I think the stonewalling and defensive closing ranks that we've seen from the police in these high-profile cases is partly a result of the public approach. There's normally a "heads must roll" rather than a "no blame" response. This sets us as opposing sides and brings out the worst in people.
You can't blame the public for systemic corruption!!!!Originally Posted by noel
The police should be held to higher standards and heads should roll - if you take the queen's shilling that's the price you pay.
hahaha this was a joke right
...And all fell runners live in the North of England, wear walshes, drink beer and think anyone who runs on the roads is a right softie...??? ***
Generalisation are, generally, a bad thing I've found Dan. I personally know an ACC (Assistant Chief Constable), 2 inspectors (one now retired) and my brother is (was) a (now retired) Chief Superintendent...as well as 3 constables. And not one of them I would describe, or have the slightest doubt of, as dishonest, corrupt, or without the moral fibre or character to admit when they make mistakes.
So to say it's "the one's in charge" smacks of it's always someone else...
That's not to say of course that there aren't many that don't have the bollocks (or moral fibre/character/integrity...whatever you want to call it) to admit to their errors. But this problem is, I reckon, at all ranks. And in every walk of life. NHS, Teaching, Government, Safety management (oh oh...I knew I shouldn't have opened that box of Pandora's)
My view is that there's very few bad un's in there. The Met Police, by it's size is by far and away going to have the highest number of bad ones.
Every Policeman I know detests what the bad and corrupt ones do and the legacy they leave; moreso than we can!
*** (If we exclude Scotland cos they want to make an UDI anyway, and declare Wales an annex of Yorkshire then actually, I guess my statement is probably not far from the truth..)
...there's a hill nearby missing its fool...
Fair enough Stick I don't doubt there are decent coppers in all the ranks, but something must stink pretty bad for so many mistakes to have been covered up in the UK police force....And all fell runners live in the North of England, wear walshes, drink beer and think anyone who runs on the roads is a right softie...??? ***
Generalisation are, generally, a bad thing I've found Dan. I personally know an ACC (Assistant Chief Constable), 2 inspectors (one now retired) and my brother is (was) a (now retired) Chief Superintendent...as well as 3 constables. And not one of them I would describe, or have the slightest doubt of, as dishonest, corrupt, or without the moral fibre or character to admit when they make mistakes.
So to say it's "the one's in charge" smacks of it's always someone else...
That's not to say of course that there aren't many that don't have the bollocks (or moral fibre/character/integrity...whatever you want to call it) to admit to their errors. But this problem is, I reckon, at all ranks. And in every walk of life. NHS, Teaching, Government, Safety management (oh oh...I knew I shouldn't have opened that box of Pandora's)
My view is that there's very few bad un's in there. The Met Police, by it's size is by far and away going to have the highest number of bad ones.
Every Policeman I know detests what the bad and corrupt ones do and the legacy they leave; moreso than we can!
*** (If we exclude Scotland cos they want to make an UDI anyway, and declare Wales an annex of Yorkshire then actually, I guess my statement is probably not far from the truth..
The thing that really worries me is that a lot of the people involved these issues still have their jobs! One bloke in the Met has only just lost his job in the wake of these allegations!!! The people who authorised these decisions aren't daft they know the truth will out. Why can't they front up to it and be transparent from the start? Why do they authorise cover ups?
I know what you're trying to say about bad apples in all walks of life - the thing is people working in other walks of life don't have the power to shoot you or take your liberty. That's why we have to be able to trust the police.
Thing is, this doesn't answer the opening posts question about trusting the police, we all know most officers are 'alright', but that doesn't matter when you have a rotten heirachy. I mean its those you have the most power that do the damage were trust is concerned, having a great 97% is of no consequence when the 3% at the top and in control of 'matters' are bent
You don't see the contradiction in your position? The standard to which the police work is set by the government and the government is selected by the majority of the people I.e. public.
I'll go further. People who vote do so for the parties that share their views most closely, knowing full well that once their party is elected they will create laws that discriminate against their opponents (very few vote for what is ideologically right). Who ultimately upholds these laws? The police of course.
So if you have unjust laws you are less likely to attract and more likely to lose higher calibre people into the police force. It's obvious, just look at all dictatorships in history and compare the corruption in those police forces to the corruption in countries with greater freedom. Then you'll realise that what you write above isn't true.
Interesting point of view as always Chris! Would you say therefore that corrupt police are are merely a symptom of a wider problem with democracy itself?
Is anarchy the answer?!
Indeed good point CL.
Dan, Reverand, in reply to your valid posts, to which I agree (except for the anarchy bit), I was thinking that the original posting question was flawed...how can 'trust' be imbued to an institution?
Only people can be granted or earn the merit of trustworthiness. And like I imagine all of us, the cover uppers and guilty ones should be hung out to dry (Carlos...I do NOT mean literally!!!)
...there's a hill nearby missing its fool...
I was particularly interested in the point that the chap made on the BBC News item last night (I can’t remember his name) , that: in many walks of public life, many ‘professions’ tend to ‘close ranks’ when there is trouble / ‘external threat’.
OK, the Police have a particular remit to uphold the law in pursuit of trying to encourage (proactively and reactively) others in society to do the same (uphold the law). But as CL says, what makes (or should make?) an individual working for the Police in any way markedly significantly different in 'mindset' from any other person serving the public at large? Be they a nurse/doctor, technician/engineer, legal aider/lawyer, bank worker/banker, journalist/editor, policeman-woman/police constable, etc. Dan you've offered one suggestion.
But, why do we (different collective professions in public life) 'in general' (yes, I hate that condition / proviso too Stick) tend to close ranks when a minority rocks the boat? Even when the majority may not actually agree at all with what the minority are doing / have done? Has there been any scientific research on this phenomenon? Is it just an inertia think - not wanting to stick ones head above the parapet? It happens with Whistleblowers in many walks of public life - they often get alienated / disowned / persecuted by their own.
Curious, just interested.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote