The Casey report on the Metropolitan Police has landed, and it is as damning as anticipated. Commissioned following the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens, the report concludes the force is institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic and the public is being let down by a force that no longer has a functioning neighbourhood policing service. The author, Baroness Louise Casey, said:
Do I think that they should say they are institutionally racist? Yes, I do. Do I think they should say they are institutionally sexist? Yes, I know they are. Do I think they should say they are institutionally homophobic? Yes, I do.
However, speaking ahead of the release of the report, Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, while he apologised for the numerous failings and accepted there was racism, misogyny and homophobia in the force, refused to use the term “institutional”, calling it ambiguous and political.
Former Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner Anthony Stansfeld, writing in the Mail, accepts the criticisms and, ironically, blames rampant wokery.
During my time in post for almost a decade from 2012, I could sense that in the sprawling mass of the capital, public confidence in the police was evaporating as violent crime worsened, corruption became rife and woke ideology triumphed, distorting everything from recruitment of officers to the fight against Islamist terrorism.
Believe me: we had our own difficulties in the Thames Valley, especially the activities of Asian grooming gangs. But they paled beside the rot that had clearly infested the Met.
As Baroness Casey’s report demonstrates, the Met’s performance has been dismal on almost every front. Despite the leadership’s obsession with ‘diversity’, racism, misogyny and homophobia are rampant, shattering public trust among the many vulnerable who most need an effective police force…
Why has the force so badly lost its way? Part of the answer, I believe, is that too many of those in senior positions are the products of progressive education peddled by woke university courses. They are more concerned with social engineering than with fighting crime.
Politically correct dogma not only weakens their own authority but also distorts vital policies on recruitment and promotion. The Met should, of course, be trying to attract more women and ethnic minorities so its workforce more closely mirrors the make-up of the capital.
But that does not mean that hiring new applicants should descend into a box-ticking exercise in identity politics – as it manifestly has.
In the vacuum created by weak leadership, an inevitable and ugly backlash against the woke agenda has also been allowed to flourish.
That helps to explain a bizarre paradox: the more the Met’s top brass fixates on wokeness, the more bigoted much of its workforce becomes.
Now, I’m not able to comment on most of the contents of the report, which is largely based on recollections from serving and former officers. I also have no interest in defending the Met or its officers. However, I will say I was surprised by how weak the evidence it presents for “institutional racism” was. The Telegraph summarises it as follows:
The report laid bare a culture of “overt” racism within the force, where the N-word was used, black officers were less likely to get promoted and were 81% more likely to find themselves in the misconduct system.
It warned that at the current rate of recruitment, it would take 39 years for the Met to reflect the diversity of the community that it polices.
Meanwhile, bacon was left inside a Muslim officer’s boots and a Sikh colleague had his beard cut as part of racist behaviour written off in the Metropolitan Police as “pranks” and “banter”, the review said.
Another Sikh officer’s turban was put into a shoe box because colleagues “thought it was funny”.
The report said racist and other discriminatory behaviour was often “tolerated, ignored or dismissed as ‘banter’”.
It detailed how one black officer, who worked for PaDP guarding a building, was referred to by his colleagues as a “gate monkey”, which he said he took as a racial slur.
One senior officer described how he was asked in a meeting last year: “Did you get to where you got because you are black?”
And the Mail summarises it as follows:
The review found the force was institutionally racist and had failed to tackle the ‘rot’ present for many years. Black officers were 81% more likely to be subject to a misconduct case than white officers.
One senior officer was openly asked in a large meeting in 2022: “Did you get to where you got to because you are black.”
And a black woman told the review: “You have to try and be invisible as a black woman… If you complain you get a reputation as being trouble and then supervisors try and pass you on to other teams.”
The 363-page report also acknowledged disproportionality – with black Londoners being “overpoliced”. It concluded there was a “wilful blindness” and continued failure by commanders at Scotland Yard to accept and to address racism.
As I say, I have no interest in defending the Met. But as examples illustrating “institutional racism” these seem weak. Racist banter is of course unacceptable, but it is also banter, and not by itself an indication of racist institutional behaviours. Likewise pranks: poor taste jokes may well be offensive, but they are typically intended to be japes – often meant as a form of bonding, especially by men – and are not by themselves an indication of ‘institutional racism’.
It is hard to know outside of context whether “gate monkey” is intended as a racial slur as the term ‘monkey’ to mean low level worker is standard slang in English and, in that usage, has no racial connotation. In general, the ‘monkey’ slur often occurs inadvertently (think Danny Baker and the royal baby or Alastair Stewart quoting Shakespeare) precisely because most people do not instinctively connect ‘monkey’ with black people, and the offence in such instances is almost always taken rather than given.
It has been pointed out many times that raw statistics like “black officers were less likely to get promoted and were 81% more likely to find themselves in the misconduct system” may be a reflection of underlying differences between the groups being compared rather than any discrimination. In addition, if the Met is preferentially recruiting black candidates to make up for a perceived deficit then, as with any system that prioritises other qualities over merit, standards may suffer. Similarly, being asked, “Did you get to where you got because you are black?” is not acceptable, but such thoughts are inevitable in a system that pushes ‘positive action’ on race. It is clearly not appropriate to vocalise them in a professional context, but you cannot introduce non-merit based systems and expect people not to harbour such thoughts.
The fact that “at the current rate of recruitment, it would take 39 years for the Met to reflect the diversity of the community that it polices” is (if true) surely more a reflection of the extraordinarily fast transformation of London in recent decades into a white minority city than the failings of the Met’s ability to attract and retain officers from ethnic minorities.
The wider context is also that London is a very troubled, divided city, the effective policing of which has immense challenges. Again, I have no interest in defending the Met, and do not doubt that it could be a much more effective police force. But there’s also no doubt that the job its officers have to do is hugely challenging.
It’s inevitable that this report will lead to calls for yet more diversity training for the police. But since the Met has subjected its officers to no shortage of such training in recent years, if the problems are, as Casey claims, as bad as ever then it clearly doesn’t work. Since there is also, as the Free Speech Union has noted, a free speech crisis in policing, with officers undergoing tens of thousands of hours of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training but almost no training in free speech, the last thing we need is yet more police wokery. Whatever are the real problems in London policing, the solutions, if they exist, must lie elsewhere.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Only straight, white, indigenous, aging men need be concerned.
Half the country, then.
A good commentary, especially considering how fevered the topic has become. I thought this particularly acute:
The fact that “at the current rate of recruitment, it would take 39 years for the Met to reflect the diversity of the community that it polices” is (if true) surely more a reflection of the extraordinarily fast transformation of London in recent decades into a white minority city.
The book of Revelation paints a similar picture:
“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become an abode of demons, and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hated bird.”
“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together,” Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, an Islamic preacher, was quoted as saying in the local media.
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/545051 (07/10/18)
I would go with institutionally incompetent.
Silly me, I thought from the title the article that it was going to be about how the police are racist towards whites.
Anyway, if they weren’t before, they will be from now on, As they’ve been accused of racism, misogyny and homophobia, they’ll have to overcompensate (even more) to prove their love of non-whites, women and the people identified by letters and symbols.
I just content myself these days that I know my
placeidentity in life.. as a white supremacist, fascist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, extreme right.. hate filled nut job… and that’s before breakfast..Quote from the summary and conclusions section:
Significant societal shifts are rightly making us less tolerant of crimes such as
domestic abuse, rape and child abuse as well as discrimination. Public expectations
on policing are therefore greater.
Discrimination is something very much different from domestic abuse, rape and child abuse which are all serious and usually violent crimes. Grouping it together with these serves the political purpose of associating it with them: Baroness Casey apparently wants their readers to believe that discrimination is principally the same as rape and child abuse. Further, she’s implying that – until not that long ago – domestic abuse, rape and child abuse were regarded as just fine by society at a large.
Conclusion: The lady is a seriously prejudiced and living in a fantasty world.
Case closed.
There was a sad case locally of a young woman killed by a jilted former boyfriend. There had been several instances of threats being made, but the thought of sending an officer round to ‘cool him down’ didn’t occur to them, with tragic consequences. Shortly after, many cars started sporting ‘I’m against violence towards women’ stickers, and I wondered. Who is it that is FOR violence towards women.
