Police committing sexual crimes

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by JQH » Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:00 pm

I think they're hoping we'll forget about them.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Fishnut » Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:14 pm

A woman witnessed the caution and arrest of another woman and her partner following suspected domestic violence in June of this year. The male Metropolitan police officer involved was aggressive, repeatedly shouting "f.ck off" to the woman and pushing her, causing her to fall into the road. The witness complained through the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), telling the IOPC that if the woman lodged her own complaint she would back her up.

The IOPC passed on her complaint to the Met. She received a letter from them confirming that her concerns would be looked into and that they,
“also sent a copy of our record to the police officer(s), who is/are the subject of your complaint”.
This included her full contact details.

From The Independent,
The complaint was eventually passed on to the Lewisham local police branch to investigate. The woman called to express her concern about the sharing of her personal data, but the professional standards officer at that office told her that standard procedures had been followed.

She eventually spoke with the officer’s line manager but said she was met with little understanding over her fears, and was reassured the officer in question was “a very reasonable guy”...

The Met Police admitted the personal details were shared with the male officer whose conduct she criticised, but said it believed the case to be “an isolated incident”. It added that personal information should be stripped from any document before it reaches the subject of a complaint.
So we have a woman being told by the professional standards officer that standard procedures had been followed when they hadn't, an officer being accused of violent conduct being called “a very reasonable guy”, and no-one understanding why a woman might be concerned that her address and phone number had been passed on to him.
“This was about 10 days after Wayne Couzens had admitted the kidnap of Sarah Everard six miles away, so it seemed particularly weird that none of the officers I’d talked to seemed to understand why as a woman I’d be particularly worried about a potentially violent police officer having my address,” she said.
The Met has since said it was an error and that they have changed their forms to prevent it happening again. There is nothing in the article that says they are going to investigate why the professional standards officer was unaware of actual standard procedures or why there was no concern, even just from a GDPR perspective, of personal details being passed to people not authorised to have them.

To cap it all, the investigation into the original complaint found that,
the service provided by the officers involved in the arrest was acceptable.
But it's all ok because we can get plain clothes officers to video call back to their station and confirm that they're legit. What more could we want?
it's okay to say "I don't know"

monkey
Dorkwood
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by monkey » Tue Dec 21, 2021 6:12 pm

The head of the Police Federation has been suspended and is being investigated for criminal sexual offences.

clicky

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Fishnut » Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:11 pm

This is an excerpt from a book by one of the women conned into a relationship by an undercover police officer. It sounds like she wasn't even that heavily involved in any causes, though she knew a few people who were.

They had a monogamous, committed relationship, yet she later found out he was married and his wife was pregnant at the time he was talking about having kids with her. A 2 year relationship was a lie. And when she tries to bring a case against the police they do all they can to wear her down so she'll stop pursuing justice.
Later, at a legal meeting, one of the other women duped by an undercover officer tells me that she felt close to breaking when the police wrote requesting she go through another assessment.

We all believe this tactic is designed to put other women off suing the police. There is a tsunami of new cases about to emerge, and an increase in public awareness means that other women who suspect they had a relationship with an undercover officer are seeking legal advice...

...the Crown Prosecution Service made a blanket statement on all our cases. There would be no prosecutions for sexual offences due to genuine feelings. Genuine feelings. They are trying to excuse Carlo by saying he really loved me. It is yet another deflating, denigrating experience, and highlights in the most basic way how institutionally sexist the criminal justice system is. Consent means nothing.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by purplehaze » Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:02 pm

I've just watched The Puppet Master on Netflix and I kept thinking of those women conned by the undercover police. Of course there's a huge amount of victim blaming when it comes to conning people, which I find incredibly disturbing.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by JQH » Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:32 am

Fishnut wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:11 pm
This is an excerpt from a book by one of the women conned into a relationship by an undercover police officer. It sounds like she wasn't even that heavily involved in any causes, though she knew a few people who were.

