That the police don't vet their officers

[OneTC]

And if not, why not?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-64289461

You genuinely think the powers teachers have are on par with that of a police officer? Sure, ok 👍

Yep, made the same point myself. The argument about a “unique position of power” says nothing. After all parents are in a “unique position of power” over their children. On average, 50 children under age 16 die at the hands of their parents in the U.K.…but the vetting we do for parenthood is exactly ZERO.

Compare that to 15 serving or former police having murdered a woman between 2009 and 2021 (12 years). So 15 murders in 12 years.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/28/at-least-15-serving-or-former-police-have-killed-women-in-uk-since-2009-report

If serving and former police murdered at the same rate that parents murder their own children, then over 12 years up to 600 serving or former police officers would have murdered 600 women, not 15 women.

I know cover ups happen, but do people really think that literally hundreds of murders are being swept under the carpet? It’s just not plausible.

The fear reactions are bordering on scare mongering.

Oh do grow up dear. Where have I denied the police have issues? I have blatantly said they do and things need to be sorted. I have repeated this time and time again. Can you not actually read?

what I have said it seems peculiar how people are all over the police yet the NHs and healthcare generally has similar and probably worse and wider spread issues than the police, yet no one is saying, don’t trust doctors, even the good ones are guilty by association.

I am not shutting down legitimate debate, debate away about the police, but unless you’re equally focused on all the abuses which occur across ALL public services you have to wonder why you are concentrating on just the police.

Are you happy seeing a doctor? Do you trust them?

you seem to really dislike me don’t you? Why?

Seriously?

It's less about vetting and more protecting them in some 'band of brothers, this is the most difficult job in the world, no-one understands' way which excuses violent cops, racist cops, sex offending cops.
And they wonder why no-one trusts them.

Well seeing as they are in change of educating and caring for the next generation they do hold a lot of powers, how they treat kids can shape a whole generation for good or bad.

look at the recent posts about teachers and trans children helping kids transition without their parents consent- thst is abuse of power in my book which might affect that child in various serious ways for the rest of their lives.

can you not see that, or are you blinded?

@OMG12 - Given the level of vitriol you’ve thrown at me - claiming I must be mentally ill and paranoid to distrust the police, are you surprised I find you unpleasant?

Well when all said and done 78% of people agree the OP is NBU. I just hope the government actually find the balls to force the police service to reform extensively and quickly.

Ha, and if you bothered to read my posts you will see that I agree things need to be done to address both the minority of bad officers and the system which allows them to remain in place. The issue I have is the fact you seem to be unable to trust the police because of a tiny minority of officers. Like I asked (and you haven’t answered as far as I can tell) do you feel the same about healthcare professionals who have probably worse problems than the police, will you go to doctors?

sometimes the truth hurts, anyway, I don’t think it’s helpful to you to continue our conversations.

@OMG12 - Do I go to the doctors? Yes, when I need to. Do I trust them? Within reason, I am aware there are many issues. Do I think the issues with the NHS are worse than the police’s issues? I think they are completely different issues and it is completely irrelevant to whether or not I trust police officers. You think it’s a minority of bad police officers, I think there is a widespread problematic culture that accept these bad apples and allow them to flourish. You keep up that whataboutery though, its just so convincing 🙃

I think vetting could be improved, but I don’t think it is that bad currently. We’d see far more offenders in the police if the vetting were not as good as it is

It’s not good enough. ‘Not that bad’ is not good enough.
This thread is not about doctors and nurses. This thread is about police officers. Deflecting from that by continuously talking about HCP is detailing the thread and not in the spirit of the site.

Using incorrect terminology (because that poster isn’t a police officer and may not know the correct word for it!) isn’t disingenuous, it’s simply an error. You’re just deflecting from the point that police officers can arrest you and detain you against your will. That’s what the poster clearly meant. And the fact you addressed nothing else in that post shows you know you don’t have much of an argument beyond pedantry.

Can confirm that TheOriginalEmu is correct about what I meant. I should have used detain, but I think most reasonable people could infer my meaning. Pedants with weak arguments got to be pedantic though.

Parents are not paid from the public purse to keep people safe. Parents ARE monitored by HCP and teachers and doctors and all kinds of people.
Its not possible to vet someone against becoming a parent because that would mean legalising forced abortion wouldn’t it. Yes, there are huge amounts of issues with parents who hurt their kids, that’s undeniable. It has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about here. If your best argument against improved police vetting is ‘oh well they aren’t the worst offenders’ I think you’ve lost any credibility tbh.

I also explained what I meant when I said a unique power. I meant that it is specific to the police force. The. HMI for constabulary found that police vetting is lacking. The so called ‘booty patrols’ where police officers stop women on some pretext to abuse their power are common enough to have a name.
however you dress it up and skirt around the issue, there are serious issues that need addressing.
www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/news/news-feed/too-easy-for-the-wrong-people-to-join-and-stay-in-the-police/

I just think it would be impractical to implement (that's an awful lot of psychologist hours) and the small risk doesn't warrant it.

Why do you think it is a small risk @JudgeRudy?

Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, doesn't agree with you. He believes the problem is significant. He has said a thousand complaints of domestic violence and other violence against women alleged against about 800 police officers or Met staff are to be investigated and in some cases re-looked at because he believes there might have been flaws in the initial investigations.

He has said that there are Met officers - 150 I think - that he would like to sack but cannot because his hands are tied by powerful internal special interest groups within the Met. Sir Mark holds the top job in policing for the whole of the UK yet if he says that after due process he cannot sack someone who is not up to scratch then any sensible person would conclude we have a big problem.

