The MET are at it again. Part 46


"Do not go to school. Several teenage girls have been given internal searches at school on suspicion of possessing drugs. Simply never attend school, and to further minimise the risk, don’t be black."

:lol::lol:
 
Legally he has paid for his legal cover so why should that stop?

Morally what purpose does it serve for a staff organisation to make a comment? What difference does it make?
My original point is that the Police Federation have been quiet on this.
Do they ever condemn their members' wrongdoing?
Why are you equating ASLEF with the Police Federation?
Does ASLEF claim to serve and protect?
?????
 
My original point is that the Police Federation have been quiet on this.
Do they ever condemn their members' wrongdoing?
Why are you equating ASLEF with the Police Federation?
Does ASLEF claim to serve and protect?
?????
What should they do exactly? Say he is a monster?

I am comparing the Police Federation (whilst not being a union) to a union to see if you would expect the a response in light of a guilty verdict in court. Swap ASLEF for BMA or Unison if you like but the point remains. Should they be condemning their members wrongdoing?
 
What should they do exactly? Say he is a monster?

I am comparing the Police Federation (whilst not being a union) to a union to see if you would expect the a response in light of a guilty verdict in court. Swap ASLEF for BMA or Unison if you like but the point remains. Should they be condemning their members wrongdoing?
In the case of the BMA and doctors' wrongdoing I'd expect them to condemn that and I'm sure they do.
If they had a rapist in their ranks they would likely say he was naughty.
 
In the case of the BMA and doctors' wrongdoing I'd expect them to condemn that and I'm sure they do.
If they had a rapist in their ranks they would likely say he was naughty.
Well I am sure you feel better if they do but in reality it makes absolutely zero difference
 
They are beyond belief.


One says she was preyed on by the officer investigating her rape case, another claims her alleged rapist ex-partner worked in professional standards - the department that would investigate predatory police officers.
 
My original point is that the Police Federation have been quiet on this.
Do they ever condemn their members' wrongdoing?
Why are you equating ASLEF with the Police Federation?
Does ASLEF claim to serve and protect?
?????
From the chair of the Fed.

“we are absolutely disgusted by what has happened”, adding that the organisation would be “pushing for the changes that are needed to try and get back the confidence that is so definitely needed” from the public.
 
From the chair of the Fed.

we are absolutely disgusted by what has happened”, adding that the organisation would be “pushing for the changes that are needed to try and get back the confidence that is so definitely needed” from the public.
And so they should be as:

Our core purpose was amended in May 2014 for the first time since the Federation was set up in 1919, following a recommendation in our Independent Review for it to reflect our commitment to act in the public interest, with public accountability, alongside our accountability to our members.

In fulfilling our statutory responsibilities for the welfare and efficiency of our members we will, at all levels:

  • ensure that our members are fully informed and that there is the highest degree of transparency in decision-making and the use of resources.
  • maintain exemplary standards of conduct, integrity and professionalism.
  • act in the interests of our members and the public, seeking to build public confidence in the police service and accepting public accountability for our use of public money.
  • work together within the Federation and in partnership with others in the policing world to achieve our goals.
 
Last edited:
From the chair of the Fed.

“we are absolutely disgusted by what has happened”, adding that the organisation would be “pushing for the changes that are needed to try and get back the confidence that is so definitely needed” from the public.
Thank god for that. Imagine if they hadn't said anything. There would be posters unable to sleep, rocking back and forth. Now they can sleep easy 😂
 
And so they should be as:

Our core purpose was amended in May 2014 for the first time since the Federation was set up in 1919, following a recommendation in our Independent Review for it to reflect our commitment to act in the public interest, with public accountability, alongside our accountability to our members.

In fulfilling our statutory responsibilities for the welfare and efficiency of our members we will, at all levels:

  • ensure that our members are fully informed and that there is the highest degree of transparency in decision-making and the use of resources.
  • maintain exemplary standards of conduct, integrity and professionalism.
  • act in the interests of our members and the public, seeking to build public confidence in the police service and accepting public accountability for our use of public money.
  • work together within the Federation and in partnership with others in the policing world to achieve our goals.
I was just answering your question.

Apologies, thought you were who I replied to 🤦‍♂️
 
Nobody is in charge of or responsible for another's libido. though in a police employment contract there could be a "no wanking on duty" clause.

They are responsible if (as wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility) his superiors knew he'd been caught wanking in public several times before and instead of firing him they promoted him to head investigator of sexual offences)
 
Our average home attendance is 30,000. If I was to claim all of those people of being far-right Tommy Robinson supporters because we have a few lads who boo players taken the knee I'd be laughed at.

It say all 43,000 police are guilty of something is absolutely stupid. I worked with police officers. Some were complete smug arseholes. Some were the nicest people you could meet.
He told me he'd seen videos of Thatcher and Saville abusing children so prone to exaggeration maybe.
They are responsible if (as wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility) his superiors knew he'd been caught wanking in public several times before and instead of firing him they promoted him to head investigator of sexual offences)
Rightly educated, thank you :D
 
Last edited:

Back
Top