BY CHRIS HOBBS
Photos Credit: Chris Hobbs
As the news of the IOPC report into Charing Cross Police Station began to circulate, it was not difficult to imagine the collective dropping of heads and the groans of despair echoing, not just across London but throughout each force as officers quickly realised the implications for themselves and their colleagues.
I can only imagine the thoughts of officers about to report for duty as they discovered that the IOPC, had rendered them even more vulnerable to abuse and attack. Their findings were doubtless to the delight of those many sections of the media who have long conducted a vendetta against the Met in particular and UK policing in general.
Let there be no mistake; the behaviour of the officers involved and whose WhatsApp accounts were investigated, was beyond reprehensible. In view of the ‘apples’ comment which suggested that the issues of concern were endemic, it was surprising that the three-year IOPC investigation only resulted in 14 officers being disciplined with just two being dismissed and two others resigning.
Nevertheless, the conclusion was that this unacceptable behaviour was rampant throughout the Met; racist, misogynistic male bullies would appear to lurk in very station and every police vehicle. Retired senior officers who somehow survived thirty years of racist, ‘toxic masculinity,’ once again could be heard stridently criticising officers. In the wake of such adverse publicity, we will probably never know how many females who needed the urgent help of officers, decided not to make that call.
Police misbehaviour has always been a feature of policing, not just in the UK but throughout the world. Before the advent of computer access for all, every Friday, throughout the Met, there would be a scramble for a document known as ‘Police Orders’ which was delivered by internal dispatch. Little interest was paid to most of the content apart from the section towards the end, which gave the details of officers who had been dismissed or otherwise punished for a variety of transgressions. Details were also given of those who had retired. Such details then, were not available to the public.
The published WhatsApp comments of those Charing Cross officers were roundly condemned throughout police social media and it was that same social media that reacted with collective horror as news of Wayne Couzens murderous brutality became common knowledge.
Even before the Charing Cross report, concerns had been expressed in respect of police recruitment, training and retention which has changed significantly over recent times. A recent press report which stated that with several forces, recruits had been accepted for training without undergoing a face- to- face interview caused some concern.
Anecdotal reports from serving officers suggest that some recruits are reluctant to carry out simple instructions and baulk at carrying out the more mundane tasks. It should be stressed however that others speak highly of recruits.
There are many, including myself, who yearn for a return to the old system of between 15- and 20-week residential courses at police training schools after potential officers had undergone careful selection including vetting. Discipline, study and practical scenarios did produce rounded officers and ‘weeded out’ the unsuitable. After ‘passing out’ recruits still had to attend continuation training for two days a month and pass an exam each time. There was then a major final examination and throughout this probation period, the officers work was continually monitored.
Yet, of course, unsuitable officers still managed to ‘beat the system.’ Another suggestion to eliminate unsuitable officers during the recruitment phase, is to introduce some form of psychometric testing.
Of course, there is another factor, beyond recruitment and selection, which may have a huge impact on the behaviour and attitude of serving officers which was alluded to in the IOPC report. That factor is the experience of those officers in dealing with traumatic incidents and the potential effect those experiences may then have on that officer’s attitudes and mental state.
Individuals react to trauma in different ways and perhaps concern as to how far policing trauma can affect both an officer’s attitude and mental state would not go amiss.
So how bad is this ‘culture.’
There are 28,000 male officers in the Met, who, as already mentioned, have been collectively smeared and labelled. An enquiry is under way in any event that will, almost certainly, confirm the ‘toxic’ culture of the Met and a consequence may well be that potential female and ethnic minority recruits will decide that they will no longer consider a career in policing.
Of course, there are many female officers who completed 30 or more years’ service and, like all officers, will have suffered ‘bumps in the road.’ During my 32 years’ service, I worked with hundreds of police officers; I regarded around 40 of those as unpleasant individuals who I felt shouldn’t be in the police.
I also had some ‘bumps in the road,’ and could, if I so wished, use those examples to portray a torrid career over those years. That, however, would be a total distortion of my time in the Met. I hope, that any ongoing enquiry will ask open questions that encourage serving and retired female officers to summarise their career overall. I suspect, over 30 years, most if not all female officers would have experienced or witnessed some form of sexist behaviour by colleagues as would be the case in many professions. Would this mean that the overwhelming majority of their male colleagues were sexist misogynists? I suspect not. However, I can see the result, post-inquiry headline which says that 95% of retired female officers surveyed experienced such behaviour.
