That the police don't vet their officers

[OneTC]

And if not, why not?

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

Of course I am aware criminals cover things up, thats sort of their thing, but civilian criminals do not have state sanctioned powers to detain me or the ability to quash evidence etc etc. Jesus Christ, how is that difficult to comprehend the difference. The police are meant to be the ones DEFENDING us from the crime not perpetrating it. Of course it matters more if they are covering things up.

The crime rate would go down . Mainly due to lack of capability to arrest the male criminals.

No sexism. Just my experience form work

I've seen female officers wait for male officers to arrest males alot of the time they get away while waiting for males to arrive

The police are held to a higher standard because they are given power over citizens. To detain, to arrest, to search: power that can be abused.

If recruitment and vetting are so bad that it's less strict than a basic job in the Civil Service then there is a problem.

The problem might look like this. Abusive people seek places to pursue their interests. Abusers like power. This is a pattern in other places, like childrens homes, social services, the Church. Each time the defence is, the institution is not rotten, but that is wrong. One bad apple rots the barrel. That bit is always omitted.

To flourish in an institution you must adhere to its true, unwritten values. Carrick and Couzens and others have been promoted. They knew the culture that really operated. The values that are written down do not matter. Saying you are decent is not the same as being decent. Saying you are accepting is not the same thing as doing it.

The police are not even adhering to the basic and voluntary standards of vetting set down. So what can be done?

Some civilian criminals do actually have “state sanctioned powers to detain me or the ability to quash evidence”….police are actually civilians too btw as they are not members of the armed forces, but we will leave that aside as that is really a question of abuse of power to do a crime rather than the rate of doing crimes.

It’s just that by your constant use of “they” it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory? Are you implying that police other than the rogue criminal police officer actively & regularly cover up crimes? If police constantly cover up the crimes of their fellow officers, then how did we catch any of them at all?

Yes, I do know police are not supposed to be committing crimes, but it’s a bit naive to think some would not. After all, they are human as the next person. And no matter how good your getting system, you won’t screen out every potential or active criminal who hasn’t been caught.

What matters is the rate at which police commit crime compared to everyone else. And from what I recall, when I did a bit of number crunching after Sarah Everard’s tragic rape and murder, is that the male police don’t commit crimes nearly as often as the general male population.

I suppose even if 9 in 10 police crimes are successfully covered up by other police officers, that still means they are no more dangerous than a member of the public. I don’t think it’s even plausible there is a police-wide conspiracy of that magnitude though tbh.

If recruitment and vetting are so bad that it's less strict than a basic job in the Civil Service then there is a problem.

Is the vetting less strict though?

It sounds it. It's a voluntary code which isn't applied!

Vetting that is incorrectly applied, partially applied or otherwise done when a force can be bothered would appear to be some way below security clearance.

Why is that? Is it because there has been an institutional acceptance that if you look too carefully you will exclude a candidate? That is what it looks like

Abusive people seek places to pursue their interests. Abusers like power. This is a pattern in other places, like childrens homes, social services, the Church. Each time the defence is, the institution is not rotten, but that is wrong. One bad apple rots the barrel. That bit is always omitted.

True, abusive people often seek power over the vulnerable. I don’t think the one bad apple rots the barrel analogy applies because humans are not fruit- that’s why it is omitted.

? Forgive me but not all civil service jobs require a security clearance. By your use of “basic civil service job” I assumed you were referring to say a receptionist at a local housing office. Too, different civil service jobs require different levels of security clearance..

So what level of clearance do you think police vetting should be at?

Well you see, I think the analogy completed might be rather apt. Couzens, Carrick and Charing Cross. All bad apples, but apparently unusual and nothing to do with each other

This doesn’t look very voluntary to me.
www.joiningthepolice.co.uk/how-to-apply/whats-involved-in-the-vetting-process

So you think everyone with a C surname is infected then? Should be sack them all?

Honestly, given the degree of force permitted and the power, you aren't looking at much less than checking the police record itself. I understood this is happening now for many officers for the first time. Dire

is that the male police don’t commit crimes nearly as often as the general male population.

That you know of.

1.complaints dismissed and buried. We know that happens. The officers that vetted Carrick would be facing disciplinary now if they weren't retired. There are many more.

1. Complaints accepted but police officers still keeping their jobs , still vetted , still out there. How would you know about it or who's who? 1,319 male police officers were reported for domestic violence in just 3 years. Out of those , 1080 are still working.

1. Conviction rate for male police officers is only 3.4% , nearly half of the abysmally low rate of the general male population.

So how do you know exactly how many? No accurate reporting,investigation, conviction etc.

We know there's underreporting to begin with when it comes to DV and sexual crimes.

As I said before it's not about one bad apple. Or just 100. Or just 1000. It's about an institution that allows them to fester and spread their rot. It's about the coverups, itself about ignoring,minimising and dismissing, it's about keeping quiet . How many "good" apples have vetted or supported a bad apple? How many "good" apples knew exactly how bad the bad ones were, to the point of giving them nicknames and describing them as mean and cruel but kept quiet?

The rot is in the barrel itself and it needs fucking changing.

I used civilian and I have heard police staff who don’t have powers of arrest referred to as “civilian staff”.

How else would you like me to refer to a mixed-sex large group of people other than “they”? - prey tell.

I am aware than some police will commit crimes but you seem very accepting of the fact they do. I don’t have quite the faith in your basic vague number crunching that you do but no I don’t believe every police officer is a criminal. But I do believe the culture in many police forces allow the bad ones to thrive with no consequence until it’s so bad it’s forced into the open and they have no choice. I also believe there is casual acceptance of everyday racisms/sexism and homophobia because I’ve seen it.

If you do not understand why a police officer committing a crime is worse than a member of the general public doing so, I can’t help you. Independent reports have already shown police forces are covering up offences by its officers, I’ve linked some. It’s not a conspiracy I have invented as you seem to think.

Yes I agree with Harriet Harman , those in management that worked with him also need to be investigated.

I’m glad a public inquiry is going to be done. They will look at everything and everyone even remotely associated.

I don't think there is actually a public inquiry ordered, though it would be a good idea

@Flapjackquack
I used civilian and I have heard police staff who don’t have powers of arrest referred to as “civilian staff”. Ok.

How else would you like me to refer to a mixed-sex large group of people other than “they”? - prey tell. I originally thought “they” referred to “police criminals” but then it seemed like you were using “they” to mean some nebulous they who regularly conspire and cover up to protect police criminals.

I am aware than some police will commit crimes but you seem very accepting of the fact they do. Well yeah because police are humans, managed by humans, and vetted by humans. There will always be criminals in every profession on the planet. It’s odd to not accept this basic fact imho.

If you do not understand why a police officer committing a crime is worse than a member of the general public doing so, I can’t help you.
How is it “worse” exactly? I don’t really comprehend how being murdered by a police officer is “worse” than being murdered by a stranger, or my DH. Statistically, my DH is the one most likely to murder me. I’m just not going to be consumed by worry over a possibility that is so remote. Yes, vet the police, yes catch any criminals in the police but to act like they’re some sort of state sanctioned death squad like some countries actually have is a bit OTT.

There is one, announced yesterday
Theyre also going to background check every current officer. They do it every so often anyway while on the force, but doing a big sweep is a good idea.

@Onnabugeisha - sigh, I’ll try one last time. It’s worse because the police are meant to protect you. The police are given extraordinary powers over people the rest of us don’t have. They are trusted with those powers because they take on the responsibility of protecting the public. Sarah Everard complied because she thought her killer was doing his job in enforcing the law. She trusted him because he was a police officer. That’s why it’s so much worse.

They = the police for clarity.

This is what they are doing. It is not a public inquiry into those people who endorsed Carrick though it will look at the circumstances which perhaps will get specific. It seems to be fall short of that, though there are some good (basic perhaps) actions being taken.

What really bothers me is Carrick's promotion. That was an endorsement, and yet, it seems that he was given extra responsibility. That really isn't individual but a proper institutional problem

Thanks for your answer, and I am genuinely pleased for you that you don’t experience that. It gives me hope that there are forces out there that are not like that. I wish you well, and despite my misgivings around the police force nothing would make me happier than to be completely wrong about it.

Why is it impractical to profile recruits to a job where they are in a position of authority over other people. Uniquely so. Checking the mental state of these people should be bare minimum. Working out their motivation to join up is key to weeding out bad eggs.

So you HAVE done a survey of the police force?