10th February 2022
This evening the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police announced their resignation.
Good.
This was the senior police officer who supervised the operation that resulted in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes and who obstructed the work of the Daniel Morgan inquiry.
This was the senior police officer who acted more like a shop steward for their police officers rather than the people’s commissioner of the police.
They were forced to resign.
Good.
*
But.
There is a problem here beyond the failings of this one senior police officer.
A structural problem about how the Metropolitan Police is a law unto itself – an effectively ungovernable mass of individuals permitted to routinely inflict coercive force on others without any meaningful accountability.
Yes: it is a Good Thing that the police are not under the direct power of any minister or other politician – that the police have absolute operational independence.
But this absolute operational independence should not be at the cost of an absolute lack of accountability.
Power tends to corrupt, and coercive power tends to corrupt absolutely.
As and when there are failings of the Metropolitan Police there is a mix of defiance (the “thin blue line” or “not in their shoes”), evasion and misdirection, and sometimes outright misinformation.
Any response, in fact, other than accepting and owning mistakes.
And these are the officers who can inflict their coercive powers on others on the basis of mere ‘reasonable suspicion’ – but refuse to be accountable to the public even on the basis of virtual certainty.
How do you solve this problem?
How do you have a police force that is operationally independent of the government – but also does not become an unaccountable abuser of its own powers?
Who should watch the watchmen – and how?
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
David : This is the $65.00 question ? You’ve hit the nail on the head. I’m not able to offer an answer to your question, but I am glad that you are asking this question.
Shouldn’t we all be creating a better society so the low ranking police do not have to put up with as much as they do – which is actually created by our supposedly democratic politicians?
A long time ago I had a great friend who was a probation officer and he coped by joking about the very worst. He knew many police who used to do the same. All these people deal with the very worst situations of our society.
Surely that very black commentary is a coping method? If not how else?
Isn’t it a problem now that it’s all in What’s App – which is purportedly private and encrypted – but can be ‘discovered’?
Now they’ll all be off with Mental Health screaming abdabs – but of course there are no mental health staff to help them.
I fear that the resignation of stonewalling Dick may be some progress – but not much.
The original version of WhatsApp was built around an encryption system designed by Moxie Marlinspike, an entirely competent and well respected cryptographer. However, since Facebook bought WhatsApp, changes to the T&Cs and the underlying code itself – which is now proprietary and not visible for independent verification – could easily have been changed, by Facebook, to allow them “Man-in-the-Middle” access to messages. It is far easier to do than you might think. Just search for “SSL Interceptor” [for actual, real-world examples], and review the terms of the Privacy in Electronic Communications Act – and the carve-outs which allow for the legal interception of communications. (For example, did you know that PEC allows your employer to examine your encrypted web traffic with your bank if you access it from a work computer?).
As to whether it’s possible – and it is – also bear in mind that in many cases (for example in investigating the Jan 6th attack on the US Capitol building) many of those arrested and charged have offered to take a plea deal and have literally provided investigators with access to one end of communication channels. It’s all well and good having an encrypted WhatsApp, but if the person you exchange message with gives copies to the police, the net result isn’t as secure as you might have thought…
If you really (really) need to exchange messages securely, use Signal. But before you do, try another search for “Using Metadata to find Paul Revere”, which will lead you to an article discussing the value – and vulnerability – of channel activity. It helps to make informed decisions…
So, making ‘jokes’ about raping and hitting women, blaming women for getting murdered by men and racist, homophobic comments that were too vile to print is necessary dark humour? It’s not funny, it’s psychotic
The problems in our society are mostly down to poverty and raging inequality, the latter being something that the Met reinforces with their institutional racism and sexism. Anyone who makes excuses for them is part of the problem.
This feels like a much bigger issue than a litany of failings. I don’t have any knowledge or experience of the force but listening this evening to retired senior officers effectively closing ranks whilst more junior retired officers point out the troubles they experienced is deeply troubling. Plus tonight the BBC seemed to be running library footage of Cressida Dick being a good cop engaging with members of the community.
