Policing in the UK

[The blue phantom]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

How many on the IOPC investigating staff are past coppers?

 

[domalino]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

Firearms officers are incredibly well trained-the record of AFOs in this country speaks to this. But it is also a voluntary role. If in the incredibly rare occasion you fire your weapon you face years of scrutiny which whilst it can be justified is never worth it-and that’s what many of them will be thinking.

I’ve mentioned several times that savage cuts by this government have wrecked the service, vetting was one victim of that-those joining now are kids-how many older people with mortgages and families can afford to work for those wages? And those kids joining will be and are leaving as quickly as they join.

You did conveniently forget to mention 2 high court judges ruled the policng around the vigil was illegal, but I guess that just escaped you...

 

[BobKowalski]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

Firearms officers are incredibly well trained-the record of AFOs in this country speaks to this. But it is also a voluntary role. If in the incredibly rare occasion you fire your weapon you face years of scrutiny which whilst it can be justified is never worth it-and that’s what many of them will be thinking.

I’ve mentioned several times that savage cuts by this government have wrecked the service, vetting was one victim of that-those joining now are kids-how many older people with mortgages and families can afford to work for those wages? And those kids joining will be and are leaving as quickly as they join.

Hindsight is perfect. But no one needed hindsight to spot that arresting women attending a vigil for a woman murdered by a serving officer was dumb. The optics were astonishingly bad irrespective of how ‘exemplary‘ the manner of the arrests.

But the focus on the serving officers on the ground misses the point. It didn't matter how the arrests were done, but who decided it would be a good idea? Which senior officer made the decision? It is the decision I would criticise more, not just officers carrying out the decision.

My bugbear is not the ‘poor bloody infantry’ but the people running the show, be it senior police, politicians or whoever. No service can operate properly without adequate resources and competent leadership and the police service like many other services lacks both - and by leadership I largely mean politicians. Right now we have a Home Secretary publicly signalling support for the firearms officer who was charged. What does that say to the people and bodies charged with reviewing and deciding these matters? Don’t bother in future? What does it say to the firearms officers having to make a decision? Does it make them more likely to shoot?

The UK has a leadership problem and it isn’t just people struggling to do the right thing and making mistakes. It is venal people that we elected who don’t give a shit.

 

[domalino]

Firstly the firearms officers haven’t gone on strike. Police cannot strike. They have simply withdrawn their willingness to continue to perform a duty which is voluntary.

Organising to withdraw your labour is the literal dictionary definition of a strike.

Re the Sarah Everard vigil. The IOPC ruled that the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing. The women were not assaulted. I’m not sure about you but if I was ‘assaulted’ I’d wouldn’t look that good in the photos. And those ACAB banners didn’t make themselves. There were a group of individuals who took over a vigil for Sarah. Opportunist loud mouths, nothing else. The police in attendance spent over an hour talking to them before they were arrested-gatherings were illegal at that time. The officers were placed in a very difficult situation-as the IOPC concluded. Police will almost always pay out to avoid a lengthy court case-i don’t agree with that because it carries an assumption of wrong doing but that’s how it is.

2 High Court juges ruled the policing around the vigil was illegal (in 6 different ways!), out of touch and heavy handed.

Police acted unlawfully over Everard vigil, court rules

Met showed 'continued misunderstanding of the law' on protests in lockdown - High Court.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

And police who carry firearms know full well they don’t have ‘carte Blanche’-tens of thousands of incidents where firearms are authorised, yet a handful of discharges. My force for instance has never even discharged a firearm. And it was the gun capital of England in the early 2000s.

So then why are they protesting against oversight?

Officers volunteer for this role-I’m not sure paying a bit more would motivate many to perform the role with the jeopardy it involves. It’s simply not worth it.

This is something we've seen a few pro-police people claim, but that's not acutally true is it?

The Casey report really clearly laid out how SO19 officers were allowed to game the overtime system to reap massive financial rewards from their positions, as well as claim ludicrous expenses for things like ipads and non-police clothing. They were coached to claim expenses just below the threshold that required oversight and investigation.

Not to mention oredering expensive completely unnecessary equipment on the taxpayers expense like night vision goggles that don't work in floodlit city streets, camoflage wraps for their police vehicles or tomahawk axes - the same ones infamously used by the disgraced Seal Team 6 to murder Afghans.

Did you not know that? Or is it something else you just forgot to mention?

Colouring outside the lines’ in MO19 covers a catalogue of poor behaviours. Officersand staff told us that the Command does not make sensible or considered financialdecisions.

It allows officers to ‘game the system’ financially, with some earning up tosignificant amounts through overtime shifts. Officers are allowed to work theovertime system to top up their salaries, and financially rely on doing so.We were told of well-known overtime ‘rackets,’ such as shifts for major events like Notting Hill Carnival and New Year’s Eve being filled by officers on overtime, ratherthan being scheduled as part of regular shift patterns, even though the dates areknown well in advance.

We were told that senior leaders had endorsed this, or looked the other way, while amodel developed where officers could work overtime when it was convenient tothem, and refuse it when it was not.We were told that hotels, usually used to accommodate officers asked to work extrashifts with no time to travel home, are being used to reward officers for hard work.

Officers will also overspend on hotels, selecting more expensive options rather thanooking for value for money. They will make themselves available for certain shifts sothat they have the use of a hotel room.We were also told that access to elite training courses and police resources wereeither signed off without proper scrutiny, or used as rewards.

