By Gabriel Princewill-
Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley (pictured) has refused to accept the term “institutional”, claiming that the word had become politicised and is ambiguous.
Sir Mark told BBC Today programme earlier in the week, that he accepted the diagnosis of racism, misogyny and homophobia in the Met – but he refused to use the term institutional. He said the the term means different things to different people, and is “quite ambiguous”.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Accepting a term like institutional racism as accurately describing his thousands of law enforcement staff comprising his force is not something any police chief in the Uk wants to do.
It is professional suicide from Rowley’s perspective, who has to hold on to some thread of hope that racism is not as widespread in the force as Baroness Casey’s report found. The reality is that it is nothing short of denial. There is also the real possibility of a lack of consensus in the force as to exactly what the expression ‘institutional’ connotes in the entirety of its implication with regards this thorny subject.
Baroness Casey’s pronouncement of institutional racism in the force, a few decades after the Mcpherson report arrived at the same conclusion was a damning indictment on a force that has been reeling from the awful bad publicity of a catalogue of despicable offences from its unscrupulous officers, month after month. It highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of both the internal and external policies governing the ailing metropolitan force.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Disputing the charge has always been the routine process of a guilty defendant when consequences begin to stare them in the face, but this charge was too heavy that the police commissioner surely needed more time to examine it in detail.
The above analogy of a defendant does not ofcourse pertain to Mr Rawley himself as an individual, but rather, in terms of his role as one who presides over the collective institution whose conduct is brought into question under intense scrutiny.
Police chief’s still have to face their colleagues in social settings and justify any public concessions on such a serious issue which can be consequential. Rawley’ play on semantics is the inevitable preferred option in matters of this levity, to avoid the explicit tarnishing of a whole force from the leader of the force.
And while the police boss cannot deny the multiple instances of racism by officers which has been rampant in the British press in the past year, he is allowed not to concur with the label given to the force by Baroness Casey. But the finding is patently true.
Rowley’s claim that institutional is ambiguous is a question of fact and understanding. The concept of institutional is is quite clear in its meaning, but not necessarily in how it is perceived.
Institutional simply means relating to organized establishments, foundations, societies, or the like. In other words, a predominant characteristic endemic in an organisation. It doesn’t mean one in every two officers is racist; it simply means racism, misogyny, and homophobia, in both its overt and overt forms, has been allowed to prevail in the force with very limited opposition from within.
Granted, there are more police officers who are not racist or homophobic at all than there are racist officers, but the notion of institutional racism or homophobia goes beyond that.
It necessarily describes a general attitude across a police force where racism and homophobia is relatively widespread in attitudes and perceptions, including the proclivity to have a sense of superiority over others, purely on the shallow basis of race. It extends to actions and omissions of officers when dealing with incidence where racism arises.
An institution where the violation of equal and fair treatment of all goes unchecked, and several officers are prepared to turn a blind eye, rather than effectively address it. One where silence and inaction becomes tantamount to complicity.
Hierachichal Structure Of Power
One area which can be problematic for potential whistleblowers is the hierachichal structure of power in the force, where lower ranked officers may feel afraid to speak out against wrong practise. This, coupled with the sometimes challenging inclination to show allegiance to their colleagues in the force, can easily perpetuates discriminatory practices that become institutional once it spreads.
Upright and honourable people in the force are most certainly present in many numbers, but their collective integrity has been invariably been corrupted by individuals who have no business working in a law enforcement setting,
The report, which found the Met Police was institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic, was commissioned following the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by serving police officer Wayne Couzens, in 2021.
Baroness Casey concluded the force was failing women and children, was unable to police itself and that public confidence had been shattered.
However, the latest announcement by the Metropolitan Police, that it is looking to invest in new “psychological tools” to help weed out recruits joining the force with “malign motives”, is a step in the right direction.
Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said the force was “tightening up” its vetting processes for new officers as part of its reform efforts, after the damning report from Baroness Casey which branded it “institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic”.
However, he wasn’t explicit on what those vetting processes are, but said he would update the press in a few days. We all wait with baited breath. He said research was being undertaken in that direction.
This publication has in writing told Sir Rowley and his many police chiefs in the country some of the imperative steps that must be taken to eradicate racist, homophobic and misogynistic officers from the force. Firstly, he must prohibit all recruits with any criminal history with the force. A police force that recruits criminal, is itself inherently criminal in doing so. This is intuitively self evident.
It describes a system that impliedly endorses having people with potentially criminal tendencies in their midst. If this conclusion is false, police chiefs ought to rationalise the logic behind this embarrassing practise.
Another is the implementation of a polygraph test for all police recruits, as recently suggested by prominent criminologist, researcher and former cop, John Cox. This system is already in place in some parts of the world, and would be instrumental in determining where further inquiries might be necessary. It sounds a good idea, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be explored.
Last week, Baroness Casey said the report found a “boys club” culture was rife and the force could be dismantled if it does not improve.
Only stringent and uncompromising rules governing the recruitment process, whistleblowing, and decisive action against transgressors can solve the problem of racism, misogyny and homophobia in the force.
That aforementioned process in conjunction with a sophisticated level of training is the only way to come anywhere near resolving a problem that is probably decades old, but has been suppressed for too long in the name of loyalty through unethical cover-ups that perpetuate these contemptuous practices in the police force.
If those at the helm of power in the police force are serious about rooting out the ills in their midst, it will be eradicated in a matter of time.
Cleaning up the police force is not an insurmountable task. It is a question of determination, strategy, and implementation of necessary rules and procedures.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar