More Met Bad Apples
Discussion
freedman said:
Apologies if already posted, but how was this piece of work not dismissed?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/metropolitan...
You can read the panel's decision here: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-poli...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/metropolitan...
It reads like her line manager screwed up in telling her she didn't need to complete and then tried to throw under the bus to avoid the blame. It doesn't paint a great picture of the integrity of his evidence. It was less a failure to disclosure the connection on her part so much as a failure to remind, at the time of the suggestion to remove her partner's nephew from the list, her line manager of a connection she had previously informed him about
b
hstewie said:
That incident is perfectly clear cut.hstewie said:No need at all for the punch in the back of the head.
bhstewie said:
He punched an innocent man on the back of the head as seen on bodycam, and was 'found' guilty, presunably that means there was a not guity plea? Mags found his actions were not "necessary, justified or proportionate". As a police officer he should realise that => guilty plea surely. Higher standards expected etc.hstewie said:Then the article suggests that there need to be discussions about whether there will be a disciplinary hearing. Incredible. There's nothing reassuring whatsoever as far as the police side of this criminality is concerned.
turbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
He punched an innocent man on the back of the head as seen on bodycam, and was 'found' guilty, presunably that means there was a not guity plea? Mags found his actions were not "necessary, justified or proportionate". As a police officer he should realise that => guilty plea surely. Higher standards expected etc.hstewie said:Then the article suggests that there need to be discussions about whether there will be a disciplinary hearing. Incredible. There's nothing reassuring whatsoever as far as the police side of this criminality is concerned.
He'll be out of a job.
Greendubber said:
He's been convicted so the disciplinary proceedings will now take place, no question about it.
He'll be out of a job.
It'll probably be less than a year on full salary before the consequences of his actions happen, but it's not as if the review panel can just see a criminal conviction and get rid of him- these things have to be properly assessed and fully considered.He'll be out of a job.
I like the way the policeman threatened to use a weapon on an unarmed man pinned to the ground if he didn't comply with instructions. A very brave man indeed.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Monday 29th January 23:31
Biggy Stardust said:
It'll probably be less than a year on full salary before the consequences of his actions happen, but it's not as if the review panel can just see a criminal conviction and get rid of him- these things have to be properly assessed and fully considered.
I like the way the policeman threatened to use a weapon on an unarmed man pinned to the ground if he didn't comply with instructions. A very brave man indeed.
Yup, logical procedure. I like the way the policeman threatened to use a weapon on an unarmed man pinned to the ground if he didn't comply with instructions. A very brave man indeed.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Monday 29th January 23:31
I think the more important question is who hired him? He's bent, which we can see from his instinct being to lie but his dishonesty may not have been apparent at the time of employment. But he is very clearly absolutely thick as mince. Was he in on some equality drive or a special needs program, if so why was he allowed out without a carer? The bloke has had a camera attached to him to record everything that occurs in front of him, primarily to protect him or other parties filming him and yet he still goes and does what he does. Surely this is someone who should have been moving trolleys not given a super hero uniform and allowed out in public?
Biggy Stardust said:
It'll probably be less than a year on full salary before the consequences of his actions happen, but it's not as if the review panel can just see a criminal conviction and get rid of him- these things have to be properly assessed and fully considered.
Boring Biggy bingo again. Edited by Biggy Stardust on Monday 29th January 23:31
It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
pavarotti1980 said:
Boring Biggy bingo again.
It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
Let's see: It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
"Has he been convicted of rape/murder?"
"Yes- here's the court record"
"Is that compatible with being a police dude?"
"No"
"OK- sacked. Game over."
Doesn't sound like it would take too long to do it properly.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Wednesday 21st February 22:36
bhstewie said:
Undoubtedly a wrong un hstewie said:It does raise questions into his vetting as all but one of the offences were committed before he joined the Police with the first attack on the main victim starting when she was 12 and he was 13 and continuing for a number of years
The vetting team should have been aware of the previous rape allegations against him in 2017, assuming he WAS thoroughly vetted, and it does raise questions again as to why the case was discontinued ( assuming it’s the offences now proved )
But on the positive side the allegations in Sept 23 ( when he was serving) were fast tracked and he was dismissed in Nov 23
Biggy Stardust said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Boring Biggy bingo again.
It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
Let's see: It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
"Has he been convicted of rape/murder?"
"Yes- here's the court record"
"Is that compatible with being a police dude?"
"No"
"OK- sacked. Game over."
Doesn't sound like it would take to long to do it properly.
The only exception is for probationary officers who can be dismissed without notice for misconduct/unsatisfactory performance etc
Once an officer is confirmed in the rank (normally after two years) then they have full protection under the Police conduct regs
Earthdweller said:
Biggy Stardust said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Boring Biggy bingo again.
It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
Let's see: It is a prescriptive legislative procedure that has to be adhered to unless you want people appealing and being reinstated due to the correct process not being carried out properly?
"Has he been convicted of rape/murder?"
"Yes- here's the court record"
"Is that compatible with being a police dude?"
"No"
"OK- sacked. Game over."
Doesn't sound like it would take to long to do it properly.
The only exception is for probationary officers who can be dismissed without notice for misconduct/unsatisfactory performance etc
Once an officer is confirmed in the rank (normally after two years) then they have full protection under the Police conduct regs
turbobloke said:
Would you say those regs have the balance of interests in the correct place?
On balance, yes The presumption in Law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty
The criminal process has to take precedence over disciplinary proceedings
We have seen cases where officers have been reinstated after criminal appeals or where the Police appeals panel has decided that dismissal was not appropriate
Sacking officers on the basis of unproven/unsubstantiated allegations is a very dangerous road to travel down
Earthdweller said:
turbobloke said:
Would you say those regs have the balance of interests in the correct place?
On balance, yes The presumption in Law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty
The criminal process has to take precedence over disciplinary proceedings
We have seen cases where officers have been reinstated after criminal appeals or where the Police appeals panel has decided that dismissal was not appropriate
Sacking officers on the basis of unproven/unsubstantiated allegations is a very dangerous road to travel down
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 21st February 19:13
To repeat a point I head on the radio earlier it does seem odd that there seem to be rules about things like beards and tattoos that can block you entering the Police but you can be accused of the most vile of crimes and so long as you haven't been convicted apparently there's little can be done.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: To repeat a point I head on the radio earlier it does seem odd that there seem to be rules about things like beards and tattoos that can block you entering the Police but you can be accused of the most vile of crimes and so long as you haven't been convicted apparently there's little can be done.
One is a fixed characteristic.. easy to decide upon, I’m not sure about beards as there are countless officers serving with them and have been for years, when I joined in the 80’s my Sgt instructor at Hendon had a full beard, but tattoos, some I’m sure you’d agree are totally inappropriate/incompatible with the Police The other is where the vetting process has to be robust and further investigation should happen
But, even having a criminal conviction isn’t an automatic bar to joining the Police
Earthdweller said:
turbobloke said:
Would you say those regs have the balance of interests in the correct place?
On balance, yes The presumption in Law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty
The criminal process has to take precedence over disciplinary proceedings
We have seen cases where officers have been reinstated after criminal appeals or where the Police appeals panel has decided that dismissal was not appropriate
Sacking officers on the basis of unproven/unsubstantiated allegations is a very dangerous road to travel down
We could even add that should the body somehow come back to life & their conviction be overturned that reinstatement with back pay be enacted on their release from prison.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff