To feel a bit bad for the met police on bbc panorama undercover

In their job, their off duty views and actions matter. It matters how they talk, it matters how they view women, it matters how they view minorities.Their views directly impact the way they do their job and the way they treat those people when they come into contact with them.

The off duty chat also matters because it shows the culture amongst them. It shows the way they all behave and how they condone each other’s views, allowing it to continue they are back on duty.

Most corporations have morality clauses for their staff, higher up staff absolutely. If they’re caught saying or doing this sort of thing, off duty, then they’re out a job. Because it’s no acceptable for people who behave like this in private to hold positions of power in public. That’s why it matters.

Why don’t the police have a morality clause in their employment contract? This shows why we need it.

it's not fair that they only show the bad side of things not going well when there's so much good too

But the good does not balance out or cancel out the bad. It is not a case of showing both sides of what a person or company or team is like.
If a person is capable of saying truly disgusting racist and misogynistic things, then that is who they are. The 'good' side is just an act, a performance, to cover up the bad for social situations.

They acknowledged that they also saw a lot of good professional police work too and they showed a bit.. But the programme wasn't about them so of course they wouldn't feature.

Of course the police also fo these things-the Met is responsible for one of the most horrendous violations of privacy and confidentiality in human history by planting undercover police in innocent activist communities and having sex and even children with unwitting women and then abandoning these women and children without a backwards glance. So can we have a little less of this convenient aphasia and a little less pearl clutching over the technique used by the press to get these men on record?

someone who had perhaps tried to address it via internal channels and got nowhere?

I’m clearly in the minority based on the comments. I guess I feel that people committing crimes (eg police brutality) are fair game for publication but recording them expressing views (no matter how much I disagree with them or find the views repugnant) in private when off-duty and publicising that with no blurred face etc is a bit Orwellian to me.

I think that the point of naming and shaming is that its undeniable rock solid published proof. The organisation can't deny it, suggest that the reporter misunderstood or that words were put into people's mouths. I think the point of publicly naming and shaming is that it can't be covered up or kicked into the long grass by the people running the organisation. There is also the potential for the exercise to be repeated in a year or so..... I also suspect (didn't watch the program yet) that there was a reason for deciding to make this program....maybe someone approached the BBC?

Undercover reporting doesn't sit well with me in general, though I admit I haven't watched this one (yet). It is tricky that bad people need to be called out but good people get caught up in the crossfire.
I worked in a place that was the subject of an undercover Panorama episode and did nothing wrong (& therefore wasn't featured in the program) but it still made me feel manipulated and violated. I thought I genuinely got on with the person and it's not fair that they only show the bad side of things not going well when there's so much good too.

One of the guys didn’t say anything racist as such though. He said scum bags and toe rags. He wasn’t taking about any particular race as fad as I saw.

Im sure any tea room in the police would say things that.

It did seem the guy undercover obviously joined the police under false pretences and I wonder how he passed vetting.This programme will only harm the relationship between the police and public further, I don’t see what good it has done .

Yes, if I remember right, they were told to look at Charing Cross station as were told was problematic. Someone tipped them off I presume.

I think that the point of naming and shaming is that its undeniable rock solid published proof. The organisation can't deny it, suggest that the reporter misunderstood or that words were put into people's mouths. I think the point of publicly naming and shaming is that it can't be covered up or kicked into the long grass by the people running the organisation. There is also the potential for the exercise to be repeated in a year or so..... I also suspect (didn't watch the program yet) that there was a reason for deciding to make this program....maybe someone approached the BBC?

The rape comments made about Muslim women by one officer to the end we’re disgusting and evil, if I understood them correctly.

Everyone is entitled to a view on immigration and on religion in their private life, sure. But what we saw was straight up racism. Genuinely, that’s not the sort of opinion a police officer should have, even off the clock.

Would you be ok with a teacher saying these things as long as they weren’t in the classroom?

We already saw the videos of them using excessive force and straight up abuse, so you can’t even brush it off as just dark humour.

I really don’t think doctors and firefighters share these views as you say. Bad people are attached to the police so they can be the big tough guy beating on others. Several of them even admitted to it!!

I think some feel uncomfortable because it’s a load of white guys being shown up as being a load of vile thuggish pigs , kind of bloke who could be your brother - I suspect if it had been a load of Asian/ black guys then as far as a rather large group of the British public are concerned that would have been fine- indeed they would have been braying for them to be named. It is a tough job and not for everyone but you need maturity and empathy and to stick to ‘the law’ and my only slight misgiving is that sadly we have plenty of knuckleheads in society who will use this as ‘we are all far too soft’ and raise these guys to hero status

39% of people who voted agree with the OP. It beggars belief.

One of the guys didn’t say anything racist as such though. He said scum bags and toe rags. He wasn’t taking about any particular race as fad as I saw.

Im sure any tea room in the police would say things that.

It did seem the guy undercover obviously joined the police under false pretences and I wonder how he passed vetting.This programme will only harm the relationship between the police and public further, I don’t see what good it has done .

And yet the OP didn't want them named and shamed because thought was unfair, when having bants in a pub ands should be private?

Not really. The police forces in the north with the grooming gangs didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory. 🤷‍♀️

There’s good and bad in every profession.

I agree. Going to the pub with colleagues and secretly recording them after a few drinks to shame them on TV is really low. Recording the yucky office behaviour is not as bad. It's a stressful horrible job so not surprising they have a banter culture and a nasty sense of humour really. It does need to change, but I bet a lot of those professions are similar, fire fighters, prison officers, doctors etc.

I’m clearly in the minority based on the comments. I guess I feel that people committing crimes (eg police brutality) are fair game for publication but recording them expressing views (no matter how much I disagree with them or find the views repugnant) in private when off-duty and publicising that with no blurred face etc is a bit Orwellian to me.