We heard of excessive spending on unnecessary, high-end equipment and kit, suchas tomahawk axes and unusable night vision goggles which turned out to be uselessin London’s street-lit environment.We were told that specialist vehicle camouflage wraps, ineffective on the streets of London, were purchased, and that a senior officer had to step in to block their use.We were told of officers being allowed to make multiple, frequent expense claimsjust below the limit that would require formal sign off, travelling overseas for trainingcourses, and ordering iPads and personalised jackets on expenses.

It's no surprise that a police officer thinks there's nothing wrong with the Met. It's exactly why we've had 2 massive investigations and reports into the police in the last few years that concluded the organsiation has a culture of defensiveness, denial and refusing to accept it's own flaws.

 

[bluethrunthru]

And so the penny will drop with Officers that taking action brings results - completely changes the relationship between Govt and the Police at a stroke

Armed police could 'possibly' be paid more to reflect the risks they face, policing minister tells LBC

The policing minister has said armed officers could possibly be in line for a pay rise to reflect the increased risks they face.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[bert38]

Hindsight is perfect. But no one needed hindsight to spot that arresting women attending a vigil for a woman murdered by a serving officer was dumb. The optics were astonishingly bad irrespective of how ‘exemplary‘ the manner of the arrests.

But the focus on the serving officers on the ground misses the point. It didn't matter how the arrests were done, but who decided it would be a good idea? Which senior officer made the decision? It is the decision I would criticise more, not just officers carrying out the decision.

My bugbear is not the ‘poor bloody infantry’ but the people running the show, be it senior police, politicians or whoever. No service can operate properly without adequate resources and competent leadership and the police service like many other services lacks both - and by leadership I largely mean politicians. Right now we have a Home Secretary publicly signalling support for the firearms officer who was charged. What does that say to the people and bodies charged with reviewing and deciding these matters? Don’t bother in future? What does it say to the firearms officers having to make a decision? Does it make them more likely to shoot?

The UK has a leadership problem and it isn’t just people struggling to do the right thing and making mistakes. It is venal people that we elected who don’t give a shit.

I think we can both agree that Braverman is a ****. Secondly she should keep her gob shut when commenting on a live investigation. Thirdly I could write a book on the poor standards of leadership among ACPO ranks from just my own experience.

 

[bert38]

Organising to withdraw your labour is the literal dictionary definition of a strike.




2 High Court juges ruled the policing around the vigil was illegal (in 6 different ways!), out of touch and heavy handed.

Police acted unlawfully over Everard vigil, court rules

Met showed 'continued misunderstanding of the law' on protests in lockdown - High Court.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

So then why are they protesting against oversight?



This is something we've seen a few pro-police people claim, but that's not acutally true is it?

The Casey report really clearly laid out how SO19 officers were allowed to game the overtime system to reap massive financial rewards from their positions, as well as claim ludicrous expenses for things like ipads and non-police clothing. They were coached to claim expenses just below the threshold that required oversight and investigation.

Not to mention oredering expensive completely unnecessary equipment on the taxpayers expense like night vision goggles that don't work in floodlit city streets, camoflage wraps for their police vehicles or tomahawk axes - the same ones infamously used by the disgraced Seal Team 6 to murder Afghans.

Did you not know that? Or is it something else you just forgot to mention?





It's no surprise that a police officer thinks there's nothing wrong with the Met. It's exactly why we've had 2 massive investigations and reports into the police in the last few years that concluded the organsiation has a culture of defensiveness, denial and refusing to accept it's own flaws.

Do you think the officers get to take that equipment home? Otherwise how are they benefiting?!

Of course certain departments have historically played the Overtime game-CID in particular. But for 17 years out of my 25 years service I didn’t even qualify for overtime, so I can’t really comment from knowledge.

Police cannot legally strike. They can withdraw from a voluntary duty-that is completely different.

When have I said there’s nothing wrong with the police? Read my posts on the subject and you’ll see I am balanced and reasonable in my points which are based on experience. But I will always argue that there’s way more good than bad.

Sarah’s vigil was taken over by opportunist loud mouths looking to cause trouble and pursue their anti-police agenda. It was clearly a very difficult situation; the law at that time was changing constantly due to covid.

 

[bert38]

How many on the IOPC investigating staff are past coppers?

Something tells me you’re not a fan are you?

 

[The blue phantom]

Something tells me you’re not a fan are you?

I think if they are investigating their own they won't be impartial.

 

[Scaley]

Do you think the officers get to take that equipment home? Otherwise how are they benefiting?!

Of course certain departments have historically played the Overtime game-CID in particular. But for 17 years out of my 25 years service I didn’t even qualify for overtime, so I can’t really comment from knowledge.

Police cannot legally strike. They can withdraw from a voluntary duty-that is completely different.

When have I said there’s nothing wrong with the police? Read my posts on the subject and you’ll see I am balanced and reasonable in my points which are based on experience. But I will always argue that there’s way more good than bad.

Sarah’s vigil was taken over by opportunist loud mouths looking to cause trouble and pursue their anti-police agenda. It was clearly a very difficult situation; the law at that time was changing constantly due to covid.

Totally agree, withdrawing from a voluntary role and redeploying to other duties is totally different from striking, can’t see how this is so hard to understand. They’ve withdrawn from a role not a job it’s as simple as that.