UKC

Hoping for off-duty to explain why policing is complicated and that we don't understand the real-world difficulties and that the MET issues are down to a few bad apples.

Nothing to see here - oink...

Oh, that report.

I had noticed that the report into the number of complaints against the police by women that led to investigation had also not been commented on here. I did have some mitigating thoughts about the number of specious complaints ("I'm going to complain just because I didn't like being arrested")...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-1500-uk-police-of...

UKC is mostly men, and the Casey report is mostly about how the Met treats women. So it’s a low salience issue. Patriarchy innit? 
 

(Expecting a lot of dislikes from typical UKC man, if that’s you and you think you’re a really great guy, ask yourself when was the last time you read a book by a woman. You probably care less about the inner lives of the opposite sex than you think.)

24 years since the Lawrence Report.

Or maybe I'm careful about mansplaining things about which I have no direct experience.

I was thinking about starting a thread on The Met myself but couldn't remember how many 'agains' we've got to. 

More that there isn't much to say after previous threads.  

WTF??

Was that your reason as well?

The idea that the Casey report is 'mostly about how the Met treats women' seems to me to be a gross misreading. As I see it, the Casey report is about a comprehensive breakdown in the trust that the public can have in the MPS and a failure on the part of senior ranks to manage an organisation fit for the 21st century. 

Lol fair point, I tend not to start threads, preferring to leave sarcastic comments (check my posting history if you don’t believe me).

Congratulations on winning todays “Using a Trendy Word In Lieu of Thinking” Award. Can you please explain why discussing the Met is mansplaining?

This is absolutely the best answer out of the lot.

Men in general tend not to be as interested in women as women are in men. The fact that most men don’t read books by women is, in my opinion, an excellent proxy for this. And UKC is super typical in this sense - look at any of the regular “recommend me a book” threads. This forum attracts men (ie, normal men) who do not hold a great deal of curiosity into women’s inner lives. I believe that this choice in men’s private lives mirrors a similar disdain which plays out on public life too. 
 

Is it that complicated?

I think this is a fair point, but an absolutely central reason for that breakdown is the way the organisation treats women. To say it’s not about that is, to me, an equally deficient explanation. 

More just weird, in it's own right and in response to a thread about policing. 

"Authoritative report says the police are racist, sexist thugs"

"Yeah, but have you read a book by a woman recently?"

You’re the one who assumed firstly that the lack of a thread was because of a lack of interest in the Casey report, then implied that this must be because the predominantly male audience wasn’t interested in it because the serious issues it raises disproportionately affect women.

I’m told that jumping to multiple conclusions like that is a pretty typically male thing to do.

For what it’s worth, my feeling, not having actually read the report, is that, depressingly, it’s not very surprising.  I think Mark Rowley is an unusually intelligent and thoughtful policeman and I really hope he can bring about the sort of changes required but there will be a lot of resistance.

I think I understand his reasons for his being reluctant to use the word ‘institutional’ but then, I’m not black, female or gay (not mention not living in London) so I have the luxury of a bit of lawyerly distance and my opinion isn’t all that interesting.

Yes, the police are thugs. But the point was - why aren’t we (as an ad hoc group of mostly men) commenting on this? Maybe, as you say, it’s all been said before, and that’s it. But perhaps there is something about men - about the people who make up the majority of posters on this forum - that explains why this situation has come about. Maybe a certain lack of curiosity into the experiences of women takes the political sting out of this issue, after all it’s not as if we did not know this years and years ago. If the Met is the very ugly face of patriarchy, what role do we play in this way of organising society? How do our choices fit in with this set up in which we find ourselves? If men were more interested in the lives of women would we exert more political pressure to ensure their safety?

You may find this a bit of a leap, but it’s surely fairly common for people from minority/discriminated against groups to seek recognition and representation from the majority group through art?

And others have provided other explanations, but my explanation doesn’t flatter the majority of the audience. And I’ve been told that having a fragile ego is a pretty male thing.

Given his initial response I strongly doubt this. I live in London so have a very strong interest in the Met functioning properly, but I don’t see much to be positive about so far.

This thread is like a car crashing before it's even left the garage.

A quick search of police threads here will show that's cobblers. There have been multiple, extensive threads going back years.

True. But then it was supposition and now we have an official response. I was surprised at the lack of a new thread on this issue but perhaps it really has been all said before - it’s the TPS of political discussions. 
 

Enid Blyton, George Elliott, Lynn Hill, Bernadette Mcdonald, Arlene Blum, Elisabeth Revol, Jennifer Jordan, Julie Tullis, Alison Hargreaves, Linda Gill, Elizabeth Arthur, Maria Coffey, Gwen Moffat, Julie Summers, and many Iris Murdoch. 😀 

… Daphne du Maurier, Hilary Mantel, Caroline Criado Perez, Lynn Truss and, most recently, Kathleen Stock.

Not that it proves anything relevant to the original discussion!

I was replying to Sean!

I think Sean's more a Jackie Collins or Jilly Cooper fan

I had the same thought, and that's about the gist of it I think.  Between the many, many Met threads and the various Sarah Everard vigil bunfights it really was starting to feel like the same thread again again again, and it seems kind of pointless if we're all just going to do another lap of the same entrenched opinions.

I'd have started the thread if I thought I might have had anything to say that I've not already said a dozen or more times before.  Funnily enough when the report came out I think the BBC got off-duty to comment on it on the radio.  (I mean, it wasn't.  Well, probably.  But the person speaking could easily have just been reading an off-duty post from a previous thread verbatim.)

I feel seen.

Still, my point is utterly unoriginal:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/09/why-do-so-few-men-read-books-...

I should point out that the literary-minded posters here have mentioned the numerator but not the denominator…

More than a search now will show.  Besides the threads still in the archive a fair few more, the more heated (and less edifying) ones, were locked and shunted in to the pub to languish for a few days before being auto-deleted.

In answer to your original point, previous threads were driven by a frustration that things were going on at the Met that were not getting coverage and not being treated seriously by the Met. This latest development means that the issues are now much more difficult to ignore and a vindication of what was being said in previous threads so there’s not a lot to add without sounding like you’re saying I told you so. That was my reason for hesitancy at least.

With regard to your later points, well done in making the thread about you!

Making the thread about me? I was putting forward an idea - one that has been responded to by some good points and also by some very telling defensiveness. I didn’t realise that was the wrong sort of discussion…

I've reflected on this and have concluded that you must move in very different social circles to me. I do know men who fit your description but not many. I know lots more who are "woke" to women (and most other things or at least thy make an effort to be). FWIW, I always wonder about men who have no women among their closest friends. 

Anyway, good effort on diverting attention away from the Met.

PS: Over the past couple of years I've read:

Jewels of Allah by Nina Ansary (her follow up 'Anonymous is a Woman' is near the front of  my book queue.

3 books by Los Price

and recently, Time on Rock by Anna Fleming

Do I get a biscuit?

To be fair I meant to post. We are a long way from where we need to be, in where the police deal with crimes against women, and with their  interaction with women and minority groups.

I have lost count on the number of posts I've made in UKC in the last few years on the terrible situation in rape charges... now so low they are approaching 1% of reported rapes (reports being a smallish  minority of estimated rapes). Tne government will tell us that  % prosecution rates have increased, but they don’t say proportions of reported rapes succesfully prosecuted have dropped). I'm ashamed I live in this country in 2023 where a fraction of a percent of rapes end up in a prosecution. I'd add men get raped and the prosecution stats on that are beyond shoddy as well.

As far as I can tell I’m the only user on this thread living in London, so I definitely have skin in the game. Still, now the vital UKC consistency is distracted those bent coppers will be rampaging even more. I’ve fouled my own nest with this one. 
 

A whole packet. 

This sort of book?

I disagree with the idea that a central reason for the breakdown in trust is due to the way the MPS treats women. That ignores the issues regarding race and homophobia which are highlighted in the Casey Report. To concentrate on the way the MPS fails women diminishes the way it also fails those of colour and of different sexual orientation and by extension, the whole of the population of London, apart from the racist misogynist homophobes. 

To address the failing of the MPS requires much more than better actions to deal with crime against women. It requires a root-and-branch reform of a failing institution which has struggled for many years with poor management and unacceptable levels of complicity in the indiscipline of too many serving officers. 

Rowley may be making some of the right noises, but he is up against a decades-old culture which has been allowed to spread unchecked and which is now embedded throughout the organisation. Saying it is about women misses the point entirely. 

Harper Lee, Anne McCaffery, Delia Smith, Audrey Salkeld, Jane Austin, Margaret Atwood, JK Rowling  the list goes on.  Totally irrelevant to the thread though. 

“Recognising the grave levels of public concern following the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met officer and other deeply troubling incidents, the Metropolitan Police Service (the Met) appointed Baroness Louise Casey to lead an independent review of its culture and standards of behaviour.”

Anyhow don’t forget the institutional corruption too in the light of the Daniel Morgan case… 

Couldn’t agree more.

In her introduction to the report Casey talks almost entirely about the treatment of women, so whilst it is about more than just the Met’s treatment of women, to me that seems to be very much the driving force. I don’t think saying this lessens the strength of the criticism or the importance of Met reform for all Londoners.

From the report’s summary:

“Traditional volume crime (such as burglary and theft) has declined, while low volume but more serious offences such as violence against the person, and sexual offences have significantly increased from 17% of all crimes in 2012-13 to 31% in 2022-23. Such cases take longer to investigate and resolve. Domestic abuse-related crimes have doubled over ten years to nearly 100,000 a year and the number of reported rape cases have increased fourfold. But the number of officers investigating them has not increased at the same rate. This places more demand on police detective services in particular, while there is a national shortage of detectives.

“Like other public services, austerity has profoundly affected the Met. In real-terms, the Review has calculated that the Met now has £0.7 billion less than at the start of the previous decade, meaning its budget is 18% smaller… 

“Together, this has eroded frontline policing, weakening the strongest day-to-day point of connection with Londoners, as well as impacting the Met’s reactive capabilities, its response levels, and its response to male violence perpetrated against women and children.”

Your argument has its own Wikipedia page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen

There's a lot, a lot, of that on here so I see what you're getting at.  Sure, we all have our own biases one way or another, and we all tend to get a bit defensive when we're reminded of that.

You did seem to be inviting people to list authors a bit upthread though.  Perhaps it was a rhetorical question but having asked it I don't think you can reasonably accuse people of 'whataboutery' for answering.

Thanks. This thread has been a very instructive reminder of the fragility of the (male) ego. 
 

It was a rhetorical question but you know, willies must be waved. The inclusion of Delia Smith in one of the lists sort of gave the game away.

Yes, it has been disappointing that so few of the respondents have seen fit to address the issues raised by the Casey Report and have, for reasons which escape me completely, seen fit to give pointless lists of female authors. 

The joke response posted upthread struck me as particularly jarring given the context. 

I completely agree with all that and I think it's good to call it out when it happens.

However, calling it out before it happens tends to derail the discussion. 

I am glad she put in the comments about the 18% cut in budget. A telling comment. You do wonder how much that has contributed to the current state. After all the demands on the MPS have increased and yet the budget is cut. Hardly great.

I also liked the point out alongside the changing nature of crime - fewer, but more complex, something that’s usually hidden in the talk of falling crime rates. 
 

What game would that be Sean?  I refer to Delia frequently, especially on the few months run up to xmas. her pudding and cake recipes are second to none. You specifically posted 'ask yourself when was the last time you read a book by a woman.'.  my response would be last sunday. 

The Met - No Casey Report Thread?

No.

Still no Casey Report thread.

However, the thread shaping up to be an over-generalised, one-sided damnation of the male ego's fragility, if that's any use to you?

Casey is excellent. She has done quite a few reports like this and is highly rated. 

Hmm ... she supervised the spending of a billion quid of our money on helping families break the repeating cycle of deprivation with no discernible effect.

She certainly talks the talk, but walking the walk...?

The delays in publishing reports of this kind seem to have the effect of diminishing the efficacy of perpetrator responsibility.

The delays seem to be purposely lengthened in the hope that blame becomes defused or forgotten about, or that the administrative procedures in producing them are just so grindingly complex and time consuming. It's one or the other, or both. Either way, the cooling effects of 'punitive decay' over long periods is similar - the length of time and the shortness of people's memory club together to enable blame to be virtually absolved, allowing organisations and perpetrators of bad behaviour to carry on as if nothing unlawful had happened at all.

If reports are published quickly while the damning issues are still hot, I think there would be fewer cases of impunity after incidents of lawbreaking and bad behaviour. Johnson would have been held to account a lot sooner and more decisively after habitually breaking the law and ministerial codes on several occasions, and the Met might have been forced into reform procedures a lot sooner.

If I am correct she resigned when funding stopped ……as a protest.  

I think it was more a protest about the report than funding. The scheme is still running, although it changed it's name a couple of years ago. I was under the impression that the funding had remained family constant at around 150 to 200 million a year. Now we have data over a longer period there seems to be some benefit in things like improved attendance at school, fewer criminal convictions etc. 

Of course if they were done quickly they’d be less thorough and probably makes some basic errors. Fewer people would be interviewed, leading to lose of confidence amongst people inside and outside the organisation. And because of this, it would be even easier for powerful people within the affected organisation to downplay the report and ignore its recommendations. 
 

The problem of course is lack of political will to make the required changes. As to why having an incompetent, predatory police force has been allowed to occur, my view is that change is difficult but simply not a political priority.

You make a good point, but you have to admit that in certain organisations like the Police, exhaustive and complex admin procedures (including the compiling of reports) have a tendency to take precedence over the Force's primary purpose. Actual 'coalface' policing becomes overshadowed by demands for written evidence and procedural justification. Errors are likely to occur also for that reason, and good policing is not always synonymous with the kind of admin they are now being told to do.

Yes, there is an ever widening disconnect and lack of understanding between the priorities of the current crop of politicians, public services and those of the public themselves. Changes will not happen in the absence of mutual understanding. On the other hand, if it became obvious that politicians are actually working in service to those who vote for them (we are, after all, their employers), I think many problems of competence would eventually be resolved. 

The Casey report is not an example of typical day-to-day admin, so this point isn’t really relevant. Anyhow, do you think collecting less information on, say, stop and search is going to improve outcomes?

You misunderstand my point, which is that police reform is relatively low salience because the public don’t care that much and the risks (perceived or otherwise) of reform mean politicians don’t make sustained progress on the problem. Someone said above that there seemed to be little progress since the Lawrence report. This is only a surprise if you think the experience of black Lononders is of much concern to most of the U.K. population. Remember that plenty of people get aggrieved when they see “too many” black people in adverts. 

Says the man who admits to only posting Sarky comments

Since you asked I'm currently reading "Terraformers" by Analee Newitz and "Under the Net" by Iris Murdoch

I also recommend "The Deepening Stream" by Dorothy Canfield

From a report by those well known radicals, Deloitte:

“Interestingly—and perhaps importantly—men and boys read fewer books written by women. A study by Nielsen Book Research found that, of the 10 bestselling male authors, readership was roughly evenly divided by gender, with 55% male readers and 45% female readers. In contrast, only 19% of the 10 bestselling female authors’ readers were male, compared to 81% female. Men also read fewer books with female protagonists than do women—a problem compounded by the fact that fewer books feature female protagonists overall. For example, in the top 100 children’s books, male characters (human and nonhuman) in leading roles outnumber female characters two to one.

“There is also a long history of women writers masking their gender—including the author of the wildly popular Harry Potter novels, Joanne Rowling, who writes under the gender-neutral moniker J. K. Rowling—in an effort to be taken seriously and attract a wider share of readers.
(However, more recently, some male authors have done the same and adopted gender-neutral pen names, in hopes of gaining more credibility with women and increasing their female readership).”

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-med...

Still, strong “the lady doth complain too much”  vibes about all these little list-y posts. A world in which women pretend not to be women in order to appeal to the reading public - surely amongst the more open minded members of society - is one in which the problem isn’t just a few bad apples. 

Well you did ask?

