Breaking News. an armed 'met' policer officer. guilty of rapes

Yes Bazza because the offences were not committed whilst on duty! Beggars belief.

I have no idea of the vetting processes employed for Met police officers when and since this person joined. I do know when my DH joined a county force in the 60s his and my whole family were vetted. A few years later transferring to the Met the same again. DH progressed and did have psychological testing for a role he had. Not sure if it would have covered Garrick type tendencies. 8000 employed by the Met, sure there will be a GN who can work out statistically the % of Garrick type personalities within such a number. I do not in any way defend Garrick, absolutely horrendous character. Whatever kind of vetting has been used, it needs close scrutiny. The whistle blowing system, also needs scrutiny. Of course there will be the Human Rights etc Acts that will no doubt be claimed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64176457 This was in our local paper last week. Didn't seem to get as much coverage as the Carrick man but still, yet another Met officer.

Whatever kind of vetting has been used, it needs close scrutiny.

I agree that vetting in some circumstances must be lacking. My son works in a highly specialist area of the Met. His further vetting for this placement took 6 months and involved not only him and his wife, but his parents, siblings and in-laws, including those that live abroad. It isn't a public facing area either.

They look after their own.

Rosie51

^Whatever kind of vetting has been used, it needs close scrutiny.^

I agree that vetting in some circumstances must be lacking. My son works in a highly specialist area of the Met. His further vetting for this placement took 6 months and involved not only him and his wife, but his parents, siblings and in-laws, including those that live abroad. It isn't a public facing area either.

I'm puzzled too Rosie51. My daughter works for the National Crime Agency and her vetting took ages and included checking me out.

I still think that however good a vetting is, a sociopath will get though it, that's where what happens afterwards, ie some degree of checking in and re-vetting form time to time. But overall imo the best "weapon" in the long term is really good training in gender and racism - where the mass of officers have to encounter their own beliefs and prejudices.

Because there are the real offenders and then those that let it pass by, and reaching those who let it pass by are the ones who in the end can create a better culture within any force.

Carrick was moved from 2 other forces. They’re treated like rotten priests, moved on.
My sister wasn’t allowed to be a traffic warden because our father had been to prison.

The lead investor for the IOPC has resigned because it’s not independent. That should actually read: the IOPC is as corrupt as the police.

Carrick was accused of sexual assault while on probation.
You couldn’t make it up, could you.

When my DH joined the police he was vetted and so was I and his family.
I think some of the problems arise as being a policeman gives them power they have never had before. For some this could enable them to get away with things that they couldn't before.
They may have had a clean record on joining but go on to commit crimes once a part of the force.
More attention needs to be taken when certain behaviours become apparent.

Very hard to understand when I remember a time long gone when parents used to tell children to go to a police officer if in difficulty. Seems now that women and children should be most careful before doing any such thing just in case. Obviously not all policemen are like this and we only hear of these bad cases but still gives the whole force a very bad name.

I have known of people who were joining the police about whom I knew things which I would consider to be dishonest. Obviously nothing on this scale, but I would like to think that serving officers were scrupulously honest and law abiding and it saddens me that my own experience shows that this is not always the case. I was shocked by these revelations and find it hard to believe that he was never called out by colleagues even if they only had slight suspicions. Sadly 'whistleblowing' is not easy, despite the measures that are in place to protect those brave enough to speak out.

Misogyny ….can be no other explanation for that man remaining in his position for so long!

Someone In the know told me the police still talk about rape victims as if it’s their fault and are still very misogynistic. It’s just appalling

What happens to the pensions of these horrible men when they are convicted of violent crimes and sent to prison for years, we hope. Are they still entitled to draw their pension?

If memory serves me right, weren't the Met also involved with the Madeleine McCann case?

Yes, root out and deal with the bad apples.
I was married to a police officer (won’t say which force, but it wasn’t the Met) for over 25 years. He liked to think he was all-powerful. I don’t know how he behaved towards female officers and female members of the public while serving, but his behaviour after retirement was abusive. I’ve now been divorced for almost 6 years. So thankful.
I have a nephew who’s a serving officer in another force - not the Met, nor the one my ex-husband served in - and I’m sure he’s fine.

As far as pensions are concerned, this guy currently in the news should have his taken away.

I wonder what happens about that?

I had a lot of kindness from young male police officers last year getting out of my abusive marriage, it was clear they were properly trained and took it seriously, ex was arrested at one point. They were a bit "newly minted" in this field but took time and care, things are a changing in some forces. My Quaker friends son is also in the police and doesn't fit the bad stereotype and I believe things can change but in the Met atm..its a right mess as clearly a whole number more shouldn't be in their job yet who would fill the places rapidly?

Because they can retire after 30 years police have 14% of their salary deducted fir their pension, employers also contribute. At that time most of us paid about 4% . So not sure how not to repay at least some if it, though if found guilty it could form part of their ‘fine’ or else something towards their ‘keep’ ’ in prison. Won’t happen of course.

I believe that its a small minority of met police officers that are truly bad, trouble is the actual job tends to attract the dominant aggressive alpha males and its very hard to stand up to them if they are your colleagues. They tend to move them on or up if they don't know what to do with them, and they don't have good grounds with proof to sack them. Lots of people leave the job because they can't work with these people.

It says a lot about the recruitment criteria of the police. Why aren’t attitudes explored more carefully. After all he was known as ‘B…d Dave by his colleagues

I think that vetting is, not so much looking at the wrong things but not including the right things.

Families etc are checked out because they are looking for anyone in the family who might be able to either apply moral blackmail on the officer or try to inveigle them into dishonesty, they look at criminal records for obvious reasons.

What is missing is vetting in the workplace. Observing someone closely at work to see how they talk and interact with others and when 'on the beat'. How you do that without having a 'Stazi' type system, I do not know. One of a group has a secret role to report back on the behaviour of all the others. This will impact group cohesion and trust.

I think it would help if there was a faster first response to any accusations and a timetable for disciplinary proceedings so that they do not drag on. Also a clear list of behaviours that will lead to dismissal on first offence.

If people know from the start that there are certain things they do will lead to mandatory dismissal. This happens elsewhere. DD worked in a job where, by its nature, there was one thing that if you did it, you lost your job, there was an appeal system. The 'action was not criminak in anyway. DD was the union rep and had to help someone facing dismissal. She felt really sorry for her, because she had done 'it' more by accident than design, but she said everyone knew the rules and what would happen if they breached them, and if you kept making exceptions, the rule might as well not be there.

We need a similar system for the police.

Head of the Met says 2 to 3 officers to face court a week.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64400235