Current Affairs Met Police

[Rita_Poon]

This'll be interesting, an admission where the met wouldn't wear the institutionally part the Scots have. In both cases lets see how day to day business changes.
Or not.

Police Scotland chief says force is institutionally racist

A review recently uncovered first-hand accounts of racism and misogyny by serving officers.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Rita_Poon]

Shame that...

PC who investigated Wayne Couzens for indecent exposure gets hundreds of hate messages

Ex-officer barred for misconduct says she been made a "scapegoat" for failings over Sarah Everard's murder.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Del-boy]

Couldn't be arsed!

Wayne Couzens: Met PC missed chance to investigate, hearing told

She is accused of failing to investigate Wayne Couzens properly over two instances of flashing.

www.bbc.co.uk

Nah she was hung out to dry. Wouldn’t have made any difference.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Nah she was hung out to dry. Wouldn’t have made any difference.

A symptom of not applying the law to those that supposedly enforce it. couzens ought to have been busted out of the cops years before.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Nothing to see here...

Met police to stop attending emergency mental health calls

Exclusive: move will come into force on 31 August and will only be waived if a threat to life is feared

www.theguardian.com

 

[tsubaki]

Nothing to see here...

Met police to stop attending emergency mental health calls

Exclusive: move will come into force on 31 August and will only be waived if a threat to life is feared

www.theguardian.com

That article (and a similar one in the BBC) really demonstrate the complete collapse in standards of journalism. They've been leaked the letter and yet they seem to not have actually read it, or understood what has been happening on Humberside (who tested this process), or even asked why on earth the police are providing a significant part of the mental health coverage across the country (despite being almost completely untrained to do it, and when everyone involved agrees they are not the people who should be doing it).

 

[Rita_Poon]

That article (and a similar one in the BBC) really demonstrate the complete collapse in standards of journalism. They've been leaked the letter and yet they seem to not have actually read it, or understood what has been happening on Humberside (who tested this process), or even asked why on earth the police are providing a significant part of the mental health coverage across the country (despite being almost completely untrained to do it, and when everyone involved agrees they are not the people who should be doing it).

Won't be turning up unless there is a threat to life. Who makes that decision? How heavy handed are they turning up when that decision has been made?
It's a matter of accountability. Again.

 

[tsubaki]

Won't be turning up unless there is a threat to life. Who makes that decision? How heavy handed are they turning up when that decision has been made?
It's a matter of accountability. Again.

That is exactly the point though - for the calls that this policy relates to (and its all health / concern for safety calls, not just mental health) cops have very little actual power to do anything, often little or no training to do it and are not paid to do it anyway.

If someone is in mental health crisis outside where they pose a threat to themselves or others they have a legal power to do something (s136 of the Mental Health Act), and if they think someone is inside an address and needs urgent help they can force entry to save them (under s17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) but there is pretty much no legal framework to support them doing much beyond that. What this policy purports to do is to stop police attending calls where Parliament has not given them any authority to do anything.

Nearly everyone involved in the debate (here and in the US) agrees that cops should not be the first point of contact for people in mental health crisis, specifically because of what can happen when they try to deal with people in crisis. Yet somehow we have managed to get into a position where stopping them from doing what they should never have been doing in the first place is going to do damage to mental health provision in the NHS?

 

[Rita_Poon]

That is exactly the point though - for the calls that this policy relates to (and its all health / concern for safety calls, not just mental health) cops have very little actual power to do anything, often little or no training to do it and are not paid to do it anyway.

If someone is in mental health crisis outside where they pose a threat to themselves or others they have a legal power to do something (s136 of the Mental Health Act), and if they think someone is inside an address and needs urgent help they can force entry to save them (under s17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) but there is pretty much no legal framework to support them doing much beyond that. What this policy purports to do is to stop police attending calls where Parliament has not given them any authority to do anything.

Nearly everyone involved in the debate (here and in the US) agrees that cops should not be the first point of contact for people in mental health crisis, specifically because of what can happen when they try to deal with people in crisis. Yet somehow we have managed to get into a position where stopping them from doing what they should never have been doing in the first place is going to do damage to mental health provision in the NHS?

So we agree there needs to be some middle ground, like a flying squad but for mental health care alongside some form of medical professional and care/social worker type input also. Where law, health and social care can be taken into consideration at the same time, dedicated teams if you will.
It's almost as if the age of austerity has come full circle and the pigeons have come home to roost, now there is only addressing the issues, or turning a blind eye and the alright jacks win again.
What I find odd is the matter of fact, line in the sand August 31st deadline so to speak. Constructive and caring that. Hearts and minds won.