I think that one of the problems that all Police forces face to a certain extent, but that the is a particular problem in the Met, is the number of officers who do not live in the area that they police. This happens for all sorts of reasons some seemingly sensible (prevention of intimidation of officers and their families), some practical (housing too expensive). But it means those officers may see policing as a problem of containment whilst they are on shift, rather than an opportunity to improve their local area. It also means that for those officers who live outside London and basically crash out on someones couch, for their run of shifts, their social interactions are generally, only with other police officers, which possibly reinforces any group attitudes.
I think this is relevant: If “we” are policed by consent, “we” are, or should be, the authority that holds the police to account. Who are “we”, and how are we represented given that it is clearly inappropriate our politicians to represent us in this regard? Perhaps government by sortition within policed communities is appropriate to police forces by definition of their role.
So welcome, but so very many issues, not least policing by consent and accountability – but to the Home Office, the law, or to us? I shall sleep on it – unless dragged from my bed at 3 am and suffocated in a cell (that no one saw guv) – but unlikely as a white person of a certain age in Dorset- thankfully. No doubt others will make much more cogent responses.
Absolutely agree about Cressida Dick being more like a Shop Steward..She lost the confidence of the people….and probably became part of the problem after supposedly being part of the solution
I hope her going will give some crumb of comfort to those who have been victims of the Met..but the problems l feel are very deep and its what’s underneath and left that’s concerning.
I don’t know is my answer to your question. But l shall put this out there: We need a real life Ted Hastings that serves truth and honesty and not funny handshakes. But how do we find them?
“How do you have a police force that is operationally independent of the government – but also does not become an unaccountable abuser of its own powers?”
Short answer: you can’t. As soon as you – we – award a subsection of our society specific powers to do things ‘for the common good’ we, by definition, enable that group to do things that will – sometimes – infringe the rights of others. When the police infringe the ‘rights’ of citizens to break the law with impunity we applaud them: they are doing their job. When they infringe the rights of people like us to do things that they don’t like – a noisy demonstration, ‘walking while black’ or whatever – they are abusing their powers. I am not aware of any single polity that has succeeded in maintaining a perfect balance in the long term.
It is clear (to me) that neither exclusive reliance on legal frameworks, as in the US, nor on unspoken norms, as in the UK in the past, is fully effective. Nor is the approach, fairly common in mainland Europe, of several separate forces that in theory keep an eye on one another, beyond reproach. So I would advocate for both a strong legal framework and strong ‘norms’ but add an enforced policy of relatively rapid rotation, as is – I believe – the case in some parts of the armed forces. In other words, recognise that there is no way to prevent an inward-looking culture developing without frequent and, yes, inefficient episodes of shaking up and shaking out; shifting leaders so that ‘informal’ relationships cannot overpower the visible lines of control and so on. It would take far more expertise than I have to develop a workable programme to implement this change but if we do not do it, there will be more scandals, and each will tend to be worse than the last.
‘Esprit de corps’ is often viewed as a valuable asset for law enforcement bodies. But it can often be a pathway to oppression and cover-up.
That ‘esprit de corps’ showing up as solidarity, camaraderie with fellow officers above anything else, if it goes even so far as covering up things which constitute gross misconduct, institutional corruption or even serious crimes, and if officers *know* they can rely on this omerta in such serious cases, just imagine how much impunity they must feel able to rely on when engaging in any more minor, everyday cases of harassment and abuse of their position when dealing with the public.
“…operationally independent of the government – but also does not become an unaccountable abuser of its own powers?”
“I am not aware of any single polity that has succeeded in maintaining a perfect balance in the long term.”
The judiciary seem to manage it. Any lessons to be learned there?
Enforced rotations of all mid and senior ranks is impossible in a civilian police force unless you do as the armed forces and have bases in which police and families live with assigned tied accommodation which then creates its own subculture and problems. Trying to insist that a newly promoted officer married with teenage kids and their spouse in another job must move from say London to Newcastle is in no way fair nor feasible nor affordable.
I believe the stock answer is “We need a written constitution.”