They had a monogamous, committed relationship, yet she later found out he was married and his wife was pregnant at the time he was talking about having kids with her. A 2 year relationship was a lie. And when she tries to bring a case against the police they do all they can to wear her down so she'll stop pursuing justice.
Later, at a legal meeting, one of the other women duped by an undercover officer tells me that she felt close to breaking when the police wrote requesting she go through another assessment.

We all believe this tactic is designed to put other women off suing the police. There is a tsunami of new cases about to emerge, and an increase in public awareness means that other women who suspect they had a relationship with an undercover officer are seeking legal advice...

...the Crown Prosecution Service made a blanket statement on all our cases. There would be no prosecutions for sexual offences due to genuine feelings. Genuine feelings. They are trying to excuse Carlo by saying he really loved me. It is yet another deflating, denigrating experience, and highlights in the most basic way how institutionally sexist the criminal justice system is. Consent means nothing.
Just read that article. There is much to be angry about in the police behaviour but in particular what the f.ck was their justification for insisting that she had a psychiatric assessment?
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by jimbob » Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:59 pm

Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3624
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by discovolante » Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:24 pm

I know this is a bit trivial and 'me me me', but I did some police station representation work (I.e. representing suspects being interviewed) at charing cross - and other London stations - around that time, and it's a bit gross to think that was going on around me tbh. Obviously what with police stations otherwise being such lovely welcoming places of course :P
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

monkey
Dorkwood
Posts: 1570
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by monkey » Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:45 pm

discovolante wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:24 pm
I know this is a bit trivial and 'me me me'...
You had to interact with these bastards, or at least bastards who knew it was going on and did nothing. That doesn't seem trivial to me.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by jimbob » Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:12 pm

monkey wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:45 pm
discovolante wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:24 pm
I know this is a bit trivial and 'me me me'...
You had to interact with these bastards, or at least bastards who knew it was going on and did nothing. That doesn't seem trivial to me.
Indeed
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by jimbob » Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:23 pm

Well Dad's on the same page as me.

He said that maybe Johnson could get a job in Charing Cross police station.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Fishnut » Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pm

Via Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.
Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...

After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.
The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,
Please look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.
and
“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by bagpuss » Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am

Fishnut wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pm
Via Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.
Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...

After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.
The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,
Please look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.
and
“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by jimbob » Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:53 am

bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pm
Via Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.
Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...

After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.
The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,
Please look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.
and
“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
Exactly.

And another reason why Cressida Dick had to go.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by bagpuss » Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:15 am

jimbob wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:53 am
bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pm
Via Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.


The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,


and


While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
Exactly.

And another reason why Cressida Dick had to go.
Indeed.

As someone on the radio this morning (didn't hear who unfortunately) clearly agreed with me - she was always on the defensive, always defending her people whenever accusations were made. While that's a good thing in a manager/leader, it has to be backed up with the knowledge that your people are worthy of your efforts in their defence. And if there's doubt, you should be investigating. And if there are repeated accusations, you should damned well be having some doubt.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Opti » Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:19 am

Kristina O'Connor is my next door neighbours sister. I've met her quite a few times and the full story behind this is more horrifying, and disturbing, than has been reported.
Time for a big fat one.

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by bagpuss » Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:44 am

Opti wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:19 am
Kristina O'Connor is my next door neighbours sister. I've met her quite a few times and the full story behind this is more horrifying, and disturbing, than has been reported.
Sadly, that really doesn't surprise me. I hope she is doing OK now and has all the support she needs.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 6125
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pm

bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am

Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
I'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.

The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by tom p » Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:25 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pm
bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am

Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
I'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.

The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
Not if they train enough.
Sure, that's probably a 4-year process ('cos you have to get the ducks in a row to increase the number of trainees), but once that's done, then you have enough trained plod coming through to get rid of the wrong 'uns.
ETA: it's hardly new to have had cops committing gross misconduct, so this is something which should have been done decades ago. Failure to have done this shows massive incompetence from the top brass
Furthermore, back in the 70s the met was able to get rid of 500 corrupt pigs without worrying about not having enough to replace them

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Sciolus » Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:33 pm

That costs money.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by tom p » Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:56 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:33 pm
That costs money.
Actually, it might save money.
New staff have lower salaries than old. Small startup cost with long-term cost saving.
Sacking established staff for gross misconduct might even have a saving regarding pensions too, depending on the way the rules are

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by bagpuss » Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pm
bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am

Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
I'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.

The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
Gross misconduct should very much be an exception not a commonplace and in my understanding of the term fundamentally means that the employee has done something that means you really don't want that person working for you any more and more harm would be done to your organisation by keeping them employed than by dismissing them, despite all the costs incurred by replacing them.

So if you have high enough levels of gross misconduct in your (not your personally, obviously) organisation that you need to keep those people working for you because you can't afford to lose them, then you really have a serious problem that senior people should be addressing as a priority. The kind of priority that requires urgent actions to be taken, not just something to talk about at the next quarterly meeting. I know that the police force, along with everyone else, has been massively underfunded over recent years in particular, but continuing to employ officers who have committed gross misconduct is not the solution.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 6125
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:15 pm

bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:58 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pm
bagpuss wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am

Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
I'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.

The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
Gross misconduct should very much be an exception not a commonplace and in my understanding of the term fundamentally means that the employee has done something that means you really don't want that person working for you any more and more harm would be done to your organisation by keeping them employed than by dismissing them, despite all the costs incurred by replacing them.

So if you have high enough levels of gross misconduct in your (not your personally, obviously) organisation that you need to keep those people working for you because you can't afford to lose them, then you really have a serious problem that senior people should be addressing as a priority. The kind of priority that requires urgent actions to be taken, not just something to talk about at the next quarterly meeting. I know that the police force, along with everyone else, has been massively underfunded over recent years in particular, but continuing to employ officers who have committed gross misconduct is not the solution.
I agree. It seems that there are very serious and widespread problems in the Met and other services. If the examples that have been discussed on this thread and others are indicative of systemic problems, and they do seem to be, then it would appear a large proportion of police officers would appear to be involved in gross misconduct.

It is possible to reform a police service that for decades had been prone to corruption and abuses of power. That was done during the late 1990s and 2000s in Northern Ireland. But it required over a decade, high level political commitment and a ton money. Alternatively, in the short run its easier for those in charge to just look the other way and send officers off on training courses.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by Allo V Psycho » Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:58 pm

Isn't there a possibility that if those found to have committed gross misconduct were immediately sacked, others might be less likely to commit gross misconduct? And that if they suffer no serious sanction, then the chances that others will commit gross misconduct is increased? Hence you cannot estimate the impact on numbers employed of sacking for gross misconduct by looking at the incidence in an organisation that currently tolerates it.

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Police committing sexual crimes

Post by bagpuss » Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:06 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:58 pm
Isn't there a possibility that if those found to have committed gross misconduct were immediately sacked, others might be less likely to commit gross misconduct? And that if they suffer no serious sanction, then the chances that others will commit gross misconduct is increased? Hence you cannot estimate the impact on numbers employed of sacking for gross misconduct by looking at the incidence in an organisation that currently tolerates it.
No, it's just one bad apple, isn't it? ([/s] in case that wasn't obvious)

It does seem like a reasonable hypothesis, at least, that allowing people who behave that way to continue in their careers with little or no impact, would at least not discourage others very much from doing the same. That is, after all, the whole damn point of the bad apple saying - one bad apple spoils the barrel.

Let's change the gross misconduct for a second to, say, theft - if someone is found to have stolen several laptops from the office and is given little more than a slap on the wrist, and then another person steals some mobile phones and receives similar treatment then, apart from innate/thoroughly inculcated honesty and ethics, what's to stop everyone from stealing stuff with impunity? Of course you're not going to just let people steal expensive equipment and carry on in their jobs, so why is it OK to allow officers guilty of sexual crimes to do so?

Post Reply