I'm not in dispute with the study you mention. Male authors tend to out weigh female authors historically (for reasons of obvious sexism. George Eliot being an obvious case in point) and yet there are a high number of female authors who do well JKRowling, Usula Le Guin, Margret Attwood,Virginia Woolf, Agatha Christie, I could go on. As for more women reading over all than men probably true, though I think older people tend to read more anyway than younger people (on casual observation)

But saying men don't read books by women and books without a female protagonist and then doubting the men who say they do is a little disingenuous. Plenty of men, like myself, don't care what gender the author is as long as the book is good. In fact I myself have written a novel centred around a female protagonist.

In summation: not all men. Which as I said, is such a common reply that if has its own Wikipedia page. 
 

It’s not that I don’t believe you, I do, it’s just that I don’t find producing a list of female authors a particularly strong riposte. I should also point out that the men who posted on here generally preferred defending themselves to discussing the report. Ignoring my nonsense and concentrating on the serious issues has been an option for every single poster. 

Then why bother mentioning it in the first place? It wasn't intended as a riposte to the report.

As for the report it is depressingly the same old tale with the Met. Currently watching "Our friends in the North" first broadcast in 1996, corruption in the Met features prominantly, nothing ever changes. As some one said "Which again are we up to now?"

Does this mean it is right? No. Does it mean we don't care? No. Does it mean posting on UKC will solve it? No. In truth I have given up on any possibility of real political change. I'll still protest but i don't expect it to do anything

I took those little “we done good” lists as ripostes to my comment, not the report itself. I mentioned it originally because in my view the Met is an extreme example of trends that exist throughout society rather than separately in the closed world of a large police force. How many of the Met’s problems stem from it being an overwhelmingly male organisation, and which it might have in common with other male-dominated worlds, as opposed to being due specific ways in which the force is set up? The answer isn’t zero, but we prefer to hive off crime to bad actors rather than seeing it as a product of a society in which we all play a part.  

Completely agree. And then the question becomes why is this the case? Why the lack of urgency? It’s clearly not a political priority, and if anyone has any better ideas as to why, then I’m all ears. 

What is wrong with "not all men" when somebody tries to unfairly put all men in the same unfavourable light when they could easily say "some men" or "a majority of men" or "most men"?

Plenty of women have written about this, you could google it. 

“When a man (though, of course, not all men) butts into a conversation about a feminist issue to remind the speaker that "not all men" do something, they derail what could be a productive conversation. Instead of contributing to the dialogue, they become the center of it, excluding themselves from any responsibility or blame.”

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5720332/heres-why-women-have-turned-the-not-a...

It’s impressive that in a discussion into a report examining why women can be raped with virtual impunity, a chap comes along to point out the unfairness is about how men sometimes get spoken about. 

Yes, but the fact is that if women want to get  men on side, they would do well to be fair to men when discussing the issues. Pretty obvious really. I've even heard a woman say "all men are rapists"; no man I know is then going to take anything else they say entirely seriously (obviously this is an extreme example but it illustrates the point).

What ARE you talking about? Men don't read books by women?

In your world maybe... 

Translation: we have the power so you’d better be supplicants. That’s not what equality really means, is it? Perhaps we could have a political  push to increase the conviction rates for sexual assault regardless of what women say about men. Because it’s the right thing to do and male feelings of mild offence should have nothing to do with it. 
 

To think about the “not all men”, I think there are two basic viewpoints. That the bad behaviour is limited to a subset of men, or that the majority/all men behave in this way some of the time - or indeed that they are comfortably unthinking in institutions in which discriminatory behaviour can flourish. If you view is the former then of course it’s going to seem unfair. But is that a realistic view? 

No, I’m saying that men read fewer books by women, and there is evidence to suggest this is the case. Remarkably, publishing companies want to understand the market for books so they can sell more books. 

Evidence will change my mind. Writing in full caps? Weak sauce. 

And in the the world looked at in the study that Sean mentioned it seems. I'm just looking at my bedside table, 16 books that I've read recently-ish, are going to read, or am reading. All male authors. Perhaps no surprise considering the types of book, but I hadn't realised it was that one sided. On my wife's bedside table 8 books, 7 by female authors. She does mainly read on Kindle these days so I'm not sure exactly the balance there, but I'm sure there are many more female authors than among the Kindle books I've bought.

You did rather trail your coat though, and have distracted from an important thread. Perhaps you should have raised this very interesting point in a different thread? 

A bit like, I don't know, butting into a conversation about the state of the MET with weird claims about what books men read and becoming the centre of what could be a productive discussion.

I’m also the only poster to have actually quoted from the report. 

You and others choose to reply to my points - made on an open forum, ie “butting in” doesn’t make any sense. If you want the important discussion, simply start discussing and ignore the idiot posters. 
 

However what has been written has been (unintentionally) very revealing.

Should women ignore it when men point out "not all men" and start a different discussion?  I'm guessing you don't think so!

If they think that doing so is going to further their aims then yes, they absolutely should. 
 

The thing is, I’ve got some evidence for my assertion and made a clear argument as to why it links to the issue of Met reform, or lack of if. Basically, do you think that the issue with the Met is entirely due to problems within that organisation, or are they somehow reflective of broader society? Remember that part of the point of the Me Too movement was that women were reluctant to speak out because they feared being disbelieved. That’s entirely consistent with the lack of curiosity about women’s experiences as mediated through art, especially when the subject matter of some of those artworks is the oppression of women.  

I'm sure there are elements of both but primarily the organisation. There are other police forces that function well without neverending scandal, so it's clearly possible. 

you still seem to be missing the point that the women aspect is.only one of several criticisms.

No, it's just about about not making daft generalisations that can only undermine your case.

Sorry, you've lost me here. Of course sexual assault should be tackled. But untruthfulness, exaggeration and offence aren't going to help.

Of course my view is the former and it's totally realistic. If you changed "majority/all" to "some/most" it would be compatible with the latter.

I am utterly baffled by your take on this. It can only be counterproductive.

This report from the Justice Inspectorates says the problems of bad policing are present in all forces, indeed the practice of letting admonished officers go to work elsewhere suggests it’s widespread:

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/an-inspect...

Well, I’m aware of the criticisms as I’ve read the exec summary of the report and skimmed bits of the rest. But the catalyst for the report was crime against women, as Casey makes clear in paragraph six of the forward. 

So you think there is a select group of men for which the feminist critiques of male behaviour and attitudes don’t apply? 

So you think progress on women’s rights should be dependent on women not causing offence to men? And what is “unthruthful” to you is completely true to others - who decides which truth, when spoken, is enough to impede progress? 
 

So who are the men who have never been sexist, or ignored sexism in society, or never acted in a way that propagates the second class position of women? I certainly wouldn’t class myself amongst their number. The men who created and oversaw the institutional sexism of the Met weren’t monsters, they were us, they went along with the norms of that world because that’s what people do. 
 

You’re utterly baffled because you expect the road to equality to be free of discomfort for men. That’s completely unrealistic. Members of the dominant group have always found change threatening and demanded it on their terms - which is exactly what you’re saying by wanting not to be offended. 

Hopefully, but quite possibly we just haven't looked elsewhere enough yet https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/25/police-england-wales-deleti...

There were reports earlier this year I think it was of some pretty terrible cases of Police Scotland officers who have abused women and somehow seemed to have avoided either charges or being sacked.

"All men are rapists"

The 'select group" is probably 99+%, as an example. I'm unlikely to pay much attention to anyone making the claim

Generally pissing people.off isn't a great way of getting what you want.

Speak for yourself but I'm pretty sure I'm not like Couzens

. 

I would respectfully suggest that the Met, along with every Police Force, is in fact not simply overwhelmingly male.

Those who join such organisations are also predominantly right of centre politically, and those on the right of politics have a poor record on equality.

They are also (on average) taller than the general public - indeed are chosen for their size/fitness. An unfortunate percentage of taller persons regard those who are smaller - and most females are - as lesser beings.

Then we have the element of control. There are too many who join the Police that want to have power over others, and having power over females does come high on their list.

These are not just my observations, they also tally with those of my sister - who is a retired Police Officer.

The idea that male Police Officers are representative of the male population as a whole is completely wrong.

It's a conventional way of adding emphasis in text. Similar to underlining or using bold font.

No, and I don't know why you would think that. I just believe that making stuff up is unhelpful. If I am, say, told that there is evidence that almost all men have unconscious gender bias, I would accept it (sounds plausible), but if I am told that a men are rapists I would dismiss it as an offensive lie. 

I think it would probably be helpful and constructive not to give offence.

Eh? What are you on about? Are you saying we need to make stuff up to make progress? I am happy to go with the evidence. Something can't be both true and untrue

Probably very few. 

I think it would be more constructive to say it is the system rather than get personal about it

Nonsense. No idea how you conclude that. 

It’s a good job I’m not making that claim then. How about engaging with what I have actually written? 

The demand that protestors and their critiques be genteel and inoffensive is a classic demand made by the powerful. The legion of men upset by some criticism on this thread is very similar in tone to the defensiveness shown by the Met:

“The Met does not easily accept criticism nor ‘own’ its failures. It does not embrace or learn from its mistakes. Instead, it starts from a position that nothing wrong has occurred. It looks for, and latches onto, small flaws in any criticism, only accepting reluctantly that any wrong-doing has occurred after incontrovertible evidence has been produced.

“One of the saddest aspects of this culture of denial is that many of the issues highlighted in this report – systemic racial bias in the misconduct system, poor child protection services, not recognising predatory behaviour, the dire state of property storage – have been known about, reported on and investigated before. But the Met’s culture, combined with its poor management, has meant that these issues have not been sufficiently addressed. This has allowed wrongdoing to persist.”

My argument is that this brittle defensiveness is emblematic of a certain strain of masculinity (alongside the more obvious managerial failures) and the responses on this thread have illustrated how widespread it is. 

This is exactly my point: it’s psychologically way more comfortable to section off the problem into a few people - this is the real purpose of the “few bad apples” defence, to avoid making more substantive, widespread and ultimately more difficult changes. The point of this report is that this line of thinking isn’t acceptable any more. You and I are not like Couzens - but I suspect we’re similar to the decent people who allowed him to act unchecked. 

I caused offence by commenting on men’s reading habits which came from market research. It can be very hard not to give offence when you’re talking to prickly people. Women in the public realm are subject to all sorts of abuse for simply speaking their mind. Should demands for change be dependent upon self-censorship so as not to offend certain men?

The evidence is that evidence doesn’t really change people’s minds. 

Things can be ambiguous or open to interpretation. 

But this *is* saying it’s a systemic issue. I’m not saying that “we are all rapists”. The point of the Casey report is that decent people - the us - ended up creating a system which gave Couzens et al free range. 

Because you place such a high premium on not being offended - in fact you claim it’s key for social change to occur, at least in my reading of your posts. What kind of discomfort is acceptable if merely feeling offended is beyond the pale?

You asked me to respond to a feminist critique, so I did.

Im not.asking but suggesting. As above if I'm labelled a rapist (or some lesser nonsense) by feminists.seeking change, I probably won't pay much attention. I don't think I'm alone.

Well again, I you'd go along with WhatsApp chat as reported, speak for yourself. I wouldn't.

If we have learned anything from this thread (and I suspect it is the only thing we have learned from this thread) it is that you are not “all ears”!

And of course you took the most basic and strident critique you could - and certainly one I never mentioned.

Of course no one’s labelling you a rapist. But what does “lesser nonsense” cover? 

Again, this isn’t what I’m saying. If the whole institution has problems dealing with this sort of behaviour then it goes much further than the immediate perpetrators. 

From p12:

“Concerns raised through the misconduct or complaints process are not well recorded and are more likely to be dismissed than acted upon. Patterns of behaviour and escalating incidents which are the hallmarks of predatory behaviour are not identified. Instead, time and time again, those complaining are not believed or supported. They are treated badly, or face counter-claims from those they have accused. Behaviour which in most other organisations would lead to instant dismissal or serious disciplinary action – particularly amongst those who work routinely with vulnerable people – is too often addressed through ‘management action’ or ‘reflective practice’.”

You’re the one posting about me, repeatedly! It’s flattering obviously. Slide into my DMs sometime x
 

Well of course, you’re the star of the show!

I won’t drop you a DM but will try and formulate a proper reply tomorrow (if you’re interested) but I’ve been ill all day so while I’ve been following along I’ve not managed keep it together long enough to write something longer.  

I was looking forward to a DM from a man with a big… chin. (Sorry couldn’t resist.)

Of course I am interested. Hope you feel better soon. 

And really, what has it got to do with the topic of the thread? It seems to be a dead cat distraction.

Good grief. All I have said is that untrue statements of the form "all men are/say/think/do x/y/z/t" are unhelpful and likely to cause offence and it is perfectly reasonable to counter them with "not all men are/say/think/do x/y/z/t". How you could object to that is beyond me unless you have gone down some rabbit hole and subscribe to some weird form of post-truth feminism.

Obviously discomfort or offence caused by true statements is a different matter.

Sorry, I can't resist. In the last year or so off the top of my head: Pat Barker (x2), Nathalie Haynes (x2), Madeleine Miller (really got in to these feminist reworkings of Greek myth), Maggie, O'Farrell, Anna Fleming. Might be one or two more. Probably similar or a few more by male writers.

Whether Sean has gone down a rabbit hole or not on this thread, he's absolutely bang on the money about "not all men".  You will never utter that phrase without making yourself look like that guy, so do yourself a favour and just don't do it.

You're a bit late to the thread with that list. I've eaten all the biscuits.

Except the “all men are rapists” is a straightforward straw man argument - and one that I have never made. The classic feminist argument is surely that all men are potential rapists, which is very different no?
 

My view is that the absolute vast majority (probably all) men are *at some point* complicit in the oppression of women, but unknowingly rather than maliciously. A friend of mine told me that he and his wife disagreed over how much housework got done, so they kept a detailed diary for a couple of weeks. My mate was really surprised to find he did considerably less - he just didn’t notice the work his wife did until it was literally written down. 

My point is that the system of relations between the sexes is so ingrained that it warps our perceptions of even the people we live with. So, all men, but not all the time. 
 

I’ve posted links to women who explain why they object to that. Their points seem pretty easily understood. 

I should point out that according to survey data we have, men read fewer books by women, yet this statement of apparent truth hasn’t gone down well. You’re all pretty outraged at the suggestion that you are anything less than tip top, excellent chaps - and the similarly between that and both off-duty’s posts and the attitudes of the Met (as outlined in the Casey report) are so close that it’s almost funny. Except it’s not, of course. 

Who is "that guy"?

If the phrase has been hijacked and politicised to make it unusable then that is unfortunate because it is sometimes true. What do you suggest as an alternative?

I didn't say you had made it and I made it clear that I offered it as an extreme case to illustrate that sometimes "not all men..." is true.

Yes, very different but daft, unhelpful and virtually meaningless. We are also all potential murdererers, fraudsters, burglars.......

I agree with that.

All men, in some things, some of the time is reasonable.

No it's probably just that it is a good way of winding you up. Because you deserve it.

Nonsense (hence why you deserve the wind up over the book thing).

It's always true, which is precisely why it's pointless (and usually dishonest and malicious) whataboutery to point it out.

If "not all men" is really the best you can do, I suggest trying to acknowledge the possibility that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute and just keep schtum.  Try to listen with an open mind instead and see if you learn something.

It’s not meaningless on two levels. First, the practical: we have DBS checks and safeguarding measures nowadays precisely because this is accepted as a truism. This doesn’t seem a trivial change to me. 

But there’s a bigger point. We all know that for a very long time, and still today, women have been blamed for being raped. Got drunk, wore the wrong clothes, acted in the wrong way, etc. And I’m sure this gets internalised, because I’ve read plenty of women who say this is exactly what has happened. So the point of “all men are potential rapists” is as a reminder that rape is about male control and male choices, rather than men being “unable to help themselves”. It’s about rebalancing, and a reminder that men who rape come from all backgrounds. 

I suspect (tho I don’t know) that it may act as a way of dislodging the internalisation of blame which we know so many women who are raped and assaulted feel. I think that’s the very opposite of meaningless.

This is an unwarranted ad-hom, and not a good look for you.  Besides which you're too sincere and too stupid* to wind someone up for fun on here, you're just winding yourself up.

*(Honestly you're the thickest most intelligent person I've ever tried to have a discussion with, here or anywhere - massive analytical maths brain combined with the emotional intelligence and self awareness of a fencepost.)

Perhaps more so recently - I think we've been a bit complacent in recent years, and tended to assume that progress is inevitable but suddenly battles that we thought had been conclusively won decades ago need fighting all over again.

On this point specifically, look at the traction that Andrew Tate and similar scumbags have been achieving saying explicitly that - that women who are the victims of harassment, sexual assaults in public and domestic abuse in private need to "accept responsibility" for their own abuse.  And look at the fuds who inevitably come out of the woodwork on here to boost his signal, unwittingly or even willingly.

It's deeply depressing.

No, it's not always true. When it is true I think it might be helpful or unhelpful to point it out depending on the situation.

Well, as I said early on, this thread has been a car crash from the start (and with seankenny at the wheel). I just picked up on one of his unhelpful posts. I'm sure he has a lot of useful things to say, but it's a shame he doesn't seem to be able to say them without misrepresenting what people have said and getting their backs up.

Hilarious.

All that is well worth saying, but to try to sum it up with the simplistic "all men are potential rapists" is massively unhelpful and inflammatory.

If only we’d actually taken the last line of The Plague seriously… I suppose the thing is that the UKC massive are so busy reading books by women that they wouldn’t have time for a rather blokey writer like Camus. 

Well, it is if men are extremely thin skinned and sensitive around any challenge to their position of power. Which is exactly what we see in Met, right? 
 

It is men who need to change, often, as I think you have said, in quite subtle ways. To do this they need to be brought on side and be prepared to listen. I just don't think phrases such as this are, to put it mildly, in any way helpful in doing that.

The thing is, having criticised me for making generalisations about “all men” is that you are now making the same generalisations to explain your individual response (and the response of many others, in case you think I’m being overly personal). 

Clearly this phrase is deeply upsetting to you, whilst it isn’t to other men. What do you think causes that? 

I am not accusing you personally of making invalid generalisations; I was just objecting to you defending some uses of "all men..... " when untrue and myself defending the "not all men.... " response when appropriate. I don't think I am making any generalisations. I am agreeing with you that there are enough men, say in the Met, with ingrained biases and attitudes that an overall toxic culture has evolved. And I don't think phrases such as "all men are potential rapists" are ever going to be helpful (and probably in fact counterproductive) in tacking such biases and attitudes and therefore such a culture.

It's not upsetting. I just find it absurd and, as I said, I suspect it is very unhelpful in making progress on issues such as the culture in the Met. 

Edit: Perhaps the problem is that such phrases are bandied about in certain circles where everyone has agreed on them as a pithy, perhaps metaphorical, way of encapsulating a quite subtle set of ideas, but don't appreciate just how ridiculous or offensive they might come across as when casually used amongst lay people.

This was my original point - that part of the Met’s problem is a men problem, and we’re very likely to see those problems replicated in any group of men because in my view those biases are very widespread, probably ubiquitous, and hard to deal with. 

The thing is, if we make (some) men’s feelings the central factor in deciding the limits of acceptable discussion about sexual abuse, we are continuing to put men first. Or do you agree that letting men set those limits is a vital part of making progress? To be sure, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable proposition, rather in the same way that a therapist does not deliver their insights to their patient all at once, in case too much truth is damaging, but that implication is far more damming than “guys, your reading is a little limited”.
 

I should point out that my original contention was that it is very easy for men to create discriminatory institutional structures and that lagging political processes reflect a genuine lack of political pressure because we don’t care enough - which is quite a long way from the current debate. 

We seem to have gone some distance from it being a “meaningless phrase”. 

I'm not saying we should put any limits on acceptable discussion. But, if the aim is to bring men on side and change their thinking and behaviour in positive ways, you have got to think how best to do that, and I don't think phrases such as "all men are potential racists" are ever going to be a useful part of that.

Obviously it is possible for a group of people to decide to ascribe a convoluted and metaphorical meaning to any phrase if they see fit, but that doesn't stop it being meaningless, unhelpful and probably inflammatory when taken literally by those not in the know.

Do you think that using this phrase could be useful in bringing about positive change?

Really? I thought it was about the UKC Men's Collective not giving a shit about women, therefore not giving a shit about this report. And then something random about the UKC Men's Collective never having read a book by a woman, which you seem to have used to hijack the thread completely from its original intent. Great job, Sister!

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/the_met_-_no_casey_report_threa...

I've no doubt you will deny you meant to but you are implying here that Robert has more to fear as he is more culpable, pretty unpleasant stuff. After accusing someone of “Using a Trendy Word In Lieu of Thinking” you repeatedly bring up 'not all men' before Robert (who's probably not as up to speed on the mores of feminist writing nor internet hashtags as you) obligingly takes the bait with a literal interpretation of the phrase. This allows you to repeatedly put words in his mouth ("So you think...") when he's made his position clear; "If I am, say, told that there is evidence that almost all men have unconscious gender bias, I would accept it" and "All men, in some things, some of the time" and "It is men who need to change, often, as I think you have said, in quite subtle ways" seem like reasonable positions and in keeping with the original intent of #notallmen but this is not enough for you who wants to either a) prove your intellect by trying to tie him up in knots or, b) personally vilify him. The thing is you are being disingenuous as at least one of your links talks about 'not all men' being used in bad faith and that is not the case here, just that Robert is responding to 'not all men' in a very literal way rather than responding to #notallmen as you would like him to.

You talk about other's fragile male egos but yours is very much on display here, all your contributions here seem to serve no purpose other than to prove how erudite and well read you are.

No one did this in any of the previous Met Police threads and I don't think anyone would have done here before you tried to make that the focus of the thread.

I say this with all sincerity that your approach to changing this would not help in addressing the issue

Fair enough. What approach would you take? What do you think we should do? Do you think this is an issue requiring broader social change or one that concerns the Met alone?

Can you cite a relevant example of some behaviour of men, specifically, for which it would not be literally correct to say that "not all men" do that?

I really don't think so, but perhaps you'll surprise me.

Here's that link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
In the spirit of being "prepared to listen", maybe try actually reading it this time.

It's never helpful except to those who are broadly in favour of sexism if not outright misogyny - or more specifically to those who seek to derail the discussion into pointless whataboutery.

At best it's utterly thoughtless and trite, and if you happen not to actually be one of those individuals you are making yourself their useful idiot.

I think the one about unconscious bias I mentioned earlier would do. 

Yes, I read it earlier. So the phrase has been politicised, perhaps with good reason, and now comes with so much baggage that it considered unacceptable to use it even when literally correct and the intention positive. This is why I asked you for an acceptable alternative earlier.

Obviously it ought to be fine if taken literally in some circumstances, but if there is agreement that it's literal meaning has been lost or become problematic through its politicisation then it is possible that a consensus could emerge where it is seen as misogynistic.

I really don't think so. I am simply trying to discuss the phrase in a reasonable manner on here. I find your personal attacks on me pretty inexcusable really - nothing new there of course.

I think this tread has become somewhat sidetracked on the problems at the core of the Mets behaviour. As a retired Officer I can say hand on heart the contents of the Casey report have made me ashamed of my profession and are  fully justified. 
 

I have read the report and it is grim reading, the instances of racism, homophobia, misogyny and malpractice leave me with feelings of misery and shame. During several long walks I have tried to philosophise and understand the ongoing culture that exists in the Met ranks and the perhaps the harder question of what to do about it. 
 

I have been in the Met 36 years. When I started at my first posting I became aware that the Team I joined were formed round a core of more experienced Officers who had a power base and kudos that was such that us newbie’s and those transferred to the Team wished to become part of. These Officers were almost exclusively white and male. These groups were referred to jokingly sometimes as ‘The Tuffty Club’ ( older readers many have some knowledge of Tuffty and his woodland friends). ‘Carrier culture’ has similar characteristics of small Teams in vehicles. 
These Teams were not all bad, they bonded closely, worked hard and human as nature dictates we all wanted to be accepted in them. On the negative side they were over powerful, they could make the lives of those who were not accepted miserable to the point where they left. Nicknames and communal humour was rife and they were self Policing in acceptable norms and values. Being accepted in these groups was highly prized. Supervisors did little of nothing to change this culture. It was just the way ‘The Job’ was.
If you were ‘different’ entry and trust was more difficult to obtain, female, minority groups and god forbid persons who were gay had to put up with suspicion and insults which if taken in good humour may prove you acceptable to the inner circle. If not you were outcast. Protest and complaint would have further negative effect, not be taken seriously and seal your fate. 
 

