a go at this one. The Chairman's Statement has this section which makes me think it should be worth the time,

... even though the decision to run the operation and/or the way in which it was carried out on the ground are not themselves the subject of criticism, I am left in no doubt that had there not been a tragic fatality, none of those failures and shortcomings would have been the subject of detailed external or internal scrutiny, far less criticism, and the outcome of the operation and the way in which it was carried out would have been hailed as a resounding success for the MPS

Why am I talking about this now? Because today the IOPC has said that the officer who shot Jermaine must face gross misconduct proceedings.

I was feeling a tinge of empathy for W80, who has had this hanging over them for almost 8 years. But reading the BBC article it's clear this isn't about the wheels of justice turning too slowly,

In 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service decided the officer, known only as W80, should not face criminal charges.

However, the IOPC told the Met gross misconduct proceedings should be brought against him.

W80 challenged that direction in the courts and in July, after the issue had been considered at three levels of the legal system, the Supreme Court ruled against him...

IOPC acting director general Tom Whiting said: "This case has been through protracted legal proceedings which have been extremely challenging for everyone involved, not least W80 himself and Jermaine's family.

"We have now upheld our original decision that W80 should face a gross misconduct hearing. This isn't a decision we have taken lightly, but we believe that it was the right decision in 2015 and remains so following the clear ruling from the Supreme Court in July."

This seems more like someone hoping to use the courts to drag things out as long as possible in the hopes that someone will be sympathetic to them.

This is interesting,

Normally, the force would oversee a disciplinary hearing with a "legally-qualified" chair.

However, the IOPC said it would ask the Met to consider bringing in another police force because of "recent commentary about this case".

Sounds to me like they don't trust the Met to act impartially. Though I find it rather odd that the normal procedure is to allow your own force to oversee your disciplinary hearing. It seems that the answer to 'who watches the watchmen?' is 'the watchmen's mates'.

[IvanV]

Police internal investigation finds no misconduct following armed police attending to children playing with coloured plastic water pistols. One was rammed off his bicycle by a police vehicle and briefly arrested.

I suppose utter stupidity isn't necessarily misconduct. The mother raises the question whether they would have responded like this, or been so defensive on being found out, if it had been white children playing.

[Fishnut]

I'm really struggling to understand the logic of the Met's misconduct investigations and who gets fired and who gets to stay. This story is a great example of the seeming capriciousness,

...two serving Metropolitan Police officers are still in their jobs despite being subject to a misconduct investigation or proceeding involving the alleged use of sex workers. The two officers, who the force says will not be identified as the misconduct complaints have not led to a formal public hearing, remain in the organisation and received reflective practice and management action rather than losing their jobs.
...
Over the past five years, six officers have been subject to similar investigations involving the alleged use of sex workers.

In the case of the other four officers who are no longer in the force, they resigned before a misconduct proceeding was concluded, but the force admitted they would have been dismissed had they been serving officers.

Why do these guys get to keep their job when we're told that those who'd resigned would have lost them if they'd not resigned?

[Sciolus]

Impossible to say without knowing the details of the cases. Using sex workers per se is not obviously a disciplinary offence -- it's not illegal and not obviously unethical, even for a police officer. It would become a disciplinary matter if* the officer used their position to be coercive, for instance.

*Who am I kidding -- when.

[Woodchopper]

Impossible to say without knowing the details of the cases. Using sex workers per se is not obviously a disciplinary offence -- it's not illegal and not obviously unethical, even for a police officer. It would become a disciplinary matter if* the officer used their position to be coercive, for instance.

*Who am I kidding -- when.

The linked article quotes a former Chairman of the Conduct and Performance Committee at the Police Federation who states that "it leaves them open to coercion, distortion, corruption, influence from organised criminal groups". (As an aside, that may be true but looks like the reasons used in the past to expel homosexuals).

Assuming that's the rationale, it could be that the officers who resigned and would have been dismissed had contacts with organized crime or did things that left them open to coercion etc, whereas the ones who remained didn't.

[Fishnut]

I debated about putting this in the bad reviews thread. The BBC are apparently trying to help whitewash the Met.

[JQH]

It seems that cops can be sacked for gross misconduct.

When they lie about well known athletes anyway.

One wonders what would have happened if it had been a random black couple in Brixton.

Actually one doesn't wonder. One is f.cking certain the cops would have got away with it.

[noggins]

Can the police be done for corporate manslaughter? Eg perhaps Officer W80 may have made a reasonable decision to fire, but was put in that position by gross incompetence of colleagues and superiors.

[Gfamily]

It seems that cops can be sacked for gross misconduct.

FFS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67236220

[cvb]

It seems that cops can be sacked for gross misconduct.

FFS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67236220

Indeed.

Lets raise some money for some fine upstanding racists, it would appear.

[Gfamily]

It seems that cops can be sacked for gross misconduct.

FFS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67236220

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.

[Fishnut]

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.