There must be consequences for the Metropolitan Police

Baroness Casey has examined the Metropolitan Police in detail, identified and exposed multiple failures to public view and the conclusions of that scrutiny are clearly stated. They appear to be a contemporary confirmation of the earlier finding of the Macpherson report that the force was “institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic".

The current commissioner Sir Mark Rowley says the term "institutional" had become politicised and meant “different things to different people”. It appears clear that the Met is an institution – "an organisation that exists to serve a public purpose" – as is every other police force in the country. It also appears that the opinions expressed in successive reports are substantially true – and no dance on a pinhead. They blast off their pages with the subtlety of a heavy metal concert at Wembley.

While the Met is the only institution under the Casey glass the report has clear implications for other forces. The ongoing environment of Tory austerity strips public services, including the Met and other police forces, of necessary resources and as a consequence strips the public of necessary protections. There must be consequences. Regrettably, it is one Tory mess among many. They appear incapable of serving the public purpose.

David Nelmes

Newport

The tragic death by suicide of Ruth Perry, following the release of the school’s Ofsted report, should place the entire education system in England on high alert. It is the tip of a huge mental health iceberg in English schools.

School leaders have a vast range of responsibilities which create an unreasonable requirement for expertise beyond the immediate area of high-quality teaching. Often there is very little opportunity for high-quality training to help support this burden. This range of responsibilities is the same for large secondary schools with a staff numbering in the hundreds as it is for a tiny village infants’ school.

Pupils, parents, teachers, and school leaders are under constant pressure to reach academic targets. Our assessment systems are mainly designed to assess school performance rather than measure pupil intellectual and personal growth. The stakes are high, headteachers have lost their jobs unfairly through overzealous actions of governing authorities and pupils have lost their ambitions for the future, but the stakeholders have no say in a flawed curriculum which is centrally imposed.

The Caversham Primary Ofsted report exposes what is sometimes a bullying, dangerous inspection regime. A clearly successful school, which the pupils and parents support, drops from Outstanding to Inadequate on the basis of a one-day visit because of gaps in safeguarding procedures. Of course, safeguarding is vital, but this approach obliterates all the other good, and no doubt some outstanding, work in the school. Surely this silly rule should change. A short period of intensive retraining to address the administrative concerns, and then a brief visit to ensure the systems in the school are secure is what is needed in these cases.

The outcome we have should cause no surprise. We are left with a terrible, unnecessary tragedy for all concerned and a school with serious damage that will take years to repair. Who wants the job of putting this poor school and Ruth’s family back together?

David Lowndes

Southampton

The wording of the statement by the spokesperson for the Department for Education in support of Ofsted inspections following the reaction to the suicide of headteacher, Ruth Perry, reveals much about the problematic nature of the inspection regime.

The importance of inspections, we are told, is not to assure the quality of learning and support improvement, but to “hold schools to account for their educational standards”. Furthermore, we are reminded that the simplistic “ratings” are what parents “rely on … in choosing the right school for their child”.

As a parent and grandparent, I have not been interested in shallow judgements when looking at schools for my children. I have been interested in the quality of relationships and the broad opportunities for learning that a school provides for all its young people as it prepares them for the uncertain future that we are bequeathing to them.

I have grown increasingly tired of the market-driven forces that shape educational provision. Those banners outside schools that say “Ofsted outstanding” tell parents nothing about what goes on inside the school other than that there is a concern to play to the system. As is now painfully clear, many headteachers live in fear of the judgments that will be made upon them, which must distract them from maintaining a culture of trust and openness that encourages learning.

At a time when we desperately need education to be innovative and future-oriented, we have systems in place that limit the capacity of schools to respond to our current needs and equip young people for their lives beyond school. Ofsted inspections are in need of radical reform if they are to be fit for a proper purpose.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

It was extremely painful and bewildering to watch Fulham’s display of utter arrogance, disrespect and aggression toward the referee Chris Kavanagh by players. Especially Aleksandar Mitrovic, and manager, Marco Silva, in the FA Cup match at Manchester United over the weekend.

I have followed Fulham since the 1968/69 season and have seen their many ups and downs in the football league, but never have I witnessed such awful behaviour. I have also played, attended matches, and viewed hundreds of rugby games. The major disciplinary difference is that a rugby referee is an asset in running the game, assisting the players to do their job, and thereby retaining the respect of the players. This is true in both union and league rugby.

However, since big money came to the game the culture of football has, sadly, increasingly and irreparably become hostile, especially towards referees and other club officials. Isn’t it about time that not only the perpetrators of bad behaviour are punished, but also those with a vested interest in the clubs’ performance? Chairpersons, managers, and trainers should all see larger fines.

Without considered, targeted, and appropriate action, to reduce this behavior, the sight of referees and officials being harassed and maligned will become a common occurrence and in the process be a turn-off for viewers, officials, and the media.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

As a 60-plus apparently “straight” white male I’m increasingly finding myself wary of saying the wrong thing. Clearly modern mores and those with delicate sensibilities are lurking behind every corner. While I feel I’m endlessly and happily tolerant of others’ sexuality, religion, politics, and ethnicity, I’m still painfully aware that nearly everything in my 60-plus lexicon has negative references for someone within earshot.

Never ever intentionally offensive or disrespectful to anyone, I’m still finding I’m having to pick my words depending on the company. Can I say fat, thin, queen, or queer anymore in normal conversation? Is normal actually OK? When is mad or lunatic acceptable?

Having laughingly accused a vegan acquaintance of being “chicken” about not eating a sausage I found myself in the doghouse by a rabid animal rights supporter for apparently disrespecting them.

Should I just stay at home?

Steve Mackinder

Denver