Should the Met be allowed to accept private donations and sponsorship - or does that make an ass of the law?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
What's going on?
This morning we published this news story from reporter Kevin Rawlinson:
"Britain's largest police force was handed private donations and sponsorship worth £22.7m over the last five years, it has emerged. The donations included football shirts given to the Metropolitan Police by Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea, as well as motorcycles and cars supplied by Land Rover, BMW and Nestlé.
The figures, obtained by the BBC following a Freedom of Information request, prompted claims that donors would expect preferential treatment from officers. But Scotland Yard insisted it had a "long history" of working with different partners to tackle crime. Supporters of the perfectly legal practice pointed out that some organisations which require extra policing, such as football clubs on matchdays, should pay for it."
There is no suggestion of the Metropolitan Police acting unlawfully.
But should they be allowed to accept private donations and sponsorship?
Case For: Quality Costs
In case you hadn't noticed, there's a recession on. The Government are pursuing a programme of public sector cuts which will impact every facet of our lives. Perhaps in times of great wealth we would have the luxury of picking and choosing who funds essential public services. Now is not that time. Some organisations and private companies have interests which naturally correlate with those of the public - card companies wanting to tackle fraud, for instance, of football stadiums needing extra security for matches - why shouldn't they contribute to the cost of this? A well-funded police force benefits everyone. Ill-defined principles and petty bureaucracy can't be allowed to stand in the way.
Case Against: Buying Influence
If we can't trust the police, who can we trust? With the City, Westminster and the media all battered by institutional scandal, we need a clean and corruption-free police force now more than ever. Clearly private actors who give money to the police only do so because they want to buy influence. Why else would they? In a just society, the law applies to all citizens equally; but this smacks of one rule for the rich, and another rule for the poor. It is also a first step toward the privatisation of the police.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments