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

This guy I didn’t have a problem with being in the documentary because he was discussing a case in the office. I also don’t have a problem with the recording of actual instances of police violence or discussions about that.

The ones that made me particularly uncomfortable are the off duty conversations, or the jokey things that were clearly just bravado (like the finger breaking guy - I really doubt he has ever done that and we have zero context of what else was being said by others in that conversation).

The most concerning to me was the really young officer at the pub drinking with the journalist, who was prompting him, agreeing with what he said and literally egging him on to share his views when he realised he had gone too far. Yes he was horrifically racist - he should be fired as police officers must be held to a high standard of morals. But I’m not sure he deserves that conversation to be completely public for the world to see for all eternity.

Hmm, OK...some of the stuff was clearly over the line though, the treatment of the pregnant woman or the sexual comments at WORK, not the pub.

Just watching the BBC Panorama doco “Undercover in the Police” and I can’t help feeling a bit uneasy.

Yes, the behaviour shown is awful and they should lose their jobs, but having their faces, names and secretly recorded conversations, sometimes even off duty over a pint broadcast feels like a bit of a violation of privacy.

I honestly would have thought secret filming like that couldn’t even be made public, but clearly it’s legal or the BBC wouldn’t air it.

I’m not excusing what was said at all. The culture clearly needs to change. But is it fair to single out these particular officers when the problem is obviously widespread?

I also felt some of the more junior officers had just absorbed the culture around them, and at times the journalist might have been nudging them into certain topics. A few of the comments even felt like dark humour or going along with pub chat. Still unacceptable, but if you secretly recorded doctors or other professions that probably use a lot of dark humour to get through it, I’m sure you’d hear things that would seem really callous to an outsider.

Absolutely they should be fired/reprimanded, but do they deserve complete public exposure like this? AIBU to feel uncomfortable about it?

YABU they deserve everything that’s coming their way

YANBU it’s too much personal exposure when the real problem is the Met culture not these individual cops

I get what you’re saying and my work talk would also be boring. However, I am assuming you’re not a police officer dealing with rapists and violent thugs day in and day out - naturally your work chat in that case is going to veer into opinions on that.

I’m not saying their views weren’t horrible to hear or that they haven’t fallen very short of the standard we should expect from police officers, but I can see how it would be easier for them to start sharing how they think we should shoot rapists in the dick once they’re a few pints in vs you or I at our work drinks. So for the average person it’s really shocking to talk about that, but for a police officer it’s a daily topic at work.

Which is why the clips should have been shown to higher ups and them be fired, but I don’t see the public benefit in identifying the individuals in question. They could have blurred their faces and used their conversations as “examples” of the terrible culture, we didn’t need to know the identity of the police officer who was basically just spouting Reform talking points with a police brutality twist.

And I just totally disagree that if you don’t say anything you’re ashamed of you shouldn’t have to fear documentaries like this. It’s like saying “people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear” to excuse mass surveillance. It’s Orwellian!

What a ridiculous statement. Your evidence for that is…. what?

I couldn't agree more.
Most of them are.low level attainers who couldn't get a job elsewhere.

the Met Police should be worried. IMO they need to all reapply for their jobs and be properly vetted to do so.

Yes, secretly recording people when they think they are in a private setting shouldn’t be allowed. Do we really want to do back to the dark old days of the Fake Sheik?

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not entirely sure I agree.

The British policing system is based on Peelian principles - policing by consent - in a way that other police forces around the world are not. It's why they don't routinely carry guns, for example.

I've been in policing for 20+ years, not as an officer but as a senior staff member. In my experience, there's always been a tension even within policing about whether it's a 'force' or a 'service'. The authoritarian macho types are attracted to the tactical firearms units and the dog sections etc, whereas others gravitate towards neighbourhood policing (utilising different skills/ personalities) and child protection etc. The units you'll encounter on demos (other than the large ones where officers are drafted in from other forces) are generally the alpha males, there to not think twice about using force. Even within the police service, it's acknowledged that this tension exists. In other words, policing reflects society as a whole, with roles that suit a variety of personalities.

Whenever I watch things like 24 Hours in Police Custody, I'm always struck by how well the Custody staff treat the person they're booking in, without prejudice. Yes, I know they're being filmed, they know they're being filmed. But having once in my career overseen an independent Custody visiting scheme (normal people who volunteer to visit custody suites unannounced and speak to detainees about their treatment), I can tell you that, in my local force at least, the vast majority of those detained - some very hardened criminals - stated they were treated fairly and with dignity, as is right when our judicial system is founded on innocent until proven guilty.

When I've been on large marches in London (e.g. the Stop Brexit march) there were no arrests, a carnival atmosphere, and police officers chatting happily to protesters.

Now, as for the Met. Even within policing, the Met has a terrible reputation. That's not to say that these officers don't exist in other forces (they do, I've sat on professional standards committees where they've thrown the book at them), but just that it's the largest police force in the UK, policing a densely populated territory, and comes with quite a significant number of challenges as a result. I mean, they literally threw Cressida Dick under a bus for not dealing with the problems quickly enough and replaced her with.... another man - who, similarly it seems, has failed to root out the culture that seems to still prevail, despite his obvious professional credentials.

I've begun watching the documentary and it makes me sick to the stomach, precisely because I've always been exceptionally proud to work with, for the most part, some extremely caring, hard working people, dedicated to protecting people from harm. This kind of coverage does them all a huge disservice and damages the trust and confidence needed to rely on policing 'by consent' in this country.

Police forces all have problems, because racism and misogyny is again gathering pace in society more generally - and recruitment practices focus on drawing officers from a wide variety of backgrounds in order to try to reflect societal makeup. That comes with risks, as well as benefits. What they need to get better at is utilising technology and social media monitoring better within the vetting process, so that those who pose the most significant risk (by virtue of either their associates or views) are weeded out at the earliest opportunity. The police cannot afford to have officers like this damaging public trust.

Op, I don't feel remotely sorry for these individuals for all the reasons I've stated.

And I guarantee that I will turn up to work today and be met with eyerolls of "yep, it's the Met again".

Deeply inappropriate comments. Lots of sexual comments about people in custody / victims. One case on the BBC website shows a sergeant disbelieve someone reporting rape and domestic abuse. She reported her abuser had kicked her in the stomach. According to another officer in the video who was unhappy with the decision to bail the person accused the woman had an obvious footprint on her stomach, corroborating her claims.

This is good journalism. They have only shown those who were abusing positions of trust and did so repeatedly.

I remember when I first saw ACAB I thought like you - surely not every single cop, bad apples etc etc.

I've been in and around protest and campaign groups for two decades now and I firmly believe it, going off the behaviour and attitudes I've witnessed from police officers, almost without exception.

The structural reason that ACAB is true is that the police (and military) aren't actually there to protect us, the people. They're there to protect and if necessary enforce what the state wants. When your interests align with the state's interests it's easy to conflate those things, but anyone who's protested against the state or is part of a marginalised demographic (Black and LGBT communities) knows instinctively that the police are not on their side. A lot of middle-class white women learned this very, very quickly during the Sarah Everard protests.

When you see Iranian police stamping out the Mahsa Amini protests by force, or the Hong Kong police squashing pro-democracy protests - please be under no illusion. Our police force would do exactly the same thing if the government demanded it.

To your point about the kind of person these professions attract, I completely agree. By their very nature the police and military attract people with authoritarian characteristics, who believe in the rule of might and the use of force to stamp out dissent.

Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park is literally an exposé of slavery and colonialism.

This guy I didn’t have a problem with being in the documentary because he was discussing a case in the office. I also don’t have a problem with the recording of actual instances of police violence or discussions about that.

The ones that made me particularly uncomfortable are the off duty conversations, or the jokey things that were clearly just bravado (like the finger breaking guy - I really doubt he has ever done that and we have zero context of what else was being said by others in that conversation).

The most concerning to me was the really young officer at the pub drinking with the journalist, who was prompting him, agreeing with what he said and literally egging him on to share his views when he realised he had gone too far. Yes he was horrifically racist - he should be fired as police officers must be held to a high standard of morals. But I’m not sure he deserves that conversation to be completely public for the world to see for all eternity.

On the contrary, I completely see how that would impact how they treat victims of crime. I think they should be fired! My AIBU is about publishing their identities, faces etc in the documentary.

Sorry I think I’ve been misunderstood- I have no problem with them being recorded, they weren’t in their own homes. If I was in a pub and heard police officers talking like that I’d be horrified.

And also can’t people see the problem with misogynist and racist police officer. Don’t they realise how this WILL affect how they treat members of the public?

I haven’t watched it all yet, just saw a clip but from what I’ve seen views and attitudes like that are incompatible with good, fair and safe policing.