No idea what we should write in it or how that would solve the problem, though.
The answer to your final question is clear and obvious:
AC12
This forum invites debate. Cryptic insider code tends to shut people out. Like to elucidate what’s AC12 for the sake of inclusivity? Thanks.
Line of duty. Highly recommend it – also see Led by Donkeys ‘interview’ based on the programme. Never assume anything I’m advised
Is accountability to the Mayor of London any better than any other system? I don’t know. Boris and Sadiq Khan have now both used their powers to force out a serving Commissioner. That seems like a significant amount of power in one person’s hands however much both Commissioners deserved the boot.
One safeguard is that we have quasi-independent “regional” police forces under the overall direction of Police and Crime Commissioners, not a UK-wide national police force. The Home Secretary can set one regional force to investigate another.
Bloody hell! Really? On balance, I think this is good news and overdue. Hopefully “partygate” will also sink Bojo, but the fact that under her “leadership” the Met initially refused to investigate and also refused to look at Wragg’s (?) blackmail allegations in any meaningful way, simply shows that some people are above the law.
Maybe the major (all) police forces could be held accountable to an ombudsman type of service, operating under the authority of the Supreme Court – it has to be possible. Bojo has killed the idea of government by honourable men (people) and society needs protecting from it. This requires a fully independant police force and judiciary.
LEST WE FORGET.
P.C. Keith Palmer made the ultimate sacrifice doing his duty at the Palace of Westminster. He is one of a long line of officers who have given their lives to serving the public. It is important to recognise that, every day, brave and conscientious officers do their best in difficult circumstances, often with inadequate support or backup.
There has always been ‘dark humour culture’ in all the emergency services and the military. It is a coping mechanism. If you have not attended the scene of violet deaths, such as Manchester Arena or incidents such as Grenfell, murders or fatal road accidents, do not assume you would find a different coping mechanism.
Today’s crop of Police Officers are, as always drawn from society. The real issue is to examine the society being created. Trolling, inappropriate use of social media, mobile phones and apps used by todays young people is common place years before these individuals even consider a police career. They grow up with this as ‘the norm’.
Furthermore, it was a political decision to recently extend the Commissioner’s term of office for two years. I make no comment as to whether that was a good or bad idea. However, Cressida Dick’s resignation seems to indicate it was a bad idea, but it is unlikely those responsible for it will also fall on their sword
“Who should watch the watchmen – and how?”
The traditional solution for this is that A watches B, B watches C, and C watches A.
Who watches the police? I think this is the IOPC, although I’m not sure (a quick look on wikipedia says this is partly true).
Who watches the IOPC? I don’t know the answer to this, but I assume it should be some committee in parliament (searching for police committee on parliaments’ website could only show me the police and crime bill).
Who watches parliament? That should be the public*, although most people have trouble naming their MP, let alone anyone in local government.
Finally the public are watched by the police.
Part of the problem is that if one part of the system fails to report issues to the next in line, that can be seen as a good thing because it protects institutional reputation, achieves some target, or generally makes less work for everyone.
If the police catch fewer criminals, it prevents prison overcrowding and helps the backlog in the courts.
If the IOPC doesn’t investigate the police for failing to catch criminals, parliament won’t ask them difficult questions.
If reported crime is lower, MPs can take credit!
If the public pays less attention to parliament, they can spend more time watching Netflix.
If the public spends more time at home and more crimes are committed via online fraud, the police can shrug, talk about needing specialist units and complain about the problem of encryption.
Everyone wins! (except the victims of crime or other maladministration of course)
To fix the system, everyone in the chain needs to exercise a certain amount of constitutionalism (as you put it a few weeks ago), including the public. For example, I hope that people will take the various scandals of the Johnson premiership and the role their MP has played in perpetuating it, and very seriously consider whether their MP has the moral foundation to serve in parliament, and eject them if they do not.
*I’m sure I could add a few more links but this comment is overly long already.
This question is not just for the UK. The same question is faced by governments – and police forces – everywhere.
