Met Police DHEP Recruitment 2024

It's so frustrating because MET mention 2 weeks as the waiting time to find out if you were successful or not but then when emailing them they talk about potentially waiting between 4 and 8 weeks for results.
What were you doing while waiting and what do you know about the current case regarding the MET and DHEP DC applications? There is a lot online regarding MET struggling to keep it's numbers stable for police officers in general (some attributing it to recent scandals and more).

The issue with Met numbers is quite complex and can't be explained as easily as "recent scandals" - which I would say is probably the least significant of many factors except in how it has affected vetting (see below).
The biggest single issue with police numbers is that about 3-4 years ago the College of Policing brought in the degree requirement for new police officers which automatically excluded a very large number of applicants. The only way round this at the time was the degree apprenticeship, and even that had prerequisites and just turned off a lot of the kind of people who had been police applicants for generations. This, at a stroke cut off the supply of applicants and left forces looking to fill spaces with graduates and recent graduates. The problem with this is that in the 21st century workplace, a grad isn't generally looking for a 20 year career or a job for life - and most are looking at the police as a 5 year career before moving on. You can see where this is going - degree requirements and direct entry gets brought in, it runs for 5 years and all of a sudden you find that most of the first cohort has left for whatever reason and your recruitment drives are only replacing the people who you've previously brought in and aren't actually increasing numbers.
I won't go into a lot of the reasons why people leave, but more relevant to you is why the process takes so long. Policing process has always been slow, and anything under 9 months has always been considered exceptional. Under the circumstances, with recruiting crisis, you'd think they'd speed things up - unfortunately this has coincided with bad news stories like Sarah Everard being murdered. The automatic reaction is to increase vetting and re-vet all current officers (not that this would have had the slightest impact on that particular case). This has been implemented without increasing the size of the vetting units - so vetting is now taking much much longer and because of this, the process has slowed tremendously, with people waiting for vetting and intakes not happening until they can fill a class.
In terms of raw numbers, you will often see headlines about "more police officers than ever before". This is quite misleading. Because pretty much every government ever at both local and national level always promises "more police", the way this has been implemented is to get rid of civilian staff and have those jobs done by police officers - so where previously you might have had 1000 civilians and 4000 constables, now you might have 500 civilians and 4500 constables - but the number of police officers actually doing what you might consider "policing" hasn't changed, or if anything it has gone down. There might be more police officers on paper, but they are now doing essential jobs that were previously done by staff - for example they might be in HR or support functions, and a lot of the time in control rooms taking 999 calls.

It is quite annoying. I'm currently waiting for my vetting to be done and it's been over 2 months now.
Since summer is sort of here, try and spend that time doing things you will most likely not be able to do: visit museums during the day or trying a new hobby!

DEDC - trainees no longer having to spend time with any partnered university, how is their experience structured (something about moved to training centres) and is it encouraged that a person looks to specialise at some point in particular areas or due to workload is that never the case? For those who leave early, what is it? Is it difficulty with the NIE? Workload? Not getting specific support that is unavailable through independent research?

With MET needing more t/DCs, I wonder exactly what calibre of people they are taking on. Is it the stereotype that for e.g. MI5/MI6 was once associated with (Oxbridge, etc.) or is that no longer an option with the MET? Also, with the 30-37k salary/pay talk, is policing such a thing that the salary/pay does not attract graduates?

Mark Rowley spoke about the MET a few months back and I remember thinking about how it all sounded so bleak. For him to outwardly say 2025 will simply not look better, it makes you wonder if MET can actively do anything to change.

On academic requirements, I think it is to ensure a change in culture. The fact that applicants have been cut off by what in my view is not a tough requirement it definitely shows the talent MET or policing in general has previously been attracting.

The time at university will make no difference at all. The training school phase really is the least important of all and in reality changing the physical location won't change anything. Anyone on the DEDC programme should have no problem with the NIE - I doubt that is an issue. People leave early either due to workload, the job not being what they thought it would be, or because they never intended to stay / have a different career plan once they've got some experience. Specialisation shouldn't really come up until someone has at least 4-5 years experience as they often won't have a sufficient grasp of their fundamental skills yet - however, simply due to the numbers, this has become more common in the last 5 years or so.
One thing that tends to make DCs unhappy in the job is lack of any kind of job satisfaction. For volume crime in CID and Safeguarding, it is quite rare to get a positive result simply due to the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, the CPS and courts. A DC can put huge amounts of effort into a case for it simply to be discontinued by the CPS for no good reason, or the courts to award a guilty suspect with an absurdly mild sentence. In safeguarding, particularly Domestic Abuse units, cases are almost never black and white and the overwhelming majority of them will result in no action simply because that is not what the involved parties want. The media / social media view of Domestic Violence is so far removed from the reality of it as to be quite laughable.
Historically, only very few graduates became police officers and they were the people who wanted to be in the police as their primary driving force. It's not a particularly attractive job for most grads - unstable hours, exposure to trauma, danger and violence and relatively poor work conditions.
Rowley is as much at fault as anyone else for the outlook. As sop to the anti-police lobby, he's been sacking officers all over the place for very minor issues and created a culture where policing is very difficult to do. Take for example the recent case of the Safer Transport officer who arrested a woman on a bus who refused to show her ticket to a TfL inspector. That is as clear a case of justifiable use of force as you will ever find - and yet that officer is now charged with assault. Between Rowley and the IOPC, all we have done is told a section of the populace that they do not have to pay to use public transport.
The Met can't change without government and more importantly the public and media changing. If they want policing, those three bodies are going to have to grow up and realise that throwing around sociology textbooks and buzzwords isn't going to achieve anything and that at some point policing is going to be required.
You're correct that there is a going to be a change in culture -and it's all negative. The quality of a police officer is not measurable in terms of education, and I say that as someone with a postgraduate degree from a top tier university. We have substituted motivated and experienced officers who could communicate with people and project authority, with generally inexperienced graduates many of whom see the job as a stepping stone to other things, are not motivated to do the job, and who are averse to confrontation. There is no reason in the world why for the vast majority of policing roles a degree level education should be a requirement, and we have cut out all those people from the candidate pool. A good example is that up until relatively recently, a natural pool of police candidates was people leaving the armed forces. They were usually disciplined and in relatively good physical condition and usually attuned to confrontation. Most people in the armed forces are not graduates. At a stroke, we eliminated all those people from becoming police officers, and replaced them not with equally motivated grads, but generally with lower quality grads.
This has changed a little bit in the past year or so with new entry paths opening up which I think are a panic mode because police forces - and especially the Met are on track to run out of officers.

How many several mentees might a mentor have? How many years on average have mentors served?

I wonder if theory/training is being carried out poorly, including decisions about what is covered.

After NIE, how do trainee/inexperienced detectives build on their basic understanding of law? Is it mostly going up the ranks and proving understanding through exams?

Your point on satisfaction, I can definitely see why the frustration since the effort/time building would not be seen by those from the CPS. Also, as a detective the focus is on closure - for victims and others - but equally those working on cases. Is it truly for no good reason or do CPS avoid disclosing intricacies outside of PC/DC remit?

I know very little but the force used on the woman did seem out of proportion and it was not clear whether besides swearing she intended to run or not, etc. Also, it being over something such as a bus fare where there exists a plethora of ways to eventually check makes the situation ehhh. And it being so visible and a clear open case where there would be near to no issue spotting her in the future. She was with a child - that is not the situation a person puts themselves and their child in while travelling. However, I get where you are coming from about implications of an issue perhaps raising attention and an officer quite easily being replaced. It is sad because the officer's facial expression suggest he just wanted to handle the situation.

Education causes a division because you have people who perhaps joined the MET as it ignored their troubles with education and then now have individuals who have to offer their education as primary - graduates. A clash would always exist - some valuing theory and others not.

There cannot be shortcuts. Any organisation must learn how to invest and have the capacity to make a terrible employee not so terrible. You cannot fall back on forever a talent pool which will at some point no longer be available. It's quite clear the MET and other forces do not know how to select graduates (it has only been a short while of grad entry).

As for confrontation, I agree. My generation simply has an issue with that.
Your point regarding ex armed forces ... I can't disagree with.
Still it's constant finding premade individuals. I worry met is struggling to turn weak candidates into great. The armed forces probably does not begin with the strongest/best. Also, as DC does physique really matter?

Unknown. This kind of thing changes all the time and once you have independent status any mentor you have will generally be for career pathway or general help rather than a direct coach. Any direct on the job advice or training will probably come from colleagues or supervisor.
It undoubtedly is being done poorly, but no one has any better ideas. The scope of syllabus is decided centrally by the College of Policing.
In some cases, yes. You only have exams for the sergeant and inspector ranks. The NIE is mostly the same content as the general police training exams with additional content for serious and complex crime. Legal training would generally be done individually if you wanted it through your own learning portal.
The CPS have a mindset that they will only take on cases that are certain to succeded - the problem is that for the overwhelming majority of all crimes, the evidence to meet that standard simply does not exist - hence the majority of crimes will never make it to even charging. The CPS also have a mindset now that absolutely everything must be ready and in place at the point of charge. This involves an enormous amount of work putting together dozens of lengthy documents and pieces of evidence that firstly the CPS may not be interested in proceeding with (all that time is now wasted), or if they do proceed, the courts may hand down a very low level sentence.
If you believe the force used was out of proportion, what level of force do you think might have been appropriate? The idea that you can simply identify her after the event is bizarre. What....if you can't? As for having a child with her -this is simply teaching people that they can commit crimes if they have a child with them and that child will act as a shield against police.
Of all the traits that I would say are important in police officers, graduate level education is probably the lowest on that list. But can you appreciate the contradiction? We now insist on graduates and the quality of police officers is possibly the lowest it ever has been because we are sifting out most willing non-graduate candidates and replacing them with unwilling graduate ones. I have yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why degree level education is necessary for all police officers, and a single compelling argument as to what advantages it brings.
I don't see how this makes any sense. There aren't enough recruits because they've restricted it to only grads. Grads generally don't want to become police officers, ergo the shortfalls. Police forces being able to select the best candidate is irrelevant if they don't have enough applicants in the first place and many of those applicants have every intention of leaving after a few years.
As a DC, for most roles -no. In most roles it is an overwhelmingly office based job with some limited forays out to custody suites and occassional visits to crime scenes. There are sometimes proactive or specialist DC roles that will require decent levels of fitness and a willingness to fight with people - the most obvious example would be the Flying Squad.

As a DC, I wonder how performance is actually tracked because although you could manage cases and contributions to cases, if the reason for no outcome is outside of your control ...

Regarding the woman, it just seemed like she did not pose a physical threat matching how she was handled (mention of her being bruised).

Every other field capitalises on graduates. While policing was once approached with no care or less care for education it will definitely have to adapt and that adapting could improve things although not immediately. The issue in my opinion is that no other field leaves graduates on their own - they receive support. The issue with policing, the graduates are replacing the experienced instead of being accompanied by them. How do you assess quality properly in such circumstances?

I wonder what experience you have had with unwilling graduates. Are some not aware shifts or the fact that they will have to commit entirely to full work days? Is it the nature of the work?

An advantage - you have a varied workforce. People from a range of disciplines. Anyone else you take on equally has to be trained, etc. A non-policing degree offers someone with a unique skillset/experience. I don't think something like physique is a valid factor. That's something that a person can change or be encouraged to change.
5 years down the line of only recruiting grads, do you think policing could improve?

The reason behind it I'm not sure but it could just be that with the salary put out it seems odd to not want to try and attract graduates. And graduates ofc includes not just the most recent cohort. It includes people who have tried different careers
In any case London of all places cannot cope with poor policing so hopefully things change

It is quite annoying. I'm currently waiting for my vetting to be done and it's been over 2 months now.
Since summer is sort of here, try and spend that time doing things you will most likely not be able to do: visit museums during the day or trying a new hobby!

Without expecting you to reveal much, what experience alongside education did you have at the time of applying/interview? I agree the time would simply have to be spent well. With vetting, I think the main concern may not be with one's self but could easily be with any flag of a third party. Are you confident about getting through vetting?

Hey there
I applied for my vetting in April too so feel like we are in a similar position, have you had any updates yet?

Hey! I got an email two weeks ago saying my vetting has been cleared, after three months of waiting, then some days later I got a phone call confirming details for a start date. It is a long wait, but I moved around every year at uni, have a lot of family and a past long-term relationship, so they might have been reasons for why my vetting took so long; they say it takes on average two months to clear.
Here is my complete timeline, for anyone else reading this:
31st October 2023 - Applied
2nd November 2023 - Behavioural styles questionnaire completed
3rd November 2023 - Behavioural styles questionnaire passed
11th December 2023 - Invited to online assessment centre
17th December 2023 - Completed online assessment centre
5th January 2024 - Online assessment centre passed
23rd Februay 2024 - Day One: DC Bolt-on
27th February 2024 - Day One: DC Bolt-on passed
6th March 2024 - Day Two: Health and Fitness Test
12th March 2024 - Vetting sent off
18th June 2024 - Vetting cleared
20th June 2024 - Offer of position and start date

Hey,
I’m currently waiting for my vetting and it’s been about 2.5 months at the moment. Once your vetting was passed and you have now been given a start date, how long is it between passing your vetting and the actual start date? Just trying to get a rough idea as to when I may be able to start?!

Hey all - I submitted my vetting around 1 month ago and still waiting. Was looking to get a rough idea and was looking to hand my notice in soon. Think i'll hold onto it a little while longer.
How long between your vetting acceptance and start date?

Hey all - I submitted my vetting around 1 month ago and still waiting. Was looking to get a rough idea and was looking to hand my notice in soon. Think i'll hold onto it a little while longer.
How long between your vetting acceptance and start date?

Hey,
I’m currently waiting for my vetting and it’s been about 2.5 months at the moment. Once your vetting was passed and you have now been given a start date, how long is it between passing your vetting and the actual start date? Just trying to get a rough idea as to when I may be able to start?!

Hi sorry for the late reply! I've been busy learning how to police 😁
I actually got a call the week after my vetting passed about start dates, so the actual dates offered will depend on when in the month you receive that call. For myself, I was offered the start date in the next month.