The Met Commissioner's response to the Casey Report is not helping with the public's view of the force

22 March 2023, 13:36

By Fraser Knight.

@Fraser_Knight

Sir Mark Rowley says he accepts the spirit of one of the most damning reviews the country has seen into the Metropolitan Police, calling it racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and above all, broken.

But his refusal to use the term ‘institutional’ when describing behaviours – because, he says, it’s political language – is making the issue more political than it ever was.

Baroness Louise Casey told reporters she believed the Met leadership would need to acknowledge and accept that element of her findings to have any chance of the level of reform being delivered that’s needed to regain trust and confidence.

But repeatedly, the Commissioner has said he won’t use the word, because “it’s ambiguous, and has become politicised in its interpretation,” adding that he needs to “stay out of that space”.

That’s doing him no favours.

The report highlighted repeated failings in the Met’s leadership in overseeing a culture of denial and deflection to allow discrimination to be ‘baked’ into the force.

It was accused of starting pointless initiatives and campaigns instead of bringing about change – initiative-itis, it was called.

Sir Mark’s refusal to use a specific word is no different, especially when he’s said he doesn’t deny the four tests set out to define whether behaviour is institutional.

They ask:

- Are some people in your organisation being discriminatory?

- Are some people in your organisation experiencing discrimination?

- Have you got systemic bias in your internal processes for recruitment, misconduct, etc.?

- Do you under-protect and over-police certain communities?

Baroness Casey argued that the answer to all four of these questions, in relation to the Metropolitan Police, was yes. And Sir Mark Rowley agreed.

Yet he’s refusing to say his force is ‘institutionally’ racist, homophobic or sexist.

The focus after any report as damning as the Casey Review should be on reform. On cleaning up the organisation and its processes. Not on the language used.

But you just have to look at the reaction since its release to see that the discussion is dominated by whether or not the Commissioner fully accepts the findings – despite him saying explicitly he does.

The Home Secretary Suella Braverman told the House of Commons, she agrees with the Commissioner that labelling behaviour as being institutional “is not helpful,” saying the term is “much misused”.

While the London Mayor Sadiq Khan told LBC he felt he had to disagree with Sir Mark and take Baroness Casey’s side when it came to using the word.

The Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer used Prime Ministers’ Questions to say he accepts the findings “in full” including the institutional description.

Does it really matter? The Met is in a dire state and needs to be overhauled – everyone agrees with that.

The Commissioner needs to pick his battles and focus on the job in hand. The question of whether it’s right to use a particular word is not that.

As Baroness Casey told LBC: “This was the moment for the Commissioner to right the wrongs of the past and he’s getting too caught up on the word… this is not where the debate and discussion should be.”

The report’s author is disappointed. Families of victims, who’ve been let down, will be disappointed.

It’s time to move on and get on with making changes, rebuilding trust and a force that is fit for the people it serves and protects.