All officers probably experienced bullying or oppressive behaviour. I did and it frequently involved senior officers. I was even reprimanded by a chief Inspector for the off-duty arrest of an individual wanted for armed robbery. He was left with egg on his face, when the next day I was called into the commander’s office and congratulated. I could go on, but I also worked for and with many excellent senior officers thus to focus on the few would again be a distortion of the facts.
Other incidents of bullying that I became aware of were few and far between and were dealt with. Unusually several occurred during my final year of service. Again, reviewed in isolation and written about, they would provide evidence albeit historical which would damage the Met, yet spread over 32 years they were but a flickering shadow.
Supervision.
On question raised time and time again by police officers in relation to Charing Cross is the question of supervision. Clearly this was a unit that attracted those with similar attitudes in the same way that errant, troublesome school pupils tend to ‘group up.’ There may well be similar rogue groups elsewhere in the Met and indeed in other forces but they would be very much in the minority.
Clearly supervision failed here, but again the question is rightly being asked as to levels of supervision generally are sufficient and ensure that officers perform their duties effectively. When I was a sergeant, it was mandatory to have an officer of that rank out and about, ‘on section’ to supervise. As I understand it Sergeants are now pegged back to offices due to inordinate quantities of bureaucratic paperwork.
The abolition of borough policing and the closure of police stations impacted upon supervision still further. From my own experience in London, I can’t remember when I last saw a uniform sergeant out on patrol be it in a vehicle or on foot, other that at a protest.
Yet the trend is to keep officers out on the streets by using in-car technology and tablets. I mentioned the name of our local neighbourhood officer to a response officer some months ago. The response officer replied that he’d never heard of that officer. He went on to explain that response teams only really interacted with each other and saw little of officers of other teams or departments. That surely cannot be healthy.
During my days as a young PC at Southall, everybody knew everybody else. There was and is much criticism of ‘canteen culture’ yet, as serving and retired officers have pointed out that this was where inappropriate behaviour could and was challenged. They were also places where officers could ‘vent’ their frustrations, seek advice, relax and have multiple shoulders to cry on after dealing with a traumatic incident.
It will probably be argued that the ‘team’ primarily involved in this scandal epitomised the canteen culture theory but it would appear that this unit effectively isolated itself from officers elsewhere in station which enabled their contagious culture to fester and spread.
Attempting to read between the lines of the IOPC report and comments in relation to the female officer who was subsequently promoted, suggest that those who were sacked or resigned were primarily responsible for the appalling WhatsApp messages whilst the others were mainly complicit in that they didn’t report them or perhaps even forwarded them.
The IOPC however also clearly states that other officers were also involved in behaviour that illustrated the toxic culture that existed throughout the station. Whilst the Met seem unwilling to state how many officers were actually working from Charing Cross during the relevant period, it is likely to be around 800 at any one time.
The IOPC included the damning phrase, ““these incidents are not isolated or simply the behaviour of a few bad apples.” That prompts several questions as to the evidence which prompted that statement. Did they solicit anonymous information from other officers or, perhaps, interview all 800 on the understanding that any revelations would be kept confidential?
The report refers to ‘bell ringing” and “shouting,” poor treatment of probationers and women being treated as a “weary female” when complaining about the behaviour of male officers. Again, the methodology and some sort of indication as to how many, of the 800 or so officers, were making these assertions would be a useful guide as to how concerned we Londoners should be. The observation in relation to appalling treatment of, it would seem, BAME officers was especially disturbing and needs clarification. Clearly, as stated above, the impact of these allegations has gone far beyond Charing Cross with both the MSM and SM asserting that this toxic culture exists throughout the Met.
There is no doubt that the IOPC is mistrusted by those within the police community but that isn’t to say that elements of this report are not worthy of close attention. In an organisation such as the Met, there will inevitably be cases of unfair treatment that could come in many guises. Officers cannot invoke police conduct regulations against other officers but have to go down the grievance procedure route which has few teeth.
If officers feel they are being unfairly treated in whatever respect, whether by colleagues of equal rank, supervisors or indeed very senior officers, there does need to be clear, safe, fair procedures in which all officers of all ranks, can trust.
Having said that, this report will have a massive effect upon all 29,000 male Metropolitan Police officers but especially those on the front line who have all, in effect, been smeared as misogynistic, homophobic racists.
The IOPC seems to have no appreciation of modern-day policing realities. It rarely praises and shows little empathy or sympathy for the trials, tribulations and dangers faced by officers. There are clearly individuals who are not fit to be police officers; the lazy, the corrupt, the prejudiced and the violent but the constant message coming from the police community, is that they are, despite the IOPC ‘apples’ reference, very much in a tiny minority.
The overwhelming majority are, quite simply, good people doing their best and the IOPC, its acolytes and those who loathe police would do well to remember that.