I think these groups exist in many professions. In some ways the more dangerous and the more specialised these groups are (Forces, Firefighters etc) the more likely these groups are to form.

I suspect with the recent advances in social media, passing photos and information the ability to trade information around these groups so easily has significantly increased since I retired 8 years ago.

’woke’ Senior Officers at the top of the organisation probably harden the resistance of the core teams to remain unaffected by steering from the top down. I can remember attending various equalities courses and training. Officers would generally make the appropriate responses then return to Teams completely unaffected in their behaviour.

Having left a number of years ago I was surprised to read the Casey report (in its entirety) and find that little has changed in ‘The Job’. I think the report is well written in layman’s terms and perhaps powerful enough for real change which I am ashamed to say should have happened long ago. For my part I regret being complicit in the system for many years.

Thank you for the insight (and for getting the thread back on track!)

So right at the beginning I suggested a gender bias in men’s behaviour and have given evidence for it. No one has argued that the evidence is bunk but no one has accepted it. In fact quite the opposite! 
 

> The thing is you are being disingenuous as at least one of your links talks about 'not all men' being used in bad faith and that is not the case here, just that Robert is responding to 'not all men' in a very literal way rather than responding to #notallmen as you would like him to.

Other replies deal with this better than I will. 

Ego? Yes, you are all choosing to spend your precious free time discussing my ideas and my views. Only a saint wouldn’t find that slightly gratifying  

But fragile? Come on Tyler, I haven’t engaged in ad hominem attacks, gotten angry or upset, etc. That’s a rather baseless allegation but I’m sure making it felt good! 

My honest advice to dealing with people you view to be bad actors: just don’t engage. Make the conversation about something else. Don’t give them the air, they will soon get bored and go away. 

Only if erudition means “can look things up on Wikipedia”… 

Thanks very much for an honest and clearly hard to write post. How do you think the kind of barrack room culture you (and the report) describes could be changed, even just a little bit? What would work? 

A superb honest contribution...cheers.

It's not particularly interesting. People just think it is unnecessarily inflammatory (in fact, if it is meaningless, it is tempting to think deliberately so). It's almost as if you are taking objection to it as indicative of some sort of implied guilt - now that really is beyond the pale.

I think you may have been so busy reading things in to peoples' language that you have overlooked the fact that everyone (I think) is on your side on this. I have explicitly said that I accept that most men probably have some sort of gender bias at least twice.

I’m sure in the wake of the Casey report many are spending sleepless nights on what to do about it.

Cultural change takes time and effort so reform will not be immediate. A few ideas however;

Reforming the Met by dissolving and reforming under a different name will shock the system but if the same people are re employed it amount to an elaborate re brand. Expensive and of little value.

An education package will have little effect and has been done many times before, non effective waste of time and money. 
 

Team supervisors (Sergeants and Inspectors) need to give a very clear message that times have changed and behaviours must. An unflinching message with warnings and real consequence. From leaders they respect, not from far above. 
 

The two criminals, highly publicised  bastards who were within the Met, a murderer and a serial rapist were known amongst their peers as ‘the rapist’ and ‘bastard Dave’.  Information from Teams and co workers must be harvested and acted upon.

The present vetting system appears completely inadequate.

If you read the full report, in need of immediate dissolution and reconstruction the firearm’s system of blue cards and authorisation and departments. Without question the Diplomatic Protection Department (now called Parliamentary and Diplomatic protection, sorry I’m old school). Both the murderer and rapist were from within this Department. In my experience a dark backwater in need of complete overhaul.

The Casey report itself may have some shock effect, the important thing is it doesn’t just fade into obscurity.
 

I need a few more long walks for a more complete answer, sorry!

Any job where you have to rely on your colleagues for your life is likely to generate these groups and associated allegiances, yes. Differences of opinion (in politics or culture) have the potential to erode trust that you will provide 'support' when needed.

Is the answer to encourage other means to cement trust? Or show that trust can be relied upon, despite disagreements? Then there is the issue of exactly what you are being trusted to do? Support questionable behaviour?

Do such groups form around one individual with strongly-expressed opinions, leading to a warped culture?

Anyway, back to the important matter at hand: how many books written by women have you read...?

Talking of books, your post reminded me of Pratchett's 'Night Watch', and how Vimes changes the ethos of the Night Watch by force of character. We need a Vimes of the Met... 

And, of course, later in the series timeline, he successfully integrates dwarves, trolls, werewolves, the undead and other minorities into the Watch...

What a shame it's a work of fiction, not a manual for creating a healthy organisation...

Read it, but completely failed to understand if that's what you took away and you think it'll somehow be ok to say "not all men" if you just find the right way to rephrase it a bit. 

FFS Robert the problem with it is the whataboutery, not the words!

Thank you for posting here.

A shock effect on the 'woke' senior officers, who may have already been trying (and apparently failing) to change things for some time?  Or do you think it'll reach further than that, and inspire some introspection among those who've been attending pointless 'awareness' courses, making the appropriate noises, ticking the right boxes and then returning to duty completely unaffected and unmoved.  (Perhaps even 'doubling down' on certain attitudes and behaviours, as we humans tend to do whenever someone attempts to change our mind about something.)

I'm curious - did the Macpherson report have a shock effect would you say?  Did it change anything, ultimately?

This is interesting. 

I think most people reading and contributing to this thread appreciate any insider insights. I guess perhaps part of the problem is that London is a fairly unusual city in terms of size, wealth, inequality and diversity. Maybe this is pure prejudice, but London’s immediate peer cities (Paris, New York?) don’t spring to mind as having law enforcement approaches we should follow - so the U.K. may be feeling its way in the dark somewhat. 

Except it isn't *always* that. Men, without qualification, very quickly becomes or can be heard as a personal accusation. It's a problem with English being ambiguous. Yyy group do xxx can mean all yyy or a subset of yyy. When discussing contentious matters, it's pays to be specific about what's meant 

It's a problem with men being dicks.  Reading about something that primarily affects women on a colossal scale and deciding to butt in and point out how unfair the discussion is on them, personally.

"Hey, I'm not a rapist, and I just want everyone to forget about what's actually being discussed here for a moment and take time out to acknowledge that.  It's outrageous that the terms in which this woman is describing how she lives her entire life in fear are slightly hurtful to my feelings."

It's fecking ironic that often as not these turn out to be the very same individuals who call others 'snowflakes' and accuse them of 'virtue signalling'.

Sure but that's not the situation in many cases though.

Is it complaining about being unfair, personally, or is it asking whether a simple, blanket statement is unhelpful in understanding the problem?

If, as I think you accept, not all men (no, not #NotAllMen) behave in that way, does that acceptance help us understand why some men behave that way, and others don't? What is it that causes people to behave differently? Until we understand that well enough, I don't see how we will be able to progress.

Simply saying 'men are dicks' isn't really very helpful.

The former.  Disguised as the latter, because that's fecking sea lions for you.  (#NotAllSeaLions)

So, does your great insight help us understand why some men are dicks, and others aren't, and therefore help us to understand how to stop men becoming dicks, and help those who are dicks to stop being dicks?

Or are you just going to say "dicks are bad, m'kay; don't be a dick"? That's really not helpful.

It's like saying "my car is broken; how do I stop my car being broken?" without comparing your broken car with a working car.

You won't fix the problem unless you are honest about trying to understand it.

I suspect, in Robert's case (and in mine), it's because he is a logical, analytical type, who wants to honestly understand the problem so he can think about solutions. Not because he's a sealion.

I see what you did there...

I am the Walrus.

#NotAllEggMen

Mister City policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row

I don't think it is that it is seems like a personal accusation; it's just the unhelpful generalisation.

Spot on I think (though I had to look up the sealion bit).

