Any organisation of any considerable size, which recruits from the general population, such as a police force for example, will always contain a few wrong ‘uns because society itself has within it those who are of ill intent or who are violent or who are depraved. The job of the police force, which will naturally attract those who are attracted to the ability and licence to use force, is to weed out, either at recruitment or as quickly as possible after they are employed, those who are thuggish, violent or who show signs of depravity in their actions or words. In other words the police need to make sure that they do not employ those who are ill-suited by temperament or attitude to police work or who present a danger to the public.
In the case of PC David Carrick, 48, who has pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court in London to 49 charges including 24 rapes, one of domestic abuse and a string of sexual assault ones, the Metropolitan Police clearly and spectacularly failed to stop this beast in uniform despite numerous complaints about his behaviour. The Met also failed to properly vet Carrick at the proper time and at one point cleared him to act as a Firearms Officer in the unit that protects Parliament, the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Command.
There were years of complaints and allegations made against Carrick but the Met did virtually nothing at all. For seventeen years Carrick was able to bully, assault and rape women he’d either met on dating sites or who he’d met in social situations. In the case of the women that he’s met socially it has been reported that Carrick used his police warrant card and his armed police status to gain the trust of the women he later raped, controlled or abused.
The Met failed to follow up complaints made against Carrick made both to Met directly and those made to other forces by Carrick’s victims. They tolerated a man known as ‘Bastard Dave’ to his colleagues, with the Met being aware of nine incidents of rape and domestic violence relating to Carrick prior to the one that resulted in his arrest and did nothing about him, until they had to when he was charged. The Met appears to have grossly failed to take on board a significant amount of intelligence about Carrick and whilst this beast was raping and abusing his way around women of the South of England, the Met gave him a gun and tasked him with protecting Britain’s political leaders.
The growing list of complaints about Carrick, some of which occurred whilst he was a Probationer Police Constable, should have seen this beast kicked out of the police force much much earlier than he has been. The Met either didn’t handle the intelligence about Carrick properly or effectively or turned a blind eye to him and the allegations against him. Whether this blind eye turning was due to incompetence or malice I suppose time and the results of any inquiry that is surely to be opened into this case will tell. However what is clear is that enough officers must have realised that Carrick was a wrong’un but did bugger all with their suspicions or any information that they may have had on this beast in uniform.
When the Wayne Cousins case, which concerned another police beast who murdered and raped a woman, broke, the Met wrung its hands and apologised. Now they are making the same sort of hand-wringing apologies over the Met’s failure to stop Carrick offending or at the very least get this beast out of uniform.
Sky News said:
Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said the force had “failed” and Carrick “should not have been a police officer”.
The force has apologised after it emerged Carrick came to the attention of officers over nine previous incidents, including claims of rape and domestic violence – but faced no criminal sanctions or misconduct findings over those allegations.
Sir Mark’s use of the word ‘failed’ is somewhat of an understatement. The Met have done worse than fail. For nearly a decade and three quarters the Met didn’t do anything about a man who should never have been allowed to wear police uniform. In fact they let him carry on being a beast by failing to deal with Carrick by either criminal charges or via internal tribunal where the standard of proof might be lower than in the criminal justice system. Carrick could have been removed. There were plenty of opportunities it seems for the Met to realise that they had a bad officer on their hands but did nothing until there was no other alternative to act.
There are it is said hundreds of other officers who are suspected of domestic violence or who have been judged to be unsuitable to work with the public who are on restricted duties due to complaints or allegations made against them. With this number of suspected wrong ‘uns in uniform in the Met it might not be a case of if there’s a next Carrick or a next Cousens, but when. Too many people who should not, due to personality issues or a potentiality for criminality, have been recruited into the police and not much it seems has been done to either properly sanction them or remove them.
The police, someone, I forget who at this moment, once said, should ideally have less criminals in it than the society it is tasked with policing. Judging by what is happening in the Met, it really doesn’t seem like a force that is living up to that standard of honesty or professional conduct. There appears to be an awful lot of criminals in the Met and criminals about whom very little has been done to call them to account.
The Met is a mess and I suspect that the upcoming probes into what is going in the Met could reveal that this mess is much worse than many of us might have imagined.
Unbelievable. Words fail me. What does one do, chuck ’em all out & start again? Hardly. Maybe this is the price society pays for wanting tough macho men to sort out criminals?
It was always like this. The 1847 Town Police Clauses Act which prohibits the flying of kites in the street (well until 2015 it did) also allowed a constable to drag ANY young woman off the street, take her to the Police Station where the sergeant could sexually assault her with his fingers. Any protest and it was off to the “closed ward” with her at the local infirmary.
I suspect this has been going on for decades, but he got caught.
The Met has gone through a number of cycles where corruption raises its head, is sorted out by a new broom such as Sir Robert Mark but comes back when complacency returns.
The fact that there are hundreds of officers who are suspected or credibly accused of domestic violence but who are not sacked and instead put on restricted duties does suggest that there’s a long standing problem with the Met and its staff. I certainly think there’s going to be more coming out about this case and also about other similar cases.
