Thats why this case is already over and its just a matter of the punishment to be decided.... If the Officers can dig up enough dirt of their own, then they're will be allowed to continue after they've grovelled a suitable amount, but their careers are finished anyway... If they're can't find any dirt, then there toast, because in the present climate senior officers give the strong impression of enjoying the 'make an example of them', way of thinking today.My posts have talked around the issue generally. I haven't set out to comment on the specific case but to add, I hope, food for thought.
Regarding your second paragraph: you've just described BLM as well as the individual. If you're not on-message you're wrong - that's Wrong. Don't take the knee? You're Wrong. Don't add '#BLM' to everything you post? You're wrong.
@dogmeat nails it: guilty of WrongThink, no matter what other laudable qualities you may have.
So what?The article doesn't mention the amount of time spent on banter, so I'd suggest you're extrapolating quite a lot from little information.
I'm sure I have allowed my personal standards to slip as described, but then it's not my profession to enforce the law in an unbiased (as much as anyone possibly can be) manner.I'd also ask if all the posters here who feel the officers are bang to rights for using terms like 'Pikey' can honestly say they have kept those standards themselves? Going through some of the threads on here would indicate that there may be a few in glass houses.
How do you know that?Just remember that at least one person has earned a huge leap up the career ladder off of this. Very likely with a transfer to a much wanted job in another department, and career-long protected status with any allegations of inefficiency or unprofessionalism easily written of as ‘revenge’ for their involvement in the sacking of their workmates.
Coming to a station near you (Before then going off sick for months at a time with stress and then suing for discrimination)
Seems to me these coppers should have had these conversations privately,
Do you believe the British Army, in Afghanistan will be able to provide an aid to a local who has been hurt by a landmine, or other such device, when half of the soldiers refer to the locals in a derogatory way? I think there's a difference in what is said in a break room/private group chat, and what is said in a professional environment. Being edgy in private is very different to being professional in public.Yes, that may be so, but you are comparing apples with a bench drill. And that's not the Police Force. Are you happy to have (let's say) a rape, a homophobic or racially-inspired attack on a relative investigated by police officers who do little to disguise their grossly misogynist, homophobic or racist behaviour? Do you think they would apply their full diligence to investigating an attack on a 'gay Paki' for example?
These Plods are clearly not a great bunch of lads. But what isn't some senior officer dealing with this properly (in person bollockings, breaking up toxic teams, normal procedures) as opposed to bugging his own officers? Poor leadership - presumably someone gunning for a top job who wants to display "commitment to diversity" etc.A bug was placed in the office of the Hampshire police's serious crime squad and six officers have been charged with breaching professional standards for comments that in a previous day might have been dismissed as "off colour".
What surprises me is that if one were to read the threads relating to policing on this site one would be led to believe that such comments went out with the dinosaurs and that UK police services are now thoroughly taken over by knee-taking, woke, rainbow-wearing, social justice warriors. It would appear not, the spirit of Gene Hunt lives on.
I do appreciate this is the CA thread and therefore of a more serious nature but seriously, read the comments and then try and work out what their ARRSE names are.
Opening the case against them, Jason Beer QC said: “It was a unit that was racist – a black officer is described as a ‘pavement special’, ie a mixed-breed dog. People are described as ‘pikeys’; a black officer is accused of behaving like a colonial overseer running a plantation of white people. When speaking to a black officer, a colleague puts on a fake Caribbean accent – in fact he was from Ghana. A detail like that doesn’t matter, he was a black man after all.
“A black officer is accused of being flown to England from Africa in a crate and taken to London zoo; all the time a song is sung in the background to the tune of Buffalo Soldier.”
Beer added that “offensive” photos of black men were shared on a WhatsApp group in reference to the only black officer in the unit.
Beer also said the unit displayed sexism: “Women were called or referred to as ‘whores’, ‘sluts’, ‘sweet tits’ or ‘sugar tits’, ‘Dorises’, ‘a ******* Doris’ … A suspect is called a ‘******* ****’. And the officers ponder amongst themselves if a person using the tannoy system is ‘getting any cock’.”
Beer said the covert recording device caught derogatory terms being used for disabled, gay and transgender people, and suggestions that Albanian nationals “should be shot or even killed with a nerve agent”.
It was also said that “illegal immigrants deserve the death penalty”, Beer told the hearing. “The officers joked about immigrants having a ‘long swim’ and drowning in the sea.”
Edited to add link.
Or perhaps someone who feels that this needs stamping on, hard, in order to send a very clear message to the entire force. The cops absolutely need to be held to higher standards of behaviour and probity and I haven't got much of a problem with this. They knew the score, as detectives they should have been paranoid enough to assume the authorities might have them under surveillance - and, incidentally, there's no reason in the world not to implement surveillance on all parts of a police station, they remain accountable even when kicking back in their office.These Plods are clearly not a great bunch of lads. But what isn't some senior officer dealing with this properly (in person bollockings, breaking up toxic teams, normal procedures) as opposed to bugging his own officers? Poor leadership - presumably someone gunning for a top job who wants to display "commitment to diversity" etc.
The evidence against them was apparently from covert surveillance and examination of their private communication means.
I suppose its down to the individual as to which side of this story is the most disturbing.