The Met Police must seize this opportunity to change

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Former Met Police commissioner Cressida Dick (Getty)

I feel it is vital to remind all the potential candidates for the commissioner’s job – now we have the long-overdue resignation of Cressida Dick – at the Metropolitan Police of a few prerequisites: firstly we have policing by consent in this country; next the police along with all other law-enforcement agencies are independent of political pressure; likewise, they do not treat those with deep pockets differently to the impecunious.

When the new person is appointed I suggest he/she prioritise – in no particular order – justice in the Daniel Morgan case; apologies for heavy handed policing and recompense over the Sarah Everard vigil; and a total revamp of recruitment procedures, along with enhanced robust supervision throughout the ranks.

We simply cannot afford to be engulfed with more damning reports, allegations of corruption or reports of “looking the other way” when a new regime takes over.

Robert Boston

Kent

I cannot see how a simple change of leader can change the culture of the Met. I think there will also need to be a process which would, say, remove officers involved in the Charing Cross findings, and require all officers to undergo an interview the outcome of which would be retention or not. A good psychometrically-based interview could ensure the fairness and consistency of this procedure.

Richard Lloyd

Dunfermline, Fife

Whoever is chosen to replace Dame Cressida Dick has an almost impossible task. Whatever institutional problems are alleged to affect the Met Police, it is not just confined to that organisation: it is largely a reflection of the general deterioration in attitudes and standards of behaviour in society as a whole.

Society, from top to bottom, needs to improve morals but it is a shame that those in power increasingly marginalise the Christian Church, which traditionally has been the bedrock of this nation and which has brought many improvements to society and people’s lives.

Jonathan Longstaff

Buxted, Sussex

From a distance – and we the public are always at a distance – the departure of Cressida Dick looks suspiciously like another woman (remember the admittedly over-promoted Allegra Stratton) resigning because of dreadful men.

Amanda Baker

Edinburgh

The Met is scandal-ridden, so Cressida Dick goes. No 10 is scandal-ridden, so Boris Johnson doesn’t go.

Kathryn Salomon

London N2

D minus for Nadhim Zahawi

“A stars” all round for the Year Six students at Welbeck Primary School; “D minus” for Nadhim Zahawi. (‘Pupils shouldn’t be criticising Boris Johnson in class, says education secretary’, 9 February).

We should be encouraging and celebrating the fact that young people are learning political awareness, the ability to express their ideas without bluster and shouting and, above all, the importance of telling the truth. What a pity this opportunity doesn’t seem to have been available to our current prime minister and certain members of his team.

Sue Breadner

Isle of Man

Starmer’s commitment to Nato

I read about Keir Starmer’s commitment to Nato with interest, not least because it is the first comment I’ve seen from him that bears on the crisis in Ukraine. I’m afraid he is right about Stop the War: it is ideological and anti-western, almost to the point of lunacy. But at least it opposes war.

There is a middle ground between condemning Nato on the one hand, and on the other allowing Boris Johnson and Liz Truss to swan around eastern Europe, blithely inflaming the situation, apparently with no other thought than advancing their own self-serving careers, without challenging them. I haven’t heard a peep out of Starmer about it.

I realise this is difficult ground for Labour, after years of being portrayed as soft on defence, and Corbyn certainly hasn’t helped with that. But still: where is the opposition?

Patrick Hanley

Canonbie, Dumfriesshire

Mary Dejevsky might be right or wrong about the British government’s “sexing up” the threat of a Russia-Ukraine conflict (Voices, 10 February), but it is clear that the whole crisis has proved hugely beneficial for a number of parties.

For President Biden and the Pentagon, it provides an opportunity to look tough after the debacle of the withdrawal from Afghanistan; for Boris Johnson it allows him to look like an international statesman rather than a 24-hour party person; for Liz Truss it provides photos and copy for her future party-leadership bid manifesto; and for Keir Starmer it presents an invaluable chance to embrace Nato and thus publicly renounce the perceived “traitorous” position of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

They may all condemn President Putin’s actions, but they are no doubt very grateful to him for his timely “military exercises”.

Colin Burke

Cumbria

A law unto himself

If, as the attorney general and now an “unnamed ally” suggest, the prime minister should be above the law, then how do the rest of us get such allies? Doesn’t rule of law mean everyone is subject to it? If one is not, then none is. Can we perhaps return to some semblance of sense and accept that if anyone provably transgresses the law, we should all expect reasonable justice?

It is, after all, why we drive on the left of the road and not whichever side we please. Or protect one another’s health during a pandemic and don’t go partying while our compatriots are grieving for their loved ones. And certain people wonder why we’re getting angry.

Honestly, should this even need saying? If certain people don’t get these things, then just how fit are they to be law-makers?

Ian Henderson

Norwich