Met Police not having a good day

Met Police not having a good day

Author
Discussion

Bigends

Original Poster:

5,637 posts

134 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
This on top of substantial payouts to Sarah Everard vigil arrestees

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66809...

bitchstewie

54,519 posts

216 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
There's does seem something rotten about the Met where nothing I read about them surprises me.

Whether it's this or todays compensation payout over the treatment of women protesting at a woman being murdered by a serving Met Police Officer.

Maybe it's a numbers thing but throw in the Casey review and something seems very very wrong.

deadslow

8,221 posts

229 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
I'm starting to think London is a different country, run by, and for the benefit of various crooks.

Randy Winkman

17,280 posts

195 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
deadslow said:
I'm starting to think London is a different country, run by, and for the benefit of various crooks.
Like who?

Rivenink

3,936 posts

112 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
bhstewie said:
There's does seem something rotten about the Met where nothing I read about them surprises me.

Whether it's this or todays compensation payout over the treatment of women protesting at a woman being murdered by a serving Met Police Officer.

Maybe it's a numbers thing but throw in the Casey review and something seems very very wrong.
It needs to get its house in order for sure.

However, reports of them compensating victims of their misconduct and officers being sacked for misconduct are to be expected to increase during a time of righting past wrongs. It's a positive, if (and ONLY if) accompanied by a reduction in misconduct.

Earthdweller

14,207 posts

132 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
Bigends said:
This on top of substantial payouts to Sarah Everard vigil arrestees
Do you know the payouts were substantial?

The Met states only that a settlement has been reached and these matters are normally confidential

Not only that, but the enquiry found no wrongdoing


BikeBikeBIke

9,639 posts

121 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
Earthdweller said:
Bigends said:
This on top of substantial payouts to Sarah Everard vigil arrestees
Do you know the payouts were substantial?
The lawyers said substantial. I'm pretty certain it was just an amount chosen to be less than the cost of defending the case.

Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.

Wills2

23,963 posts

181 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
The lawyers said substantial. I'm pretty certain it was just an amount chosen to be less than the cost of defending the case.

Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Pity we keep seeing incidents when they appear not to know the law and then get heavy handed for good measure, the police acted shamefully over the vigil, especially when during lockdown they showed that they didn't understand the law or thought it didn't apply to them on numerous occasions including chief constables.



Jasandjules

70,420 posts

235 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Ahhh yes and it was wrong to hide Jews in attics but fine to kill them even if they were 14, after all, that was the law at the time, so it was correct yes?

ClaphamGT3

11,487 posts

249 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Would these be the same Police who provided security to the then Duchess of Cambridge when she attended the vigil?

Bigends

Original Poster:

5,637 posts

134 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Ahhh yes and it was wrong to hide Jews in attics but fine to kill them even if they were 14, after all, that was the law at the time, so it was correct yes?
..and it was Ok for the Duchess of Cambridge to visit earlier in the day.

Mojooo

12,976 posts

186 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
I am surprised they paid out in this case as technically it was clearly illegal to be out.

I suspect they will get hammered for arresting the Republic guy when that goes to court.

paulw123

3,601 posts

196 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
Mojooo said:
I am surprised they paid out in this case as technically it was clearly illegal to be out.

I suspect they will get hammered for arresting the Republic guy when that goes to court.
They shouldn’t have paid out, it was against the law to be out during that time. Whether one things the law is right or wrong is neither here nor there.

Ashfordian

2,162 posts

95 months

Thursday 14th September 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
The lawyers said substantial. I'm pretty certain it was just an amount chosen to be less than the cost of defending the case.

Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
The same police had rolled out the red carpet for the BLM marches the previous year while we were still under stupid restrictions. I'm guessing the difference between the two, apart from the hypocrisy, is that the BLM marches were not highlighting an embarrassing situation for the MET police force...

Oliver Hardy

2,983 posts

80 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
I still don't get the Sarah Everard vigil ruling, if it was OK to attend a vigil why nor an after work party?

But while we want a squeaky clean police force in reality this well never happen, mistakes will occur, the wrong person will sometime get employed.

We don't seem to have the same worries over the NHS and care sectors, time and time again there are news reports of the NHS failing and these employed by them

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28869932
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-6...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66749...
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/11-staf...

And it is not hard to find many other failings by staff in the care sector.

Is the focus on the police because they are mostly men, is it misandry?




jdw100

4,649 posts

170 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
Same with getting apologies from the NHS.

They will absolutely try to avoid it - I know as a friend has made a very good living as a consultant brought in to manage media damage limitation in these circumstances.

Same with many public services - desperate to bury or drag out investigations. An apology leaves them, often, open to litigation so must be avoided.

On another note. A mate living in London had in his wider friendship group a policeman who made it in to the armed units. He was, to my mind, a massive ahole.

Would dress like a ‘gangsta’, always with a black beanie cap pulled low.

I did coke (in bar or club) with him more than a few times. Quite an aggressive guy with a really bad attitude to women. Would use his police status to try and impress them.

Sort of guy that would not start a problem in a pub…but wouldn't mind escalating it. I and a few others just stopped going out if he was going to be in the group. Way to edgy for me and most friends. He kind of disappeared from the group over about three months.

This was 20(?) years ago, so we just thought ‘what a bellend’. Now….well makes you wonder if he made his way up the chain of command? Would he have covered up for others along the way?

As a balance - I used to go drinking with a number of Traffic Officers, in Camden. Lovely bunch!


andyA700

3,191 posts

43 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
Bigends said:
This on top of substantial payouts to Sarah Everard vigil arrestees
Do you know the payouts were substantial?
The lawyers said substantial. I'm pretty certain it was just an amount chosen to be less than the cost of defending the case.

Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Being outside was never illegal, you are simply making things up. There was guidance which said you could go shopping and take exercise within a certain range of your house. I sometimes wonder, if being outside was illegal, how come all the builders doing home improvements in 2020 didn't get arrested, or all those people who weren't allowed to work from home?

BikeBikeBIke

9,639 posts

121 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
Bigends said:
Jasandjules said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Ahhh yes and it was wrong to hide Jews in attics but fine to kill them even if they were 14, after all, that was the law at the time, so it was correct yes?
..and it was Ok for the Duchess of Cambridge to visit earlier in the day.
She was working so presumably that didn't break the rules. Like the media, and the police.

But let's assume she wasn't there as part.of her job - I have no idea if Police protection people have to continue to give protection even if the person they're protecting is breaking the law. Raises the hilarious possibility that Camilla robs a bank with a Police escort. smile

Cotty

40,110 posts

290 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Ahhh yes and it was wrong to hide Jews in attics but fine to kill them even if they were 14, after all, that was the law at the time, so it was correct yes?
Godwins Law in only nine posts hehe

kiethton

14,028 posts

186 months

Friday 15th September 2023
quotequote all
andyA700 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Earthdweller said:
Bigends said:
This on top of substantial payouts to Sarah Everard vigil arrestees
Do you know the payouts were substantial?
The lawyers said substantial. I'm pretty certain it was just an amount chosen to be less than the cost of defending the case.

Being outside was illegal at the time. People might think that was wrong, but the police have to enforce the law, not what people think the law ought to be.
Being outside was never illegal, you are simply making things up. There was guidance which said you could go shopping and take exercise within a certain range of your house. I sometimes wonder, if being outside was illegal, how come all the builders doing home improvements in 2020 didn't get arrested, or all those people who weren't allowed to work from home?
There was no restriction on how far you could travel in England. If you'd have gone from Grimsby, walked with the vigil and on to the corner shop that would have been perfectly within the letter of the law