 

[tsubaki]

So we agree there needs to be some middle ground, like a flying squad but for mental health care alongside some form of medical professional and care/social worker type input also. Where law, health and social care can be taken into consideration at the same time, dedicated teams if you will.
It's almost as if the age of austerity has come full circle and the pigeons have come home to roost, now there is only addressing the issues, or turning a blind eye and the alright jacks win again.
What I find odd is the matter of fact, line in the sand August 31st deadline so to speak. Constructive and caring that. Hearts and minds won.

No, I am saying that without any further legislative changes or funding this sort of thing should remain with the agencies whose job it is.

You are right that austerity had a big role to play in this, mind.

 

[Rita_Poon]

No, I am saying that without any further legislative changes or funding this sort of thing should remain with the agencies whose job it is.

You are right that austerity had a big role to play in this, mind.

And

Agreed legislative changes, or rather updates are required, damn they're late to this party aren't they. The agencies 'whose job it is' are hugely underfunded, stretched, understaffed, and undervalued. Sounds rather familiar.
I maintain that there is a significant concern regards who's making the life threatening call at police hq, is it the 999 agent? duty sergeant? nearest possible psychic? what weaponry is going to be ok'd for such events? tazers? shotguns? blowdarts? What I see is an opportunity like what they've done harassing 11 year olds in schools, is the chance to go and stick the boot in under the protection of the uniform. That's the accountability I want to see, but won't hold my breath.

 

[tsubaki]

And

Agreed legislative changes, or rather updates are required, damn they're late to this party aren't they. The agencies 'whose job it is' are hugely underfunded, stretched, understaffed, and undervalued. Sounds rather familiar.
I maintain that there is a significant concern regards who's making the life threatening call at police hq, is it the 999 agent? duty sergeant? nearest possible psychic? what weaponry is going to be ok'd for such events? tazers? shotguns? blowdarts? What I see is an opportunity like what they've done harassing 11 year olds in schools, is the chance to go and stick the boot in under the protection of the uniform. That's the accountability I want to see, but won't hold my breath.

I think you've completely misunderstood this - this is about police attending far fewer of these calls, not more.

Police are only going to attend when there is a serious risk of harm to the person in crisis or other people. The rest of the time it is going to be down to the people who are actually trained, paid and whose clear responsibility it is to deal with people in crisis.

That should mean that in the rare occasions when police have to attend, they do it in line with what they are trained and allowed to do legally. In terms of who makes the decision to attend or not, I think that is going to be the 999 call-taker in combination with a supervisor or some kind.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I think you've completely misunderstood this - this is about police attending far fewer of these calls, not more.

Police are only going to attend when there is a serious risk of harm to the person in crisis or other people. The rest of the time it is going to be down to the people who are actually trained, paid and whose clear responsibility it is to deal with people in crisis.

That should mean that in the rare occasions when police have to attend, they do it in line with what they are trained and allowed to do legally. In terms of who makes the decision to attend or not, I think that is going to be the 999 call-taker in combination with a supervisor or some kind.

I very much hope I have.

When whoever* turns up, and the situation whatever it is escalates as is often the case in crisis, then what, another call to the police? "Excuse me sir/madam, would you kindly hold whilst the law of the land turns up as now this issue has been deemed potentially dangerous."

999, he has a samurai sword...

Police Taser blind man mistaking his white stick for a samurai sword

The IPPC is investigating an incident in Chorley, where an innocent person was struck by a 50,000-volt stun gun

www.theguardian.com

 

[Del-boy]

I very much hope I have.

When whoever* turns up, and the situation whatever it is escalates as is often the case in crisis, then what, another call to the police? "Excuse me sir/madam, would you kindly hold whilst the law of the land turns up as now this issue has been deemed potentially dangerous."

999, he has a samurai sword...

Police Taser blind man mistaking his white stick for a samurai sword

The IPPC is investigating an incident in Chorley, where an innocent person was struck by a 50,000-volt stun gun

www.theguardian.com

I wouldn’t worry. Nothing will change. If someone is suicidal in their home, the Nhs just say they have access to knives (like every other person) and they won’t go without the police.

They know what words to say to get the police there. I don’t see how it will ever change.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I wouldn’t worry. Nothing will change. If someone is suicidal in their home, the Nhs just say they have access to knives (like every other person) and they won’t go without the police.

They know what words to say to get the police there. I don’t see how it will ever change.

shoe laces
chewing gum
car keys (no car)

always the same. I don't know how I didn't convey that in full initially.