Share this post:

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley is refusing to resign in the wake of the BBC Panorama investigation into racism, misogyny and abuse inside the force – but he is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Rowley has said the “misogynists and racists” inside the Met want him out because he is taking them on.

He points to the removal of nearly 1,500 officers and staff since he became commissioner three years ago as proof that reform is happening.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has given him his “full confidence”, describing Rowley as the right man to clean up the Met.

The argument for Rowley staying is simple: if he goes, it hands victory to the very officers Panorama has just exposed. Reform, his backers claim, would be derailed.

But there is just as strong a case for him going. The Panorama revelations only came to light because undercover journalists exposed them, not because the Met rooted them out. If Rowley’s reforms were biting, why is it still outsiders doing the work?

He also continues to deny that the Met is “institutionally” racist, sexist and homophobic – despite the Casey Review, the London Mayor and former senior officers all agreeing that it is. Without that admission, his credibility on reform looks thin.

He talks about a “minority” of officers – letting the ‘bad apples’ framing creep back in, when the evidence shows repeated, systemic culture.

And his own line that the toxic behaviour has merely been driven “underground” is chilling. It suggests not that the problem is being eradicated, but that abusive officers are simply hiding it better.

As Parm Sandhu put it: “They’ve been exposed before, buried before, tolerated before.” It looks like the same cycle all over again.

Keir Starmer has said the footage is “shocking” but stopped short of demanding anything concrete. He has a track record of defending policing.

Sadiq Khan, despite criticising the need for journalists to do the Met’s work, is still backing Rowley.

So the establishment line is: keep him, he’s the man to fix it.

But public patience is exhausted. Each scandal is supposed to be “the turning point” — and yet here we are again.

If the culture is this entrenched, perhaps no single commissioner can reform it from within. In that case, his refusal to accept institutional rot is exactly why he should go.

Alternatively, we could say that Rowley’s position is untenable because the public cannot trust a commissioner who is always caught flat-footed by investigative journalists, rather than leading change himself.

So Rowley’s position is impossible. If he resigns, he admits failure. If he refuses, people will say it anyway.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

Share this post: