Categories
Options
What should the Met do now? – politicalbetting.com
What should the Met do now? – politicalbetting.com
When an organisation in trouble loses its leadership, there is a tendency for the new management to embark on a reorganisation. This is usually a mistake. It’s not that reorganisation isn’t needed. It’s rather that it should not be the priority. It destabilises and distracts from the work which is needed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
that intelligent young men and women want to join is a good sign though the hierarchy needs some sort of dismantlement. its beyond the control of an elected London mayor...... and I suspect a Home Secretary who herself has politicised a lot of functions (as have her predecessors)
But deadly.
I feel like there is a gross lack of examples anywhere…
He had the chance to save Britain — and squandered it
By Aris Roussinos"
https://unherd.com/2022/02/the-tragedy-of-boris-johnson/
ETA the header mentions the Stephen Port scandal which imo was due in part to there being no murder experts locally and nothing to trigger the specialist murder squad.
What I expect, and fear, we will see is the government making a power grab and moving some functions under Home Office or other central control.
It's a generally good analysis, that is well written, and well argued, but also contains this utter horse-shit:
As with Trump, Johnson’s political foes, the liberal establishment he had betrayed, stymied his rule with all the stunts and tricks liberalism deploys to arrest democracy, here directly imported from the imperial metropole: the fictitious parallel institutions of liberal shadow governance such as Independent Sage, the same pointless, time-consuming lawfare of Twitter barristers calling themselves defenders of the rule of law, the same mass demonstrations of fevered identity warriors stoked by the opposition press for narrow political gain. No scandal was too petty, no wild accusation of fascism or dictatorial tendencies too overblown in the liberal para-state’s mission to save democracy from the voters.
As if Independent Sage had any role in anything, or is part of some organised conspiracy. Independent Sage was a joke: but it was a joke that went out and published forecasts, and they were wrong. And it wasn't part of any "para-state", it was simply the fact that the person with the most outlandish views is the most newsworthy.
This throwing together of a bunch of disparate people, with nothing in common and no connection to each other, as if it were part of some global conspiracy is so absurd as to be barely believeable.
Does the author really believe that the members of iSage were in cahoots with the identity warriors of BLM? Ridiculous and absurd.
But what's worse is that this horse-shit distracts and devalues what is basically good analysis.
Rant over.
Boris Johnson to get private lawyer for questions on Downing Street parties
... ...
The Times has been told that the prime minister has lined up a legal expert on coronavirus regulations who will help him to defend his participation in the parties.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-get-private-lawyer-questions-downing-street-parties-h3r7ts6bx (£££)
This is another one of their offshoots, which is an explicit copy of a US organisation that is documenting 'the end of democracy':
"In Britain, we are witnessing a systematic assault on our democracy... Every institution is under attack: the NHS, the BBC, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom."
https://keepingthereceipts.substack.com/about
These are not imaginary threats, and nor was the attempt to nobble Ofcom with Dacre that they also mention. It was an extremely similar attempt at antidemocratic rule-shifting to the Paterson case.
Every government in living memory has passed controversial legislation on policing measures for public gatherings. The hysteria is absurdly disproportionate.
Likewise the point on the Policing Bill is nonsense. The government has tried to place a potential ban on any demonstrations that are "disruptive", for instance, with noise often classed legally as disruption. There's no history of anything like this in modern Britain, and none of our neighbours have tried to do anything like it either.
I believe Michael Howard's Criminal Justice Act is still in force and it criminalised a whole host of civil offences and gave the police pretty sweeping powers to deal with any crowds they "reasonably believe" will play loud music. Controversy over policing legislation is nothing new.
Incidentally, calling it "the Johnson administration" is a linguistic tell that you are echoing American rhetoric.
On the Criminal Justice Ac, it did not address all forms of protest. It was aimed at destroying one very specific youth subculture, which it did very effectively. The Policing Bill covers all forms of protest, not a limited type of public gatherings.
registration (IER) in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to help combat fraud.
Following a commitment in the Coalition’s Programme for government to speed up its
implementation, the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 made provision
for the introduction of IER by 2015. IER was introduced from 10 June 2014 in England
and Wales and from 19 September 2014 in Scotland. For further information see Library
Briefing Paper 6764, Individual Electoral Registration.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06255/SN06255.pdf
On voter identfication laws in France, their laws on this, as in other places in Europe, go back a long time. They have no modern history of abrupt sweeping changes to these frameworks for partisan purposes.
The Labour Government had made provision for the introduction of individual electoral
registration (IER) in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to help combat fraud.
Following a commitment in the Coalition’s Programme for government to speed up its
implementation, the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 made provision
for the introduction of IER by 2015. IER was introduced from 10 June 2014 in England
and Wales and from 19 September 2014 in Scotland. For further information see Library
Briefing Paper 6764, Individual Electoral Registration.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06255/SN06255.pdf
If the government doesn't want to be seen an unusually antidemocratic menace, it's its own responsibility to shape up.
If Mr Loophole can get Johnson off on a technicality, does that mean he didn't attend the parties? No it doesn't. Does it mean he didn't conceive the thought that there was one rule for him and another for the rest of us? No, infact it reinforces that view.
If Johnson rejects the fixed penalty notices can he elect to ,contest the ticket (s) in a Crown Court by a jury of his peers? A jury of the little people.
#UPDATE Russian Olympic Committee says Kamila Valieva has right to compete in Beijing and her gold medal should stand, after she failed doping test.
Valieva has "the right to train and take part in competitions... until the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides otherwise": ROC
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1492025252427481088
Meanwhile, the British team continues to make a uniform mess of everything. I think that they've been watching Partygate unfolding with horror, and have resolved not to give Johnson an excuse to throw another one. Downing St can't hold a reception for the medallists if there aren't any.
I see wrongthink is being attacked, and doubleplusgood too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962
[Rights watchdog 'should lose status' over trans row]
Some rich doner perhaps?
Johnson will pay for his lawyer, who is expected to focus on the fact that Downing Street is both the prime minister’s workplace and his home. The rules over Covid at the time made it an offence to be outside your home without a reasonable excuse.
Lawyers have pointed out that he could argue technically that he did not breach the rules by attending the parties at No 10 because he did not leave his home.
The defence, however, will not apply to claims that a party was held in his flat above No 11 Downing Street to celebrate the departure of Dominic Cummings, his former chief adviser, on November 13, 2020.
Photo ID works in places where ID cards are mandatory.
Bring back the Peelers, and make me Head of the Police Service of London.
He's such an innocent he gets ambushed by cake, lord knows what Vladimir Putin might ambush him with.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1491911334493147137?s=21
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1491909948187553796?s=21
They’ve been seemingly outperforming polls in local council by-elections and Labour have been under-performing, consistently. Odd pattern: polls wrong, or just council elections dynamics (only the very politically engaged vote, most float et s stay at home)?
I suspect our PM getting off on some sort of technicality, especially if junior staff don't (not in their own home, or something) will be worse for him, publicity-wise than not. It will underline 'one rule for them, another for us'.
The US State Department urged Americans in Ukraine to leave immediately.
"American citizens should leave now," Mr Biden told NBC News.
"We're dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. It's a very different situation and things could go crazy quickly."
Asked whether there was a scenario that could prompt him to send troops to rescue fleeing Americans, Mr Biden replied: "There's not. That's a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another. We're in a very different world than we've ever been."
As far as external stakeholders who put and keep sustained pressure on it to make that change; and... goes, we've already had the Chair of the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee on R4 this morning criticising the decision to terminate Dick, and claiming that '99% of officers are brave and good'...
Not a great start.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/02/how-nigel-farage-became-king-of-the-trolls
And on what basis can you claim that 99% of officers are brave, or good, or even competent ?
It's just rhetorical bullshit.
How can you even begin to reform an organisation if you start out with those assumptions ?
We need Sam Vimes. We are more likely to get the Keystone Cops.
I would hope that the civil service union are also providing legal representation to their members.
It's possible they might pick someone really good by accident, but I'm not holding my breath.
The resignation so soon after the 2 year extension tells me that plan (if it existed, but I see little reason why it didn't) has now been completely scuppered
However, I rather doubt that 'Johnson will pay for his lawyer'. Someone else will, or some Tory arse-licker will do it 'pro bono'. (Or pro honour!)
I can believe Patel's so incompetent she tries to appoint someone inappropriate and accidentally picks someone capable.
That’s not one bad apple, thats a rotten orchard.
Three more rapes have been in court in recent months too.
The inconvenient truth of the present crisis is that behind all the rhetoric about NATO, Moscow's beef is fundamentally with the EU.
https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1491837537949736975?s=20&t=CsScW1ZzbBeOe2-NcgqJqg
The @EHRC & @EHRCChair are insisting on balancing everyone's rights, including the rights of women & LGB people.
Hold firm. You enjoy huge support.
https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1492029901708447744?s=20&t=CsScW1ZzbBeOe2-NcgqJqg
Well, looks like I was wrong that this was an agreement between Khan and Patel. It seems as if Sadiq effectively forced her out, which is quite surprising and really rather impressive.
Where does this leave Boris Johnson?
A really good piece in the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/10/cressida-dicks-resignation-means-boris-johnson-partygate-investigation/
I am assuming it didn't get any less ridiculous in the final third. The third that I couldn't be bothered to read.
From reading it you wouldn't get any sense of balance over the issues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
But there is plenty of blame to go around here. She was an extraordinary appointment in the first place. The results of the inquiry (I slightly lose track of which one) where she personally was named as seeking to undermine the inquiries efforts and investigations should have been instant dismissal. How could anyone have thought that someone with those flaws was the person to change the culture at the Met?
The decision of Patel to renew her mandate remains even more bewildering than the original appointment. All of her many weaknesses had been manifest for years by that point. An extremely poor decision on her part.
In passing themselves off as a quasi-government institution, drawing on the brand name (and undermining them with the implication that they were not independent) they were trying to aggregate - successfully - authority they didn’t deserve.
This had the net impact of weakening the ability of the government to get its message out. The media played along with it because they liked a story but that doesn’t let iSage off the hook
When I were a lad growing up in the East End of London it was widely assumed the cops were bent. This was accepted as inevitable because pay was so poor and conditions were bad even when not distinctly dangerous. These conditions no longer apply. Thanks to the work of the Police Federation, perhaps the strongest Union in the Country, pay and conditions are now pretty good.
Surely this makes reform of the Police generally (and the Met in particular) relatively easy. Polcing is generally a well sought after job. Those in it will want to keep it and if they go there are plenty standing in line ready to replace them. In these circumstances the existing members might bridle, but they will ultimately accept change because it is better than the alternative.
Doesn't the next head of the Met have a great opportunity?
The EHRC was attacked by Corbynites when it dared point out problems in the Labour Party. So this is the normal playbook when it points out some uncomfortable truths. It now has people in charge who are not ex-Stonewall people which no doubt annoys them. But regulatory capture of a body with an important and wide-ranging remit by a lobby group with a narrow focus is never a good thing.
And, worse, childish throwaway 'jokes' which aren't remotely funny, combined with pernicious phobic remarks. This forum is sadly not immune from them.
Strategy as a bulwark to internal legitimacy is long-known trope, and entirely correct. Russia is a kleptocracy and its entire strategic apparatus is in the service of a very narrow clique. The state has essentially no succession principle (ask yourself, who takes over from Putin were he to suddenly die?) and as such the looking "decades" ahead is the first red flag in the thread. There is no "decades" of future for Russia as presently constituted. Putin is old. He turns 70 this year. These is a crisis coming even if everything stays stable externally. And it's not just the prospect of a struggle over who succeeds, but a matter of what they do to assert their authority when they get there. There is a much uncertainty. There is no decades of viability, we're down to years, maybe even months, who knows?
The second problem is this "I'm not here to say that Moscow is out to destroy the EU. It isn't." This is absolutely untrue. Putin adopted the strategic goal of destroying the EU about a decade into his time in power. He won't succeed, certainly not in his lifetime, but Russia has been working very hard on a info-wars front against the EU, and some of its more eyebrow-raising foreign policy interventions in the last few years have been aimed at destabilising institutions and dividing public opinion. Russia has openly offered support to the very worst European politics has to offer: the BNP, Front National, AfD, and so on. Ultimately, the existence of the EU is anathema to Putin's "Eurasian" strategy. It absolutely necessary for this strategy that the EU gets broken up, and all of this is publicly acknowledged by the Moscow in papers, speeches, and the long pattern of its actions.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60342814
Although @Sandpit may be correct in saying that the police were happy to keep the dodgy people in place, it's equally possible that they are there because it's near impossible to get rid of them, so leaving you with the choice of:-
1) suspending on full pay and working with 1 (or x) less officer(s)
2) keeping a close eye on him
I suspect 2 quickly becomes the preferred option given the amount of work required from the public expecting police officers on the street.
And I don't know how you fix that without giving the police a lot of extra money or the public accepting an even worse service.
And the public are irrational. Custody suites are being centralised in County Durham in a scheme designed to save millions up front (everywhere needs to be improved) and save money year on year. Yet the locals protested because someone said custody suites need to be local (even though it doesn't actually work).
But to me she looks like a jilted estate agent's wife investigating a murder on one of those ITV3 shows.
I don't think it was about passing themselves off a semi-governmental organisation, just standard self-aggrandisement with a dash of 'I know more than these other idiots'.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/10/cressida-dicks-resignation-means-boris-johnson-partygate-investigation/
We could be 7 days from FPN time