Sometimes policing needs the tough and macho approach but the problem for all police forces is how to recruit those who are of this calibre but who also have a significant degree of control over their aggression.
More women police officers. They are more than capable of handling themselves in most situations. A baton’s a baton, a taser’s a taser, which ever gender is wielding it.
Until the much bigger and stronger man takes it away from you…
Man v Taser wielding copper = taser wins every time
Yes Julia, they knew. He was put on desk duties. One huge pathetic “let’s hope it just goes away” It’s well covered in today’s on-line Guardian. The whole sordid truth of “Bastard Dave”.
I agree with you that the Met must have either known explicitly about Bastard Dave or may have suspected his involvement in crime but the Met did little or nothing to stop him or apprehend him. As regards Taser effectiveness, it’s not always 100%. The New Haven Register, a Hearst group paper,has said that there’s a claimed 40% failure rate for them. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Tasers-fail-more-often-than-they-work-with-fatal-15002785.php
In truth you can have a failure with any weapon. Pistols miss fire, batons don’t hit the right spot. There isn’t a cure-all for any of this.
Just imagine when we start to see men masquerading as women so that they can be women police officers, interview rape victims, get the keys to the women’s locker room.
Ed P Thank you. understood.
Ed P Thank you. Understood
You make a reasonable point there. Whilst a weapon is an equaliser for a woman in a violent conflict situation there is, because of body strength and size, a greater chance that a woman officer could have their weapon taken and used against them. This is more of a danger in places like the UK where the police are, or rather should be trained, to draw weapons as a last resort. In Rhode Island in the USA there have been half a dozen cases of officers, both male and female, having their weapons stolen and used against them. The weapon, any weapon, might assist the police officer but these weapons could also be used against the officer in extreme situations. See https://www.police1.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/cases-of-officers-killed-by-their-own-guns-likely-will-not-change-ri-policies-ttKToBfN75qRWe0A/
At the time of the Couzins affair, they MUST have known this one would surface.
they knew. the records prove it
If I recall correctly this beast was arrested shortly after the trial of Couzens. There are as I heard on radio report a short while ago 800 met officers who are suspected of DV and other nasties who are kept on restricted duties which if true suggests that there is a bit of a problem in the Met with unsuitable individuals being recruited as police officers. Police forces should not have 800 officers doing desk jobs because they cannot safely be let out in public or who are otherwise dodgy.
Shades of the Catholic church covering up pedo priests, any long-lived organisation eventually become controlled by those more interested in preserving the structure (and their own privileges) than the goals it was originally set up to achieve. This means protecting its reputation becomes all important and hushing up damaging revelations becomes the norm.
As for of the future of the Met, I’d suggest putting all the Specialist Operations (royal protection, counter terrorism, etc) under the national crime agency, and breaking up the rest into separate forces for each of London’s 32 boroughs.
Not just the Roman Catholic Church. The conservative evangelical wing of the Anglican Church has a few too. Fletcher, John Smyth QC to mention but two. Bicester Orchard Baptist Church. I’m afraid these institutions don’t just protect them but unwittingly they attract them too.
Yes definitely there are shades of similar cover ups in order to head off reputational damage. I agree with you that the specialist operations probably need to be hived off to NCA but I disagree with having a force for each borough. Borough’s might be too small to be viable policing areas as London boroughs vary in size. There’s also the problem of borough based forces or sub forces becoming too close for comfort with local politicians and political interests thereby increasing the risk of corruption. Personally I’d want there never to be a situation where the London Borough of Newham for example had unfettered influence over warranted police officers. A better approach might be to resurrect the Division or District as a basis for a reformed Met. Covering two or more boroughs this set up would have economies of scale and officers would be less likely to end up in a old pals act with local politicians, hopefully. Grouped divisions might also achieve the economies of scale needed to run an effective police force.
J le G – they attract them because their prey have some fairly-inexplicable desires to experience the frisson of closest to danger. Now which films (movies) promote that sort of excitement tinged with safety? (Clue: it’s Disney) But that’s the way they install the lie: believe the film and you are desensitized to the real danger. Just like scout masters with little boys clamoring to be close to them, there are quite obvious indications of dangers, which are ignored by those who have abrogated their responsibilities, because, “I’m sure it’ll be OK, he can’t be that bad” (We’ll have the house to ourselves for nearly a week!)
Sorry Ed P, I did not understand a single word of your reply.
J le G – I was trying, obviously not clearly, to say children are not so safe due to the relentless amount of desensitizing violence and on-screen danger, particularly in Disney’s stuff for young ones. I was horrified to see some Pikachu rubbish at my daughter’s, with my 3 year old grandson, which was very violent. Like most American crap.
I had a friend many years ago who seemed normal and of good character, but it turned out, years later, that he arrested for and found guilty of being a kiddy-fiddler. None of us suspected it and were dismayed to realise our judgements of people could be so wrong. These monsters live amongst us and are difficult to spot. That’s why handing youngsters over to scout masters, school teachers supervising school trips, etc. can be unsafe.
Ed P Thank you and now I understand
PS: even the kiddy-fiddler’s (hetero) live-in partner did not know before he was arrested!