Are you a men? If so, you’re instutionally for violence against women, that is, regardless of your actual behaviour. At least, that’s the theory.
To put this a bit more bluntly: This is a wokewash concluding that the Met must do more to meet diversity targets and that anything else is – at best – optional.
The behaviour of a few bad apples.
Police inevitably develop a gallows humour because they deal with the very worst situations and the very worst people on a daily basis.
Speaking of nonsensical legislation and insulting the public’s intelligence, Doug Brodie is back. This time with a letter to Sir Edward Mountain ( Conservative MSP ) regarding Net Zero;
”Prior to the Covid plandemic, during all my years of campaigning against the 2008 Climate Change Act and Net Zero I assumed that the political class was too naïve and non-technical to realise the mistakes they were making and that I could use my expertise (BSc in engineering) to persuade them of the error of their ways. I see now that I made a big mistake.
Post the Covid plandemic, I now realise that the political class could not possibly be so stupid as to believe the fake climate charge/Net Zero narrative they have dishonestly propagated. They sadly brainwashed most of the general public into believing it (although many are now seeing through it) but not themselves, bar maybe a few “useful idiots”. They have clearly been lying to us about climate change/Net Zero for years, just as they did with Covid.
I assert that you, Sir Edward, and your treasonous Net Zero co-conspirators have sought to inflict grievous harm and oppression on the people of this country on behalf of your shadowy globalist overlords as a putative Malthusian “one-world government” implementation of bullet point 1 above.”
https://metatron.substack.com/p/the-undemocratic-tyranny-of-net-zero
One of the key problems with this report is that Casey is judging the Met against a set of woke standards that virtually any organisation would fall short of.
By addressing the issues identified by Casey London won’t necessarily be better policed but it would pass the next Caseyesqu audit. Whether this would make Londoners sleep better I rather doubt.
…yes, a simple question that seems to be begging to be asked is, when they follow ‘diversity’ rules and employ different ethnicities…do they not even think that these same people….might have strong prejudices of their own?
Presumably they don’t..so any report has got to be skewed, if they only consider white prejudices?
Nothing new really. It reminds me of the years from 1979 – ‘82 and *Constable Savage.
*Not the Nine O’clock News.
Yes! No!
Who cares? Just do you fecking job, stop crime!!
I’d say it is quite likely that the Met is “institutionally racist, etc.”
However – how is the level measured, and what metrics are used to assess the above.
Else – it’s just an opinion.
These opinions are preached as a sermon to the converted as proof of the evils of the heathen. The only measurement taken is the moisture content of the handkerchief they weep in to. When logic and facts are replaced with presumptions and hypothesis, the motive is replaced with the emotive with all the emotional baggage that comes with it.
It is odd how half the articles you read about the police say they are mad woke and waste all their time recording non-crime hate speech, and the other half report that the police are racist, sexist and homophobic, and have the Whatapp posts to prove it.
That’s not at all odd. It means that the police is unequivocally failing everyone. It’s good at arresting Christian street preachers for getting harrassed by transvestites or investigating woman for having a walk with a coffee but not so good at preventing or dealing with actual crimes. Eg, shoplifting is all but legal in Britain as the police will only handle it if the value of the goods stolen in one go is at least £200. As most shops don’t sell anything that valuable a single person could carry covertly, this basically means always.
If you read an article written by persons of not historic interpretations of male, you can only expect emotional wailing, copious wrist ringing, supported with the proof that most police are probably white male and heterosexual, therefore my report is vindicated, or should it be vindictive.
Everything interpreted thru the lens of racism and ‘the lived experience and feelings’ of black people as if that’s the touchstone of real truth. True bullying is despicable but such dark humour is part of the induction into a tribal subculture, oddly a sign of acceptance. You could easily find many examples against white colleagues no doubt, to give context, but that’s of no interest in proving their point. Just an excuse for more DIE and the race grifters.
The Victimization industry must have victims, otherwise they would lose their jobs and grant money.
Racism is wrong but apparently terms like ‘white privilege’ is ok?