I don't want to come over all Michael "we've had enough of experts" Gove here because expert opinion is invaluable. But you don't have to be a chartered psychologist to suspect that someone nicknamed Bastard Dave as David Carrick was and Rapist as was Wayne Couzens, murderer of Sarah Everard was, might warrant closer inspection, particularly if you are in the police and detection skills are your fucking job.

So, to conclude (a) the UK's most senior police officer Sir Mark Rowley thinks the issue of serious misconduct towards women and girls is a big issue and not a small risk. I know this because he has said so; (b) the cost of rooting it out is the cost that has to be paid to ensure police misconduct becomes a small problem and that public confidence is restored. It doesn't matter how much it costs because it needs to be done; (c) it is up to the Met and other forces - they are not blameless and Hampshire have admitted to a serious problem this morning - to take practical steps to achieving this. Outside bodies and the public will have to assist the police in their inquiries as it is clear they are not much cop in this.

I think really where the problem lies then isn't with the vetting process per se, it's that when 'bad' practice is identified it's difficult to take appropriate action. I agree that if someone's nic name is Rapist that speaks volumes. This sounds rather like the situation we had with Jimmy Saville. It was almost accepted that he was a preditory pervert. Maybe its the ongoing supervision and monitoring that needs revising rather than the initial vetting at recruitment.

That's standard for most jobs. I worked in the private sector, NHS and a charity and I passed things like that for non-public facing roles. It wasn't even questioned.

The idea that @Onnabugeisha presents that as rigorous vetting in would be laughable if if wasn't so serious. Declarations like that are to give HR and Management an easy way to sack underperformers for lying on their applications rather than protecting the public or anyone else but the company.

The example given is just a recruitment drive and a candidate for the job of police officer which is a public-facing role that places you in a position of trust and authority with access to highly sensitive information would face a tougher vetting process at recruitment and ongoing throughout your career both routine at any red flag moments. Well, at least I hope so but now I'm not so sure.

It's not tough enough as Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, holder of the most senior job in UK policing, seems to be admitting, albeit reluctantly.

But what does he know? There are all these people on Mumsnet saying he's wrong.

@Greenshake you seemed to say you'd done a detailed survey of a large number of police officers and that's what you based your opinions on.

Have you done or not? If so can we see it?

@limitedperiodonly
The idea that @Onnabugeisha presents that as rigorous vetting

I never did any such thing.

Sir Mark Rowley does not take your view pe se or otherwise @JudgeRudy. Do you think you know better than the most senior police officer in the UK?

The question is, does Sir Mark actually believe what he is saying, or is he saying what the public want to hear for PR purposes? I don’t think the public would accept being told the facts and statistical probabilities. Posters here certainly are not accepting the facts.

This is an emotional issue, not an objective one. So he’s going to say whatever it takes to smooth things over by agreeing it’s an “important issue” and do a bit of extra internal investigations to assuage the fears of the masses and rebuild trust.

You linked to it and said: "this doesn't look very voluntary to me."

It's entirely voluntary. It's a recruitment page for people interested in joining the police. What could be more voluntary than that?

As such it gives basic information boiling down to "if you have a criminal record for rape or a similar serious offence don't bother applying. If not, give it a whirl."

If you wanted to give more realistic example of the rigors of vetting I'm sure there are many but you chose to give the one before the actual entry level one. Why was that?

As I said, I'd expect if I got past the application form stage I'd be asked more challenging questions at interview stage. I always imagined joining the police would be a difficult process and one which would be out of my reach but now I'm beginning to wonder and regret my entire career path.

The question is, does Sir Mark actually believe what he is saying, or is he saying what the public want to hear for PR purposes?

That's a bold question @Onnabugeisha. What is the expertise that would convince us to believe that you are better placed to know the thinking of the most senior police officer in the UK and contradict his opinions?

Have you ever thought of joining the police? I'm beginning to suspect the recruitment process is not quite as challenging as I once believed.

I was responding to a poster that said vetting for police positions are voluntary. You are saying the same thing. I don’t think you understand what voluntary means tbh. And my saying that vetting is not voluntary is not an assessment at all on its rigor.

Yes deciding to apply to join the police is voluntary
But if you decide to apply to join the police, the vetting is not voluntary
You have to go through the vetting process and pass all the checks to successfully apply to join the police.

Police officer recruits are required to go through thorough vetting as part of their application process

Therefore, the vetting is not voluntary, but required if you want to join the police.

It gives a lot more information than what you are saying
“Your application will be automatically rejected if you have ever been convicted or cautioned for a range of serious offences or have previously been dismissed from the police service. These include:

Any offence that has resulted in a prison sentence (including suspended or deferred)

You are, or have been, a registered sex offender or are subject to a registration requirement in respect of any other conviction

You are currently on the Police Barred List

You'll also most likely be declined vetting clearance if any of the following apply to you:

You've committed offences where vulnerable people were targeted
You've committed offences motivated by hate or discrimination
You've committed offences of domestic abuse
You have an outstanding County Court Judgement (CCJ)
If you've been declared bankrupt and your bankruptcy has not been discharged for three years
If your Debt Relief Order (DRO) has not yet been finalised for three years
If you don't meet the minimum UK residency period for your role immediately prior to your application”

Expertise? None, merely common sense to understand that Sir Marks position is largely a political one and therefore mostly PR based and being the frontman of the Met to the public & other government departments.

His job is no different from that of say Health Secretary or Home Secretary and the same public affairs principles will apply to any/all public releases or statements. In other words, lots of reassuring window dressing and not necessarily much substance behind the curtain.

So he’s going to say whatever it takes to smooth things over by agreeing it’s an “important issue” and do a bit of extra internal investigations to assuage the fears of the masses and rebuild trust.

"Move along. Nothing to see here."

Is this a cunning plan to destroy what remnants of regard exist for the police @Onnabugeisha ?