Our thanks to Ken for this. An extract:
Speaking this morning Sir Mark described the findings as ‘deeply worrying’, adding that you cannot read the report and not be ‘upset, embarrassed and humbled’. But he has provoked a row by rejecting the label that the Met was guilty of ‘institutional’ racism, misogyny and homophobia, saying it was ‘politicised and ambiguous’.
He told Sky News: ‘I absolutely accept the diagnosis that Louise Casey comes up with. We have racists, misogynists and homophobes in the organisation. And it’s not just about individuals. We have systemic failings, management failings and cultural failings.’
He said the reason he does not use the term ‘institutional’ is because he thinks it is ‘a very ambiguous’ term. ‘Everyone uses different definitions,’ he said, adding there are ‘toxic individuals’ in the Met who are in the process of being removed.
If you’d like notifications of our posts, please enter your email address in the box underneath the text, “Enter your email address…” near the top of the right-hand column.
You can make a one-off donation or take out a monthly subscription to support our work here.
Nobody working for the party draws an income from the party’s income streams. You can help Mike Buchanan meet his personal living expenses through his Patreon page, or send him some Bitcoin, his account is 1EfWxqDAtgJDCR3tVpvVj4fXSuUu4S9WJf. Thank you.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Twitter feed here, our Facebook page here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I recommend reading the report:
Click to access baroness-casey-review-march-2023.pdf
It’s a big document and I have only skimmed a few sections but what I have looked at is quite troubling in terms of the methodology and how thin the evidence is for the damning conclusions being so publicly drawn. Its important to read the report itself as a corrective to what is reported of its conclusions in teh media.
Most of the conclusions regarding the institutionally, racist mysogynistic, homophobic nature of the Met was drawn from an online survey shared through online forums less than 7000 responses were received less than a seventh of the workforce. The problem with this that those responding are a self selecting group likely to be those who are most disgruntled or who have the strongest feelings and nothing is mentioned about any process to ensure that individuals do not make multiple entries or even that it comes from people who actually work for the Met .
When for example the report states that ‘One in three (31%) (Met offices and Staff) disagree that everyone is treated fairly regardless of gender’ This is actually respondents to the survey. Put another less than 4% of the Met Staff disagreed that everyone is treated fairly.
The survey results are almost completely useless but almost certainly massively overstate all problems due to selection bias and lack of validation of identity.
When the Met attempts to defend itself by saying that criticisms of staff on the report are only relevant to a small minority and are lambasted in the media for doing so the nature of these statistics should be borne in mind. I was amazed how relatively low some of the negative percentages were given the way the survey was performed. Only 25% disgreed that everyone was treated fairly regardless of their race or ethnicity for example. This could mean that in the staff as a whole such a view is a very small minority of approximately 3%.
On discrimination in general the report seemed to rely almost entirely on anecdote and the survey accepting uncritically what had been reported. AN interview of randomly selected personnel would have given numners which were much more reliable. The problem with teh essentially anecdotal reports is thatthey don’t appear to have been checked for corroboration and in an organisation with nearly 50,000 employees there are going to be exampese of unacceptable behaviour. Casey’s report makes no attempt to validate quantify or compare the level of reported issues against other organization as a result the anecdotes are just that and not useful evidence at all.
Its often not clear taht even if the anecdote is accepted as accurate that it would support the conclusions drawn from it as an example:
“When your face doesn’t fit, a line manager will use every possible tactic to
get rid of you. So your work life becomes a constant battle to keep your job
(frequently to higher standards than able-bodied staff) whilst discrimination
and processes are used against you.”
IS it just someone who is disgruntled because their managers assessment of performance is different from their own? Is it a manager who favors cronies or is it actually a manager who genuinely discriminates against the disabled?
another example:
““Women are made to feel guilty for working compressed hours…it makes you
ashamed and called out.””
Or perhaps those who do not work such hours resent everyone who works such hours? male or female? And is such resentment justified?
The section on misogyny is similar but something that specifically caught my eye was that there was input to the report that defended dark humour as a means of coping with stress but the report treated this as evidence of a denial culture and a refusal to accept the reality of misogyny.
There is however research literature on the use of humour as a means of coping with stress and trauma. In general it identifies humour and particularly dark humour as beneficial in coping with stress and/or as a marker of high stress that should be treated as an indicator that staff may need support. That the report ignores this evidence and instead paints such behaviour by (male) police officers as being unacceptable and evidence of a misogynistic culture is perhaps evidence that the author isn’t interested in the welfare of those officers, or in the reality of the situation but in reinforcing a predetermined conclusion.
In an organization as large as the Met, that has been operating with reduced resources, which deals with intensly stressful situations with intrinsic conflict. it er wer enot many areas that could be improved and many shortcomings. Whereas the report seems to contain plenty of evidence of individual incidents which are clearly very poor the conclusion of the report of an institutionally racist, homophobic, misogynistic organisation seemed unsupported by the evidence within it. In fact I don’t think the gathering of the evidence required to reach such a conclusion was even attempted.. Condemning an entire organisation in this way seems likely to be counter productive in seeking to address any genuine issues identified but rather guaranteed to create a defensive us versus them mindset and a distrust of the motives of the reports authors.
Its depressing and the reporting of it even more so.
LikeLike
Of course the media link to the notorious recent convictions. And there does seem to be something wrong with the Diplomatic protection squad. However on the assumption the click bait media have selected the worse examples in fact what you get are a load of hazing and black humour. And I really can’t believe having your evidence fridge breakdown is “misogyny” rather poor maintenance. Perhaps because its now a “service” the indiscipline is unsurprising. I just happened upon a programme on one of those minor channels, in which will follow a “black, gay ,queer man” who earns a living being “Beyonce” as I turned on he was marching down a street as Beyonce wearing so little had he been obviously a man he’d have been arrested. It turns out our “hero” was a policeman recruited no doubt, as he himself observed,as he ticks a lot of diversity boxes all in one. I mused on the recruitment process that contrived to recruit so obviously unsuitable candidate. Not just the “drag” but the attitudes. I happen to know a number of past recruits including a lesbian. They and the cohorts I knew were very similar in being serious if not to say a little dour. I was left musing if the push to diversity had had a big part in the indiscipline the capital’s police force appears to be plagued with.
LikeLike
I was concerned that the methods used Louise Casey’s report in the Met resulted in a distorted inaccurate picture. Perhaps unsurprisingly this was exactly the same criticism as the last major report she was responsible for.
There are troubling aspects of the report…the process by which it was prepared, in particular the lack of rigor [sic] and transparency in the methods used to gather and analyse data…This gap [in methodology] …should concern us as it goes to the heart of issues of accuracy.”
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/03/20/louise-casey-report-cse-represents-missed-opportunity-children
Exactly the criticisms I would make about her report into the Met and perhaps this was why she was selected based on her track record of delivering a damning report without any danger of a real investigation.
LikeLike