The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely that
is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have been
partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct, then they should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other job in the Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have worked for
have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
On 2025-02-11, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless >>> to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that >>> it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely that
is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have been
partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct, then they
should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other job in the
Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have worked for
have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
Police constables are not employees and don't have employment contracts.
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely that
is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have been
partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct, then they >should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other job in the >Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have worked for
have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
On 11/02/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:And would you want to seek any sort of help from a police officer who
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be
powerless to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate
behaviour. For those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate"
one might add that it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in
public car parks, touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent
exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace,
and sending inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But
the officer hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely
that is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have
been partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct,
then they should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other
job in the Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have
worked for have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
Police constables are not employees and don't have employment
contracts.
had received a "final warning" for sexually assaulting a colleague?
The story in the Times is:
Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme implemented following the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to
remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
unquote
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that
the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
quote
...the Defendant’s powers do not extend to the dismissal of a
police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance. Dismissal
is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the
Secretary of State under section 50(3) of the Police Act 1996. This
results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the Defendant. In my view,
that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations. Mr Beggs KC
did not dispute this analysis.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Di-Maria-v-Met-Police-and-others.pdf
On 11/02/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be
powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add
that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely that
is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have been
partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct, then they >>> should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other job in the
Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have worked for
have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
Police constables are not employees and don't have employment contracts.
And would you want to seek any sort of help from a police officer who
had received a "final warning" for sexually assaulting a colleague?
... If a need for vetting clearance,
however defined, was generally considered grounds for dismissal if failed, then it would be open to abuse by employers introducing "vetting" schemes simply in order to be able to rid themselves of troublemakers, slackers or undesirables without going through the normal disciplinary process. So the ability to dismiss someone who has failed vetting needs to be strictly controlled, and only permitted where explicitly provided for in legislation.
On 11/02/2025 02:46 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
[ ... ]
... If a need for vetting clearance,
however defined, was generally considered grounds for dismissal if failed, >> then it would be open to abuse by employers introducing "vetting" schemes
simply in order to be able to rid themselves of troublemakers, slackers or >> undesirables without going through the normal disciplinary process. So the >> ability to dismiss someone who has failed vetting needs to be strictly
controlled, and only permitted where explicitly provided for in legislation.
Exactly!
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 02:46 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
[ ... ]
... If a need for vetting clearance,
however defined, was generally considered grounds for dismissal if failed, >>> then it would be open to abuse by employers introducing "vetting" schemes >>> simply in order to be able to rid themselves of troublemakers, slackers or >>> undesirables without going through the normal disciplinary process. So the >>> ability to dismiss someone who has failed vetting needs to be strictly
controlled, and only permitted where explicitly provided for in legislation.
Exactly!
The other thing to consider is making the employment of a successful recruitment candidate subject to passing the vetting scheme.
Officers who are already employed but need vetting for a new role would simply not be given the job if they failed vetting.
Officers already vetted but who broke the rules imposed by the job they
were vetted for would simply be returned to normal duties.
Officers not vetted but who broke their terms of service would suffer whatever sanctions a disciplinary process decided.
On 11/02/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
The story in the Times is:
Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme
implemented following the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to
remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
unquote
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Why not?
The most obvious Occam-safe reason is that there wasn't enough (perhaps
any) reliable evidence to support the accusations.
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that
the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
In order to allow the Commissioner to dismiss on a whim?
quote
...the Defendant’s powers do not extend to the dismissal of a
police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance. Dismissal
is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the
Secretary of State under section 50(3) of the Police Act 1996. This
results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic
vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the Defendant. In my view,
that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations. Mr Beggs KC
did not dispute this analysis.
It isn't "anomalous" at all if "withdrawal of vetting clearance" is just something that can be done arbitrarily and without supporting evidence
which can be challenged via due process.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Di-Maria-v-Met-
Police-and-others.pdf
Are "failing a ... vetting scheme" and suffering "withdrawal of vetting clearance" the same thing?
Under the process which it seems the Commissioner wants, what is to stop
him from "withdrawing vetting clearance" from any officer he doesn't
like, on a personal whim?
All the court did, it seems, was to assert the desirability of, and the
right to, due process and natural justice.
On 11/02/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote:
On 11/02/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
The story in the Times is:
Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme >>> implemented following the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to
remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
unquote
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless >>> to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that >>> it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Why not?
