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

[Bloodyscarymary]

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

What about the treatment of the pregnant woman, the sexual comments at work & the autistic teenager?

How do you think investigative journalism works...?

Exactly, how could it work otherwise? Very different from taping celebrites' phones just for the hell of it.

If it's a private company, yes it is private. Even shopping at tesco is entering a private building when it comes to filming etc. I wouldn't know if the bookings room in a police station is private, but I would presume so.

Depends on what you think is public interest. These guys weren't in the workplace but a wee bit pissed after work in a pub and led on by a reporter. Did they behave unprofessionally in the workplace is what is required to be examined. If not, then I doubt their dismissal would stand.

Depends on what you think is public interest. These guys weren't in the workplace but a wee bit pissed after work in a pub and led on by a reporter. Did they behave unprofessionally in the workplace is what is required to be examined. If not, then I doubt their dismissal would stand.

They are supposed to adhere to a code of conduct which stipulates that they don’t do anything to bring the profession into disrepute whether they are on or off duty.

In my old job (Occupational Therapy but fairly common in health professions) our governing body could sanction for "bringing the profession into disrepute" This was not limited to being in uniform or being on work premises. If members of the public could identify you as a health professional, and that might have been by overheard conversation, then they could, and did, sanction offenders. I have no idea what applies to police but don't be so sure such behaviour won't stand.

OK. Would you feel comfortable about a colleague recording you at work or an evening out at a work event? I am not sure if this is legal.

They were not lead on by a reporter, they were already saying bad things. Police, sorry to say, are to behave if on duty or not so being in the pub for a couple of bits is irrelevant.
I think the bullying, misogyny and the racism in our police force is very much in the public interest.

Do you remember the expenses scandal by our MP's? They tried very very hard to get that information quashed, saying it was 'unlawfully intrusive'. However, the courts decided we deserved to know. This happens a lot in this country, going to court to stop information being released.

Being comfortable is subjective. You can film anyone doing anything in a public place in the UK, and you can publish it online, newspapers without consent. This is the media in the UK (I used to work for them).

What you cannot do is publish online or in print things done in a private area, somewhere you would expect a level of privacy such as your garden without either permission from the person photographed or by a court order. BUT people can film in private areas, unless asked to stop. Just can't publish said filming/photographs.

in both circumstances, there is no expectation of personal privacy. I am guessing that the Met knew about the show before it was aired and gave permission for the footage to be shown. The company or organisation can object on the grounds of privacy (although I'd have LOVED to see the news coverage if they had) but if you are at work, apart from things like going to the loo, there is no expectation of personal privacy.

you could get me totally ratted and I wouldn't be saying stuff like that....remember in vino veritas.

Sorry, but the law on privacy really is black and white on this when it comes to filming and publishing the filming, I worked as a newspaper photographer, I knew the limits.. Public places are basically being out in the street. Pubs, houses, shopping malls, they're all privately owned and either needed permission from land owner, the persons photographed or the courts to publish it in the eyes of the law.

I wouldn't be shocked in the Met tried to block it and it went to court. If they didn't then, well kudos to the Met, not trying to hide it from us.

we seem to be in violent agreement here. Perhaps you misread my post?

I thought it was an invasion of their privacy. When in the job and being paid - then yes they should observe a code of conduct. In the pub they can say what they like as long as it’s not upsetting anyone. That journalist was egging them on. I was not happy with what was being said but I respect their right to a personal opinion. They see the worst of human nature and they need to vent

I think a few things are pretty clear: not all Met at that station are terrible individuals but they can't report colleagues because of rank etc. Also clear was that DPS (Professional standards, think AC12 if you watch Line of Duty) are well-known in the Met to be seeking out exactly this behaviour to get rid of the individuals concerned. And they are. It's a complex issue which requires a nuanced solution and more manpower than the budgets allow.

I suspect Panorama got no resistance because the program showed exacty what the issues are and the Met have already been completely open about this.

Agree with what the last poster said. What I'd like to see is their actual work record. If it's impeccable then any dismissal is not fair or legal. Perhaps someone has these views but is able to carry out their duties without prejudice.

we know from what was filmed that an impeccable work record is in the land of flying pigs.

actually no they (and many other professionals) can't "say what they like in the pub" RTFT

It doesn't make any difference that they were not at work
Police officers have a duty to behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in the police service.
Clearly having racist views and voicing those opinions whether in the workplace or not is a clear breach of this.
And the reporter didn't lead him on. He mirrored what he said because he wanted him to open up but everything came from the police officer first

I am the mother of a teenage boy with autism and mental health challenges who has spent time in police custody more than once sadly .

I cannot BEGIN to tell you how much I do not feel sorry for those thugs who held that terrified kid down . Or the smart arse who boasted about getting his pressure points .

I AM DISGUSTED.

I kind of understand what you mean because yes their behaviour was abhorrent and they deserve whatever they get, but if it was a journalist who recorded their off-duty conversations then it makes me question the journalist’s motive - they say it’s because the public deserves transparency but surely it’s more to do with getting a scoop. I’d also bet that the same kind of misogynistic shit goes on in newspaper offices as well! I like that you are able to see the grey areas, I’m constantly surprised at how many people can’t, and sadly that is how politicians and the media are able to manipulate people so easily and reinforce the whole “us and them” divisive thing.

Oh, come on. There's all kinds of ways they can test someone more thoroughly than taking the applicant's word for it. Better social media listening, psychometric testing etc. The fact is that police vetting is nowhere near as good as it needs to be, and this is widely known within policing.

There is a lot of irrelevance in your post. Why does the journalist's motive matter? Did his motive make them say what they said or behave how they behaved? I agree that its not the only place where you could hear such conversations but I doubt that people in newspaper offices are in a position to physically abuse people. Additionally saying such things can be heard elsewhere is no excuse. Should we excuse rapists because other rapists are getting away with it? Finally its a thing about holding people, in positions that we should be able to trust, to higher standards.