And this grouping of 47 European nations, which is ultimately about upholding human rights (and indeed oversees the European Convention on Human Rights), has done a lot of work on exactly this question.
For example, here’s an October 2020 conference on the topic:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/police-conference2020
And there’s this February 2017 handbook, which draws together the collective wisdom of all these countries:
https://edoc.coe.int/en/international-law/7414-police-oversight-mechanisms-in-the-council-of-europe-member-states.html#:~:text=Police%20oversight%20mechanisms%20in%20the%20Council%20of%20Europe%20member%20states%20(2017)&text=Article%2059%20of%20the%20European,subject%20to%20efficient%20external%20control.%E2%80%9D
At this critical moment for the police in the UK, perhaps British policy-makers, lawyers and constitutional experts could draw some inspiration from this collective European wisdom?
By all accounts, the people she worked with considered Cressida Dick to be very effective as a police administrator, but the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is not just an administrative role: it is the public face of the policing in London and the rest of the UK, and the tone is set from the top. She seems to have had roles of varying sizes in a variety of policing scandals, and her defensive communication style left a lot to be desired. Her term should not have been extended and she had to go.
Not that the1970s was a golden age, but can we find someone to get a grip on institutional corruption like Robert Mark, who said when he arrived “I had never experienced institutionalised wrongdoing, blindness, arrogance and prejudice on anything like the scale accepted as routine in the Met”. Plus ça change.
No, I disagree. Approving the extension of her contract and then doing a reverse-ferret and demanding her resignation smacks of muddled thinking and lack of foresight on the part of our headline-grabbing Mayor. And why was it necessary to demand that she resign? Not for the Stockwell catastrophe in 2005, for which she was exonerated (some would say unjustly exonerated but we don’t have double jeopardy for such things) and nor for the treatment of women at the Sarah Everard Vigil, which the press still seems fixated on. No, she was expected to fall on her sword for failing (somehow) to prevent and remedy a culture of laddishness among some bored, arrogant officers. How do we remedy problems like that? The British way – another New Broom, with a new Plan. The same remedy we employ for any failing football club – change the manager. Can it really stop police officers turning into murderers or wife-beaters, and footballers abusing their cats? In the case of Cressida Dick, it does prove that the Mayor can force a hardworking police commissioner out of office even if he can’t remedy the failings of London’s expensive transport system.
I really don’t get the “black humour as a coping mechanism” excuse.
Doctors deal with a lot of trauma and pressures. As it happens I have a comparison between a culture which allows medical staff manage their emotional load by looking at patients as mere “sacks of bones and meat”. This not only spills into how they speak OF patients but also how they speak TO patients.
Compared to a culture where there are standards regarding bedside manner, I have absolutely no hesitation which one I prefer, whether I need medical attention or not.
Social care workers deal with a lot of stressful situations, including aggression and violence. And yet we universally recognise that set ups like Winterbourne institution encouraged dehumanisation of those in care to the point of abuse which was wrong.
No one is denying that policing is a difficult job involving frequent exposure to aggression and violence. But dismissing serious concerns about how the “black humour” spills into treating everyone who gets into contact with the Met as fair game to their coping mechanisms is throwing the baby with the bathwater.
Shut down the Met, draft in temporary police from other authorities, begin again from scratch from top to bottom.
Basically would end up with a shuffle of the pack as officers from everywhere in the UK applied for positions.
Finally appoint an independent watchdog.
There is a review role and body in existence, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, chaired by Sir Thomas Windsor. However, looking at the reports listed on its website, important as they are, it doesn’t look like they are set up to investigate such issues as the Met not taking action on what was happening at 10 Downing Street. We now have the problem that the Met are, in part, marking their own homework. There needs to be an independent inquiry into the structural failures by the Met and the Civil Service in their interactions with No 10. I suppose both might be given some leeway on the basis that they could reasonably have assumed that they would not have to deal with someone of such debased character as the Prime Minister, but that, sadly, is where we are. The Attorney General’s comments of yesterday marked a new low. It is perhaps a stroke of luck that the Mayor of London effectively has the power to dismiss the Commissioner, as for sure the Home Secretary would not have done it. So we need more of such divisions of power to lessen the need for luck, and a much stronger set of review processes for our police services. Paradoxically the stronger the review process the less it will be needed, as it would lead to greater self -discipline.
In the olden days accountability (outside London) came through the elected representatives of the local authority (councillors) sitting on the Police Authority, who appointed the Chief Constable, who was then answerable to those elected representatives.
Successive governments have moved England & Wales towards the disastrous US-style system of directly elected Police & Crime Commissioners who now appoint the Chief Constable.
London has always been a special case because policing London is so tied into state security systems such as Special Branch and MI5.
The IPCC – yes I know they aren’t doing their job – but – that does not mean that they cannot do their job effectively, like the Commissioner’s resignation, they need to be made to do their job properly.
Many years ago, when asked what kind of police they wanted, a typical European would reply “something like the British have”.
Indeed, the Central European countries emerging from dictatorship sought British help to train their new police forces.
Why ?
An important reason at the time, for want of something more precise, was ‘culture’.
British police were perceived at the time as being professional, human, in touch with the public, responsive, restrained by lack of recourse to arms, well-trained and well-paid.
Organisations often begin to develop these attributes through selection and training.
So I would suggest having a close look at how police academies develop culture through training. And how skills are developed on the job. Shine a light on and in them – inspect, report, publish.
But all the training in the world is useless without good leadership, responsive and accountable. From the station sergeant through the ranks to the top. Which means that, in theory, each leader should not have anything to fear if their actions were one day made public.
We only know about the current problems in the Met because we (over)heard voices of those carrying out their job. They were not meant to be heard.
An investigative journalist in Paris working undercover as a police officer a couple of years ago revealed, not unsympathetically, the dark world he observed as poorly paid, poorly trained, overworked people struggled to make sense of the nightmare. And found themselves feeling violent, hateful or just plain cynical.
So voices are important for revealing something about culture. Most of the time they are stifled. Encourage them to be heard. Seek them out. Shine more light from time to time on the operation of policing.
Part of the British policing culture admired at the time was also, again for want of a better term, ‘proximity’. Being in constant contact with the people who live in the areas you police brings knowledge. Responsiveness. Prevention.
As long as you have the resources. Cheap policing will at some point turn nasty.
One of the virtues of certain European policing models is still proximity – they are under very local control and supervision by mayors, communes, town councils. Some of them just don’t have the training, or pay or culture to help them.
But British policing has become more remote, as local government has progressively disappeared.
Finally, the ‘rules’.
Training, pay, culture, transparency is all fine. But without rules, there won’t be much accountability when things go wrong.
We would never have heard the voices of the Met police ‘as a rule’. Only in exceptional circumstances. By accident, not design.
If there were rules making information publicly available, with consequences for concealment, then more light would shine, more voices would be heard and fewer shocks when we discover what was truly going on.
I know I haven’t read the reports, but I still carry the thought that the Gold Commander of the Stockwell slaughter of Jean Charles de Menezes was so wrong and incompetent as to be ruled out of promotion to running the whole MET.
Listening to LBC Radio today, I noticed that the presenter criticised Cressida Dick for defending her officers against criticism, for failing to sack rogue officers and for condoning the treatment of the women who attended the Sarah Everard vigil. Yet none of these criticisms seem valid. When interviewed by journalists it surely cannot have been her job to proclaim that the Metropolitan Police is racist and bigoted. It is reasonable for her to say that bigoted or incompetent or lazy officers are not typical of the service offered by the Met. And if officers are disciplined but not sacked (and some of the reprehensible behaviour took place quite a few years ago) by a disciplinary panel, I don’t think the Commissioner has the power to intervene and to sack officers who have been reprimanded or received some lesser penalty. And we know that the Everard Vigil was in breach of Covid guidelines, and that the Home Secretary had requested that the police take a firm line.
Resigning because “the buck stops here” is no longer in fashion, and we don’t see cabinet ministers or Prime Ministers ever doing that. I do not believe her resignation was necessary or useful. She has been scapegoated by an arrogant Mayor who believes that he has the public on his side, and his belief is probably accurate because the Press tells us that she is responsible for everything that has gone wrong. Some of her experienced officers lament her passing and have said that she has been a force for good and has implemented useful reforms. But nobody wants to hear that.
“And we know that the Everard Vigil was in breach of Covid guidelines, and that the Home Secretary had requested that the police take a firm line.”
You may know that the Vigil was in breach of Covid guidelines: I am not so sure. But I am sure that I will never forget the images of two or three burly male officers holding women down – women who were protesting against the abuse of police powers by a serving male officer.
For that alone, whoever was at the top had to either react VERY firmly, or go. Ms Dick has, ultimately, chosen to go.
“Some of her experienced officers lament her passing and have said that she has been a force for good and has implemented useful reforms.”
If a – to some extent tainted – force is more enthusiastic about the Commissioner than the public or her political masters, that is not necessarily a good sign!
There will always be serious questions about Cressida Dick’s decisions on the day when Mr de Menezes was shot. The inquest jury were prevented by the presiding judge from deciding unlawful killing and so they reached an open verdict. In saying that de Menezes was “murdered” you have avoided dealing with those official findings.
I think it was a big mistake to appoint Cressida Dick as Commissioner for the very reason that the inquest gave an open verdict. There was also a prosecution of the Met under health and safety laws.
Like many official bodies in the UK, the Met is too big. Areas like diplomatic protection and counter-terrorism probably need to be take away from the Commissioner and dealt with by a new policing body. Let the Met concentrate 100% on basic crime – knives, drugs on the streets, theft, burglary etc.
A final question – isn’t the Met accountable to the London Assembly / Mayor’s Office for Policing ? You claim the Met isn’t accountable so what is wrong with the arrangements that actually exist?
There never was a Golden Age, we are told. so rather than try to revive it or any particular feature of it, let’s behave as if we are starting from scratch, even though we know we aren’t.
There are decent people in the world, including our corner of it. There is some decency in most people. If we want our institutions to reflect that, it may be necessary, though not sufficient, to apportion blame where due. It is also necessary to give credit where due — in every context, every time. No iron fist — not even in a velvet glove — can achieve this. Only water on stone. It takes time and sustained effort on a large scale. But large-scale phenomena usually start out as small ideas that appeal to more and more people. If we don’t act in our own lives and in our own social circles as if our neighbours can be trusted to appreciate our own decent and altruistic behaviour, they never will. They will, however, be more likely to do so if we make a point of appreciating theirs.
We can have Peter Hennessy’s “Good Chap” style of government again. Maybe not in my lifetime. But the first step is to proclaim the goodness of every “Good Chap” when we encounter it. Then he might get elected.
(Other sexes are available.)
You could have written this for the UK judiciary – that other (misplaced) revered bastion of UK morality, integrity and honesty, which the UK public (and perhaps the world) are duped into believing should hold some place of respect and gratitude. (My experience of the UK courts and legal ‘profession’ most definitely demonstrate the forgoing is
Increasingly the public, often through general media, or individual insightful comment, are becoming more aware of exactly what the UK ‘establishment’ is really about.
Whether anyone, in this oft esteemed UK ‘democracy’, can actaully do anything about it is, of course, a very different matter.
Thanks John – please note I will not normally publish other comments of yours – such as those alleging freemasonry and corruption. There are other places on the internet you can publish such allegations, but not my blog!
But he does have a point, doesn’t he?
Just as the police are operationally independent but largely unaccountable, so too is the judiciary.
How does the judiciary successfully manage to organise itself without outside control? Are there lessons there for the police?
Solving the problems of the met being a law onto themselves is hard, however, it is clear the size of the problem can be reduced. The met should not both the local police force for London and the national anti-terrorism force etc, hence all national duties should be removed from the met and given to a body that is not based in London.
Splitting up the met so both training and recruitment of staff are done local to the part of London they work in may help police officers relate to the communities they serve rather than see themselves as primarily being responsible to other police officers.