The most obvious Occam-safe reason is that there wasn't enough
(perhaps any) reliable evidence to support the accusations.
The accusations are set out in the judgment. Obviously there wasn't sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof in a prosecution.
The Met knows that there are many officers who have behaved
inappropriately or broken the law without actually being prosecuted, and
the duty of care on the police is rather higher than on the average
employer. Should the Met simply wait for the officer to be prosecuted
and convicted?
see eg the spreadsheet for the period 2018 to 2024 https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2024/march_2024/police-officers-pcsos-charged-convicted-march2018-january2024.xlsx
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that
the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
In order to allow the Commissioner to dismiss on a whim?
Obviously not on a whim. Even if this officer was never guilty of a
criminal offence, he was making female officers uncomfortable,
apparently. Would this ever put a female crime victim at risk? That's
the sort of thing the Met is entitled to consider.
quote
...the Defendant’s powers do not extend to the dismissal of a
police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance. Dismissal
is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the
Secretary of State under section 50(3) of the Police Act 1996. This
results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic
vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the Defendant. In my view,
that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations. Mr Beggs KC
did not dispute this analysis.
It isn't "anomalous" at all if "withdrawal of vetting clearance" is
just something that can be done arbitrarily and without supporting
evidence which can be challenged via due process.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Di-Maria-v-Met-
Police-and-others.pdf
Are "failing a ... vetting scheme" and suffering "withdrawal of
vetting clearance" the same thing?
Under the process which it seems the Commissioner wants, what is to
stop him from "withdrawing vetting clearance" from any officer he
doesn't like, on a personal whim?
All the court did, it seems, was to assert the desirability of, and
the right to, due process and natural justice.
There were several findings by the judge, one of which was that further regulations are necessary if an officer who fails vetting is to be
dismissed. As you say, the judge also found that the officer should have
been given an opportunity to call witnesses, cross examine the
complainants and be legally represented. And one allegation against him
which helped to justify withdrawing his vetting clearance had not been properly put to him for his comments. Having sex in a Tesco car park. I
think he admitted doing so, but presumably he should have nevertheless
had the opportunity to argue why it should not have justified any
punishment.
The Times does not properly explain why the claimant won his case. The impression given to the reader would probably be that this is another outrageous example of Human Rights interfering in the diligent attempts
to root out unsatisfactory officers.
Maybe a politician will soon come
along and promise to repeal the Human Rights Act as the solution to all
this.
On 11/02/2025 05:40 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/02/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote:
On 11/02/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
The story in the Times is:
Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting
scheme
implemented following the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to
remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
unquote
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be
powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add
that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Why not?
The most obvious Occam-safe reason is that there wasn't enough
(perhaps any) reliable evidence to support the accusations.
The accusations are set out in the judgment. Obviously there wasn't
sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof in a prosecution.
So what's the problem?
"Punish him anyway"?
The Met knows that there are many officers who have behaved
inappropriately or broken the law without actually being prosecuted, and
the duty of care on the police is rather higher than on the average
employer. Should the Met simply wait for the officer to be prosecuted
and convicted?
Isn't that what they'd have to do with anyone else?
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:19:11 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 11/02/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:And would you want to seek any sort of help from a police officer who
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be
powerless to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate
behaviour. For those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" >>>>> one might add that it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in >>>>> public car parks, touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent >>>>> exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace,
and sending inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But
the officer hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely
that is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have
been partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct,
then they should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other >>>> job in the Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have
worked for have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
Police constables are not employees and don't have employment
contracts.
had received a "final warning" for sexually assaulting a colleague?
Can we not keep such knowledge secret from the public ?
On 11/02/2025 02:19 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/02/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-11, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 13:00, The Todal wrote:
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be
powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add
that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks, >>>>> touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic >>>>> abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Well, some of that list would class as Gross Misconduct, so surely that >>>> is written into their Employment Contract, that is, they have been
partaking in activities which are classed as Gross Misconduct, then they >>>> should be subject to immediate dismissal. Surely every other job in the >>>> Country has a similar ruling, I know any Companies I have worked for
have that in all of their employment contracts.
As for the more minor charges, possibly a warning, even a written
warning, and two written warnings in a year will mean dismissal.
I'd be surprised if the Police do not have such terms in their
employment contracts.
Police constables are not employees and don't have employment contracts.
And would you want to seek any sort of help from a police officer who
had received a "final warning" for sexually assaulting a colleague?
Isn't there at least one word missing from that?
On 11/02/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
The story in the Times is:
Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme
implemented following the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to
remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
unquote
The implication in the Times story is that the police might be powerless
to dismiss officers who are accused of inappropriate behaviour. For
those here who disapprove of the word "inappropriate" one might add that
it includes allegations of raping a woman twice in public car parks,
touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic
abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and sending
inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. But the officer
hasn't been prosecuted for any of that.
Why not?
The most obvious Occam-safe reason is that there wasn't enough (perhaps
any) reliable evidence to support the accusations.
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that
the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
In order to allow the Commissioner to dismiss on a whim?
quote
...the Defendant’s powers do not extend to the dismissal of a
police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance. Dismissal
is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the
Secretary of State under section 50(3) of the Police Act 1996. This
results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic
vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the Defendant. In my view,
that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations. Mr Beggs KC
did not dispute this analysis.
It isn't "anomalous" at all if "withdrawal of vetting clearance" is just something that can be done arbitrarily and without supporting evidence
which can be challenged via due process.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Di-Maria-v-Met-Police-and-others.pdf
Are "failing a ... vetting scheme" and suffering "withdrawal of vetting clearance" the same thing?
Under the process which it seems the Commissioner wants, what is to stop
him from "withdrawing vetting clearance" from any officer he doesn't
like, on a personal whim?
All the court did, it seems, was to assert the desirability of, and the
right to, due process and natural justice.
No. The court said nothing of the sort. The court agreed that the situation >was unsatisfactory and said that Parliament needed to legislate to allow >people who failed vetting to be sacked. Much like DBS, there is usually no >appeal against things mentioned in the "rumours" section, and some rumours are >not even allowed to be mentioned to the data subject; making appeal somewhat >unlikely. I actually agree people should not be subject to sanction without >due process, but that horse bolted some years ago.
The accusations are set out in the judgment. Obviously there wasn't sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof in a prosecution.
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that
the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
In order to allow the Commissioner to dismiss on a whim?
Obviously not on a whim. Even if this officer was never guilty of a
criminal offence, he was making female officers uncomfortable,
apparently.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:40:03 +0000, The Todal wrote:
The accusations are set out in the judgment. Obviously there wasn't
sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof in a prosecution.
That's putting it mildly. The judgement read like the screenplay for Carry
On Constable. I couldn't get Sid James' face out of my mind while reading
it.
[snip]
The full judgment is available, and what it seems to be saying is that >>>> the relevant regulations are defective and need to be remedied by
Parliament.
In order to allow the Commissioner to dismiss on a whim?
Obviously not on a whim. Even if this officer was never guilty of a
criminal offence, he was making female officers uncomfortable,
apparently.
The principal complainant got down on all fours for him in the back of a police car. Sounds pretty uncomfortable to me.
But, on the other hand, the police are in a highly privileged position
of access to potentially vulnerable people and it's entirely right that
they are held to a higher standard than the general public.
So I think it is justifiable to have a process for dismissing a police officer who fails a vetting test, even if there are insufficient grounds for prosecution or even disciplinary action. The two key things here are that
the vetting process itself must be fair, transparant and robust, and any resulting dismissal (or refusal of employment) must not be presented as
being in any way a value judgment on the officer or applicant. And that
needs to be legislated for, not merely introduced as a management decision.
On 11/02/2025 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
So I think it is justifiable to have a process for dismissing a police
officer who fails a vetting test, even if there are insufficient grounds for >> prosecution or even disciplinary action. The two key things here are that
the vetting process itself must be fair, transparant and robust, and any
resulting dismissal (or refusal of employment) must not be presented as
being in any way a value judgment on the officer or applicant. And that
needs to be legislated for, not merely introduced as a management decision.
I don't see how legislation could prevent others from drawing conclusions from his
being dismissed.
(Might help him getting a security guard job, though, or even a prison officer.)
On 11/02/2025 22:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
So I think it is justifiable to have a process for dismissing a police
officer who fails a vetting test, even if there are insufficient grounds for >> prosecution or even disciplinary action. The two key things here are that
the vetting process itself must be fair, transparant and robust, and any
resulting dismissal (or refusal of employment) must not be presented as
being in any way a value judgment on the officer or applicant. And that
needs to be legislated for, not merely introduced as a management decision.
I don't see how legislation could prevent others from drawing
conclusions from his being dismissed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:12:58 |
| Calls: | 9,822 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,639 |