That the police don't vet their officers

[OneTC]

And if not, why not?

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

So we can’t trust the head of the Met when he says there are troubling issues, we can’t trust our own brains when we read more and more stories about corrupt and dangerous police officers - But we should trust the rest of the police, and a random MN’er who pulled some numbers out of the air and plugged them into a calculator and declared the police are safe. Have I got that right? I am sure I will have misused a word somewhere for you to analyse at length.

Cunning plan by whom?

You don’t have to trust me. You could do your own number crunching. Numbers don’t lie, people do. So imho, it’s pointless trying to decide who to trust.

Of course numbers lie, especially ones with no cited sources or evidence backing them up. People use and interpret figures to suit their own agenda all the time.

For example, the conviction rate for police officers for domestic violence is 3.4%, for the general public it’s 6.7%. So either police officers are much more likely to be falsely accused by their spouses of domestic violence, or it’s much more difficult to prosecute a police officer for domestic violence due to their job.

You can pick whichever narrative suits your agenda.

Statistics come from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and ITV by the way not just out my arse .

Please, stop going on about this “survey” that you seem to think I have conducted. You sound ridiculous and keep gunning for people that care to question your opinion. Its not very edifying.

Are we only allowed to speak to people we agree with now? If so most of your posts need to go too. If you don’t want your opinion questioned don’t put it on the internet. You also did bizarrely infer you’d done a survey.

Don’t be facetious. The point I made was about the poster going for people who don’t agree with her, not solely speaking to those that agree with you. I love the delicious irony of your comment about not putting a comment on the internet if you don’t want it questioned 😂😂😂

Also, I have just gone back to this survey post that keeps causing issues. Just to be clear, I have not stated, claimed to have done or conducted a survey. The comment has obviously been misinterpreted and I was referring to the poster’s suggestion that my sole knowledge of the Police had come from my husband and his friends. Hope that clears it up for you and your echo chamber chums.

No echo chamber here @Greenshake - you and the two other posters that vehemently agree with you, then a few more of us that don’t. I haven’t stated no one can question my opinion have I?

No police force/service/constabulary has vetted its serving or potential officers for around 30 years. The funding was removed from them and the vetting outsourced to external profit making providers. This was the governments' choice, a cost cutting exercise.

For clarity, the point that I have consistently made throughout this entire thread is that I don’t agree with the generalisations re Police behaviour.

My force 100 % have an internal vetting unit which do vet incoming officers, specials and staff

Wow! That's amazing and the way to go.

Surely an EXTERNAL vetting unit is better, clearly there's an issue with serving officers who have committed crimes being given a free pass by their own colleagues.

I agree external vetting is better - but not a private company. Another government department independent from the police completely, not staffed with ex police officers either. We also need to see more ongoing vetting, and not just criminal record checks. Internal feedback and allegations need to be taken into account. It is in my boring private sector job so I’m not sure why it isn’t here.

@StopGo it's really not like this, any complaint is investigated, as it should be. I've been both staff and officer and believe me, you are so far removed from the "cop life" as staff, it's like working for a different organisation (personal experience obvs).

You don't have to respond to me @Greenshake. It's not in the Mumsnet rules. I've checked.

You'd think so @HamFrancisco . Sir Mark Rowley is going on about a team of officers re-examining the thousand or so allegations of domestic violence and other violence towards women against Met officers and staff and I can't be the only one asking: "Hang on a minute Sir Mark, have you vetted the vetters?"

You clearly have far too much time on your hands then.

Unless you have evidence like the survey you claimed you'd done (and you really did whether you realised that's what you were saying) your statement about police behaviour is a generalisation isn't it @Greenshake? Or wishful thinking. Or blind faith. Or just not thinking things through.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the difference between saying things you want to be true and evidence that proves otherwise.

For clarity I tend to think that most police officers are okay. I believe that not because I have any proof but because I think most people in the world are okay. But I'd hesitate to go much further than that.

It is indisputable that along with the good ones, some officers are monstrous, many should be sacked - that's not me saying that but Sir Mark Rowley Met Police Commissioner - the jury is still out on some of them and lots of the rest are just a bit crap.

I have provided links showing those facts. It's you that is dealing in generalisations. It's true you cannot prove a negative and therefore I agree with you that most police officers are probably okay in the same way that most postmen are okay or most florists are okay.

But police officers must be held to a higher standard than those people because we are not only expected to trust them, we have to trust them and saying: "But most of them are okay" and insisting others go along with it is no longer good enough.

PS the police are still quite keen on evidence. The good ones, that is.

I do at the moment and so it seems do you. There's nothing wrong with that is there?

I am not entertaining this survey nonsense anymore. I have made it explicitly clear that was not what I said, and if you don’t grasp that, it’s your problem. As for the rest of your post, I understand quite clearly what is being said, and I don’t recall saying anything was your fault - but feel free to take the blame if you feel you need to.

Always happy to make time for posters like you 🙂

I certainly do not take the blame for your muddled thinking @Greenshake but it would be a blessed relief if you stopped replying to me.

I promise. You don't have to answer.

Then please, stop asking me questions.