More Trust, Less Crime, High Standards by hiring back retired officers guilty of gross misconduct?
The Times uncovered Rowley's rather unique strategy a week after a serving officer confessed to being a serial rapist using his warrant card for twenty years.
On Wednesday it was announced that because of recruitment targets the Metropolitan Police was inviting officers found guilty of gross misconduct back on the force. “Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has set out how the Met continues to root out those who corrupt its integrity.” (and then hire them back?)
Last year whilst preparing for the Cambridge Union’s debate on “That this House no longer has confidence in Her Majesty’s Police Force” I was blown away by the systems and structures in place to protect officers over the women they are meant to protect and serve. And by blown away, I mean radicalised. I had absolutely no idea of how hard it was to be removed from the force once probation was passed. I don’t usually cite a ton of articles when I write these pieces; but I want to do a deep dive into how hollow Mark Rowley’s promises of More Trust, Less Crime and High Standards are.
Rowley continually says he will build confidence of women and girls; with absolutely nothing to back it up. They will supposedly use specialists and data. Those specialists that nicknamed Carrick Bastard Dave and Couzens the rapist? Even I could add up the data that Carrick raped countless women using his badge. It doesn’t take a specialist; what it does take is officers taking domestic violence seriously. It takes officers not starting from a point that most rapes are just sex that is regretted the next morning. It takes officers that aren’t among the 800 already under investigations for their own abuse against women. It takes officers guilty of gross misconduct not being welcomed back like prodigal sons.
They have set up a tip line to report corrupt police– but once found guilty– have no way of removing them, so what is the point other than to generate headlines? 10% of the force can’t be on duty? If there is not a process in place to take them out of rotation and to keep them away from vulnerable women; if anything this exacerbates the problem. Like Carrick bragging to his victims that other victims were not believed. It just emboldens corrupt police that there are not any ramifications for their criminal behaviour; so why stop? Worst case scenario they retire early with pension.
Whistle blowers are punished, humiliated and have had charges brought against them for bringing the force into disrepute. They don’t punish the men that have terrorised their colleagues, they sue the women that have broken their NDAs and silence.
They speak of Carrick slipping through the net– that is not at all the case. Carrick and his ilk have benefited from the net since the inception of the Metropolitan Police Force. The checks and balances that are supposedly in place; are only in place to protect the employees of the force and never their victims. They are not in any way similar to disciplinary procedures in any private company.
Baroness Casey’s interim report delves into the details of how serial offenders on the force do not have the charges or complaints linked. Even the Catholic Church kept track of serial offenders. *Recommend that you read the full report and the data to back it up. It is comprehensive and painful reading*
Dismissals of “bad apples” has fallen by 50%. You have read that correctly. All the scandals we have heard about. They have sacked 50% LESS.
It takes years for misconduct charges to be addressed and only one in ten officers that are found guilty of gross misconduct are removed from the force. If you or I were found guilty of gross misconduct, we would lose our jobs.
If you are the 10% that actually is removed from the force— most are allowed to “retire” on full pension and keep anonymous for their “welfare.” That means that you can use your 25 years on the force (even as a predator) to become head of security at a club where I get spiked, or to become a taxi driver, or my latest favourite from Dorset— a leadership and management coach on LinkedIn for abusing three female trainees.
Where does my welfare come into play? Why does my safety not trump a disgraced officer’s reputational damage?
Only 12 officers of 519 accused of domestic violence were removed. It totally tracks that Carrick’s victims didn’t get justice until he raped a woman in a hotel; rather than the twenty years of raping, humiliating and abusing his partners.
Only 10 out of 412 investigated on online abuse were removed. And the solution on this one is giving out work phones— so their whatsapp chats won’t be discoverable at work. Then they can pretend to do spot checks on work phones and not have to actually deal with the racist, sexist and homophobic culture of the Met.
I find it fascinating that none of Rowley’s plans even mention training. Turnaround Plan?
But to end on a positive and hopeful note, the officer that took a picture of a decomposing man and shared it was told to do Reflective Practice. He remains on the force. That’s the equivalent of a toddler being told to sit on the naughty step and think about what they did wrong. The officer’s response would probably be that he got caught.
The net that the Met uses needs to be inverted. The Met cannot be fixed by the current administration, the systemic racism, sexism, homophobia and blatant impunity of the organisation prevents actual reform. It certainly cannot be fixed by Rowley who is interchangeable with Dick. Shouting buzz words like data and specialists whilst secretly hiring corrupt police back into the fold either makes him a fool or a fool out of all of us for letting it happen.
My grandmother says don’t spit in my face and tell me it is raining.
Protect and Serve? The only ones they are protecting and serving are the ones holding warrant cards.
Ed note: Dame Lynn Owens reponded to Susannah Fish saying the below. I’ve also had DMs from an anon locked police acct claiming that I should have checked with the Met’s media team prior to publish and saying that this entire piece is invalidated. I stand by the piece— and clarification in a twitter reply is not a retraction from the Times which was the source which is printed in full above.