A New Met for London

Following the Casey Review Final Report (2023), the New Met for London is a two year plan on how the Met will deliver more trust, less crime, and high standards. The plan details the priority areas that it will focus on, to ensure a quality service is received by Londoners through more effective policing. It focuses on three areas of reform: community crime-fighting, culture change, and fixing our foundations. MPS says “We’ll better serve London by organising and deploying our people better, giving them the training, equipment, and data and technology they need to use their powers precisely and cut crime. We’ll also develop the outstanding and diverse leaders we need to deliver the reform ahead. A reset to how the Met engages with communities begins with the launch of the plan, with a focus on how A New Met for London will be delivered at a local level. A commitment to review progress has also been made so that progress on the changes needed are made clear.”

A New Met for London: Phase 2 (2025-2028)

MPS says “This plan – which has been developed based on our own analysis and feedback from policing and other partners – sets out what we have achieved since we first published New Met for London (NMfL) 1 in 2023 and what we will do next. This second phase is not a new strategy – it is a continuation of what we set out to do in 2023. This is because we know the best organisations are built and sustained by relentless, step-by-step improvements. We’ve engaged key stakeholders and held a public consultation process to make sure it reflects the views of all Londoners. NMfL 2 focuses the Met’s efforts in five areas. Three delivery pillars from the last two years remain in place – Community Crime-fighting, Culture Change and Fixing our Foundations.”

What we think

On LGBT+ issues, the plan is almost entirely aspirational language, eg: commitment to being “anti-homophobic” and inclusive; references to “protecting communities who suffer disproportionately” and general culture change, diversity, and inclusion framing. We conclude, it’s almost entirely “warm words”. What’s missing:

• No explicit LGBT+ objectives
• No baseline measures (e.g. reporting rates, trust levels among LGBT+ people)
• No key performance indicators to LGBT+ outcomes
• No timelines or delivery mechanisms specific to LGBT+ safety or engagement
• No reference to hate crime underreporting in LGBT+ communities
• No mention of chemsex, sexual health contexts, or policing barriers

There are strong system performance metrics: these are numbers used to show how well a service is working overall, eg: response times, crime rates, and victim satisfaction; but they measure system-wide performance, not specific groups. However, there appears to be very weak community specific accountability.

 If you ask “Could the Met be held accountable for improving outcomes for LGBT+ Londoners based on Phase 2” the answer is no, in our opinion. There is no measurable framework to do that.

Make of this what you will.

More

Police chief refuses to describe Met racism, misogny and homophobia as ‘institutional’ | The Guardian | 21 Mar 2024 | 1m 38s