I get the whataboutery. All I am saying is that there are occasions when it might be a useful thing to say without it being whataboutery and I accept that an alternative phrasing would be useful because of all the baggage which now comes with "not all men" due to the whataboutery.

I find this particularly shocking. Thanks for your insights on this thread.

In response to the original post, I think the initial lack of response was due to:

1. WTF, has nothing changed in the Met since the Lawrence report etc.
2. We've done this subject (several times) before.
3. But principally, we're floundering to come up with any solutions so don't feel there's anything we can usefully contribute.

And as for the "discussion" about "all men"/"not all men" etc - you all seem to have an "I need to have the last word" problem and it's ignoring the real issues in the Met - FFS just bin it.

Some very good points there.

Yes.  In a similar way, I tripped over "all lives matter" a while ago before I had a helpful crash course from TobyA on the semiotics of hashtag catch phrases. 

Context is everything and not everyone is aware of the political backstory. 

I knew the context and always added in my head "...but some lives matter more than others"

Hi Micheal, thanks for reply, I think the Met have a massive problem here. I think elitist groups, in this case of almost exclusively experienced white male Officers have always existed. These groups form incredibly tight bonds akin to family. The more dangerous the job is the tighter the bonds with workmates. It’s easy to see why, having been in them the attraction in acceptance into one and how if one is different in any way from the ethics and norms of the group persons would be refused entry and treated with suspicion. Years ago in the Police if a colleague didn’t drink or was religious it would be sufficient for a reluctance to acceptably. Change has happened but incredibly slowly. I think the effects of information sharing via social media may actually have made it worse.

These groups are not unique to the Met Police, I was a watching Jordan Peterson* clip on u tube the other day. He had spent some time with an American special forces Team. Perhaps the ultimate example of a small elite Team who are extremely close knit and are totally dependent on their peers. He was gushing in his praise of how close they were, how savage they were to each other in their banter with little of nothing being off limits. (This seems fine as long as everyone is genuinely laughing) It reminded me completely of Police Firearm Teams in the UK and had echoes of life at a nick.

If you asked any soldier why they did what they did in the stress of combat and risked their lives the answer seems to always be “I didn’t want to let my mates down”. I have been in riots and firearm incidents and this was exactly my experience. One only has to think of soldiers going over the top in WW1 into machine gun fire to see the power of this motivation. Such groups are appealing and incredibly close knit. I definitely spent more time with colleagues in a carrier doing 12 hour shifts than with family. 

I left the Police 8 years ago and am currently employed in an Office in London. The culture shock has been tremendous, no nicknames, savage banter, no feelings of incredibly close bonds, instead polite conversation and enquiries about getting to work and what’s for lunch. I found it very difficult not to slip into banter and humour that was once so attractive.

I recently attended a funeral of an ex colleague. Three ex colleagues shared a lift as it was some way away. Within 10 minutes we were exchanging savage put downs amongst much laughter on this occasion all willing contributors. I actually said, ‘God I miss this, I have to be so polite at work now’. It’s difficult to explain unless you’ve been in these Teams.

The point I make I suppose is that these Teams are common widespread and obviously have some appeal to our human nature. In the same way perhaps that religion seems to have a built in appeal to some instincts. 
Such groups have great strengths and weaknesses. The incredibly  negative elements being suspicion of outsiders and particularly those who are different. The cost of admission may be inappropriate treatment or language which must be tolerated to be accepted.

I think such groups have great appeal and therefore the Met have a massive problem to solve.

*Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist/ professor who is very popular in the media. See u tube.

You remind me of the joke 

"Show me a man who says he is a vegan, and I will show you a man who is trying to f**k a vegan"

That's not to disagree with you - just my base brain has dark corners where I question peoples motives in an unfair and cynical manner on absolutely no evidence. Simple answers to complex problems, comfort blanket thinking - normally wrong, but not always

Anyway keep it up - good thread

Does anybody familiar with NI politics, public opinion and policing know if the establishment of the PSNI to replace the RUC offers a useful model for reform, changes to recruitment to reflect the population and improving public support?

It's the closest situation I can think of as the RUC was a UK police force that did not have the trust of a large proportion of the population. And it was/is a very different situation other obvious ways.

Lol I’m a happily married man!

If thinking “this is a huge systemic problem that we are all complicit in” is a comfort blanket then I can only assume you grew up with some very scratchy wool in your house…
 

...The culture shock has been tremendous, no nicknames, savage banter, no feelings of incredibly close bonds, instead polite conversation and enquiries about getting to work and what’s for lunch. I found it very difficult not to slip into banter and humour that was once so attractive.<

This. I worked as a council gardener and the banter in the vans was savage but only in the teams that got on well. The test was how you took an insult. Return it with a better humorous insult you were in. Ignore it and scowl you would get ribbed more. Turn violent and the whole van descended into a morass of silence where no one dared say anything. It could certainly be bad but in many ways you knew where you stood, everything was out in the open. In contrast when I spent time in the offices everyone was polite to your face and would frown at the slightest deviation from respectable behaviour yet would stab you in the back soon as blink.

I was fortunate to have some very good mixed teams to work with and having been the outsider myself worked hard to make sure no one was left out.

I wonder what proportion of men have never indulged in banter, which, if secretly recorded or done in the wrong company, would see them out of a job, or maybe in jail.

And is such banter necessarily a bad thing if done behind closed doors and in the right company?

Wow. In the context of the findings of the Casey Report that’s really quite some statement to open this thread to. Genuinely don’t know what to say to that. Just wow. 

I should point out that women are just as capable (I think it is a human thing in given circumstances). The women I encountered in the pottery industry were as bad, if not worse, than the men.

It is not that banter per say that is wrong but that it can be used as a weapon for diminishing people and isolating people. Banter is a natural thing in bonding. The dark side of it is when it reinforces anyone not in the clique as other and when one person becomes the scapegoat for the group (we always take the pss out of x etc.) This is a hard thing to tackle (though not impossible) as all close knit groups have a similar dynamic in which there is a shared outlook.

I wonder if this group bonding is an evolutionary "hunting group" instinct, in which case there's yet another factor making reform difficult.

How to get the benefits without the downsides, that's rather tricky.

Basic tribal behaviour, I think.

I’m sure women can be as bad. I’ve heard reports of female workers in factories have exactly these group dynamics. 
 

The Casey report gives numerous examples of racism, homophobia, sexism. It describes the worst of this behaviour and its consequences. I’ve been racking my brains on the WHY this behaviour occurs. Then having tried to explain that the much more difficult what do we do about it?

If the solution cuts against naturalistic human behaviour makes that an uphill struggle. The Met has a massive problem.

You only have to read some of the Whats App group chats to figure out the answer to that.

Banter written down and texted is not exactly great reading...

So do you think that bad sounding banter is necessarily indicative of actual bad behaviour? I'm genuinely interested.

If the 'banter' is racist or misogynist, then, yes; it serves to normalise racist and sexist attitudes.

Last month I went on a road trip with a friend who’s a pilot. We had plenty of time to chat so he told me all about the airline he works for, a very large company, not in the U.K., which employs pilots and cabin crew from basically everywhere except America. He said they spend huge amounts of time and energy on cross cultural communication, inter-personal relations and general soft skills. At previous airlines there’d been lists of pilots who couldn’t stand each other and would never be allowed to work together, but this  company was having none of that: everyone has to be compatible with everyone else. When they’re actually in the cockpit they’ve been trained to push back against bad decisions but also to obey the captain where necessary - clearly not an easy task. 

I think it’s fair to say that my friend is… not exactly PC. But he was enthusiastic about the system he’s found himself working in because it made flying easier and, if you’re not with the programme, you’re sacked. 

Sure, it’s at best a very rough analogy, flying does not entail the same degree of regular danger as policing and the team building process is clearly really different. Still, I thought it impressive that they could mould people from very different and not at all liberal backgrounds (eg the South African military) into well functioning teams. The company spends proper money on this and applies it ruthlessly. 

The other thing is that being a pilot is the core of my friend’s identity, and I wonder if the flying is just more important to him and his colleagues than the racial, national and cultural differences. (That, and the fact he gets paid a ton of money obviously.) I’m fine with professional tribalism especially when forged in adversity. It’s the further subdivisions you describe which seem - to this outsider at least - not just anachronistic and damaging, but also detrimental to doing the job effectively. 

So the example I am thinking of which came up in a conversation with a close female friend was men rating women on a scale from 1 to 10 for attractiveness. Are men who occasionally do this necessarily at all misogynistic in their dealings with women?

No, but those who do this without being aware of the "dangers" potentially are.

Thinking of what Spartacus said, I imagine how intractable the situation in the police is will probably depend what proportion of the police go along with the behaviour pragmatically just to survive in the job and what proportion genuinely buy in to it. There might be a good majority of police just waiting for the opportunity to get behind a culture change.

The "dangers" being subconscious?

I think that’s a great point. I remember not being entirely happy with what was going on but going along with things to be accepted within the group. If needed radical change occurs many may be relived and supportive. It must be appealing to be the right side of the behaviours illustrated by the Casey report.

I think part of the solution is not to stop banter but to usurp the negative aspects of it.

I had a team that consisted of women and minorities and in the early days sexist and racist jokes would crop up. We tackled this by turning the joke against the perpetrator but did not let it turn into a vendetta against them. I wanted us to be a team and discouraged bullying. Didn't always work. I remember one particular person ranting about Muslims being the enemy, but they soon learned the boundaries not to cross. Of course it helps if those above support you.

There are quite a few campaigns aimed at peer group influencing to prevent sexual harassment, like these:

youtube.com/watch?v=yVQ78xZSCG8&

youtube.com/watch?v=qbk3iJqmjNU&

On the other hand, you don't have to scroll very far down YouTube's suggested videos list to find the likes of Ben Shapiro, with a video entitled 'How Modern Society is Emasculating Men'. No, I didn't watch it.

ps. I'm pretty sure I won't be watching Jordan Peterson, either...

Maybe easier with an example...

If you were walking down the road with a mate and an attractive woman passed by and you said to your mate "that's a 9" then that's one thing, you're basically just saying "that's a very attractive woman".

If you were doing that all the time with virtually every woman who passed by (even just to yourself), then one might wonder if the only way you could relate to women was through how physically attractive (in your opinion) they were, which is well on the road to "women as objects", etc...

So I suppose the "danger" is not realising that you're on that road. Mind you someone who does realise and still carries on is worse.

I keep on saying "you" - I don't actually mean YOU 😁

As a "leftie", it's funny for me to suggest, but perhaps there needs to be an officer class (eg graduate entry like the forces) to create greater distance between the managed and the managers.

The earliest Met scandal I can remember was the killing of Blair Peach approaching 45 years ago. I'm not sure that would look out of place in the Casey report today.

 Consider some of the police what’s app chat groups that been publicised then  yes. Look up the incidents of police photographing bodies etc in such groups and so on. 

Look up some of the couzens groups that he participated in  

All well publicised and reported  

i am amazed that these officers are so stupid to digitally record this type of so called banter  

and what us worse those groups include women ice offices and others from a diverse background  it’s not just white make officers  

perhaps you  have not followed these stories in the press 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that heterosexual men are pretty much programmed by evolution to assess women they meet as a potential mate within seconds (presumably largely subconsciously on a sort of thumbs up/down initial filter rather than a 1 to 10 basis!), so maybe we can't help it. Could have been in a great book I once read about sexual politics from an evolutionary point of view. Explained the origins of the patriarchy, behaviour of alpha males etc.

I can only think you must have fallen down a bit of an 'anti-woke' (formerly known as 'political correctness gone maaaad!') rabbit hole with this, and have a very distorted view of what kind of speech most people can be sacked for, let alone convicted of a criminal offence and ultimately sent to prison.

No kind of banter will land a person in jail (well, not in a still just about functioning democracy anyway), the kind of speech that could conceivably do that would be something very different.

As far as something that might be ok, positive in some sense, but socially unacceptable in front of others - the only example I can think of is gallows humour.  (I don't know about police officers, I'm mainly thinking of paramedics, EMTs, firefighters and the like here.)  I think for some it's a useful coping mechanism, but could clearly be very upsetting to others if they weren't a bit careful about being overheard.  Not because it's in any way discriminatory, it's just grim and a little bit twisted.

Yes, obviously in some cases which is why I said "necessarily".

Yes, astonishing.

In order to fit in for their own protection and jobs?

Fair enough. I have overstated it. Should have said frowned upon or something.

I don't think that's unique to men.

Not really, no. A bloke can theoretically propagate his genes several times a day; a woman only gets the chance once every 9 months. There is an asynchronicity in sexual relations.

(There are other factors which offset this crude characterisation, e.g. the need for a human child to need a lot of nurturing; nor of course dies it remotely justify misogynistic or anti-social behaviour. It's interesting though.)

Yes, instead of starting a thread to discuss the Casey Report  Sean launches in with having a go at everyone else for not doing that.

It's how Facebook got started. 

In my youth I would hear the expression "Ladies present!" as a warning from one man to a group of men to moderate their language and conversation if a woman were to come within earshot. Blokes who carried on regardless were considered louts. It might be natural for men to engage in ribald banter, but only a thug would carry on if he thought it might be threatening to a woman. It is not emasculating for a man to show consideration; on the contrary.

Maybe look up the cases of the officers taking photographs etc and their what’s app groups and you might come to a different conclusion. 
 

Asymmetry? Yes this is a key fact in explaining behaviour.

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley is the book I was thinking of:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Queen-Evolution-Penguin-Science/dp/0140167722

Fascinating and highly recommended!

Of course, but it is always good to understand the origins of a problem. Humans uniquely have evolved big enough brains to see the advantages in having societal conventions to override evolved behaviour.

Yes, I am aware of all that. As I said, this is why I said "necessarily". I havn't come to any conclusion and hence the question.

Quoting you highly selectively...

1) The Casey report gives numerous examples of racism, homophobia, sexism. 

2) If the solution cuts against naturalistic human behaviour makes that an uphill struggle. The Met has a massive problem.

Yes, we are all sh#te in various ways, so the solutions do go against the worse aspects of humanity.

However most of us and most organisations keep our baser instincts under control so there is that hope.

However a massive problem requires massive change. More of the same like another report in the sequence 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040... with eternal promises of internal police led reform will lead to more of the same.

Deterrence against criminality requires the risk of consequences. That risk has to be increased for police officers. That means it has to be easier to sack* bad apples and any officers who are complicit by keeping quiet.

*I don't think threshold for criminal conviction should be any different, but the threshold for sacking operates closer to beyond reasonable doubt than balance of probabilities resulting in these notorious cases where an officer is in the police far too long.  

That makes lots of sense. To summarise behaviour which is naturally appealing to us sometimes needs moderation and control. A vast raft of behaviours could be included in this. Lots to be found within the criminal Law.

I believe solutions to problems which need cultural change within organisations must generally be multi faceted. I am slightly uncomfortable to lock on to the singular idea that squaring up to groups of male white Officers being out of control will solve all of the Mets shortcomings. 
 

I remember a study on how Honda moved to the Uk and turned around the British car production famous for union lead workforce producing sh*ite cars. They turned the workforce around completely (taking about 10 years ) in its core values to being hard working, well paid and proud of their product. I hope the powers that be in the Met will be studying such cases.
 

The Casey report for instance gives evidence of Met Officers largely living outside London and being disproportionately male and white compared to the community’s they serve. (It may help to remind Officers they are servants of those communities and do so with consent for instance).
 

Is the Met worse than other Police Departments (it certainly seems to be), and why? 
 

Having retired I no longer have any insights into what solutions will be offered. I hope Scotland Yard gets it right. It will be an interesting watch.

Ahhh, the 1970s, that noted period of equality between the sexes. 

Honda closed that factory recently.......so maybe not a good story.........

I think this occurred in the early 80’s, I read a paper on it. My message being on the principal that cultural change is possible.

Crap thread title...... the pointless rhetorical question that even fails to be sarcastic because you didn't wait very long.

It's a serious topic and your personal dig/puerile post set the tone of the thread. 

Actually,  the language is,  of course, old fashioned but the sentiment is very much in line with:

youtube.com/watch?v=pC-Gs7_oBRE&