Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Red Devil said:
Really? The Met was very keen to keep things behind closed doors until directed otherwise by the IOPC.
https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds.
Or perhaps they knew they were going to issue a sanction which falls within a misconduct meeting, which would mean a misconduct hearing is unnecessary. https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds.
Red 4 said:
Red Devil said:
Really? The Met was very keen to keep things behind closed doors until directed otherwise by the IOPC.
https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds.
Yes, because that was then, this is now and there has been lots more coverage in the press.https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds.
IOPC said:
Our investigation found that a misconduct hearing could decide PC Savage’s actions amount to gross misconduct. The Metropolitan Police did not agree and so we have directed that a misconduct hearing be held to consider the evidence.
I don't believe the Met has changed its stance at all since then. Hence the direction given to it by the IOPC.Red 4 said:
Or is it a safer bet that Alpinestars will be first in the queue at the misconduct hearing ?
Probably. 
Come to think of it, if I'm not otherwise engaged on the appointed day/s I might apply for a place myself.
La Liga said:
Or perhaps they knew they were going to issue a sanction which falls within a misconduct meeting, which would mean a misconduct hearing is unnecessary.
Well, given that no such proceedings have occurred yet, to me that carries a whiff of pre-determining the outcome.An outcome short of dismissal is still open to them at a hearing.
The crucial difference is the latter will be held in public rather than behind closed doors.
I still hold to the view that the Met in its parochial outlook really doesn't 'get it' from a PR perspective.
As Lord Hewart CJ famously remarked in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924]...
Red Devil said:
Well, given that no such proceedings have occurred yet, to me that carries a whiff of pre-determining the outcome.
An outcome short of dismissal is still open to them at a hearing.
The crucial difference is the latter will be held in public rather than behind closed doors.
The Met have to decide whether they think it's a meeting or a hearing. That is a decision that has to be made prior to the proceedings. Obviously that pre-determines whether the dismissal sanctions will be available or not. An outcome short of dismissal is still open to them at a hearing.
The crucial difference is the latter will be held in public rather than behind closed doors.
In this case the Met have all the information they need in which to make a decision, so if there wanting it to be a meeting is a clear indication of where they see it going, it's pointless to force a hearing.
It being in public isn't a good enough reason for it to be a hearing. It's already been in public from the trial. Hearings take longer to organise, hold and cost more.
Generally speaking, dismissal is for people who are convicted of a crime or who have acted dishonestly in a manner which doesn't result in a charge.
If they are genuinely considering dismissal then fair enough, but as I say, they have all the information they need to decide the general cut off.
Alpinestars said:
Savage found guilty of gross misconduct by the IOPC.
“A police misconduct panel found the officer breached standards as he had forcefully smashed the window without warning.
He was also found to have lost control and to have been carrying the knife without permission.”
Just a slight technicality the IOPC didn't find him guilty. The Met Police misconduct panel did. “A police misconduct panel found the officer breached standards as he had forcefully smashed the window without warning.
He was also found to have lost control and to have been carrying the knife without permission.”
TVR1 said:
Did you choose to ignore the part in all of the reporting that then goes on to say
'Released without charge?'
Or would that be an uncomfortable truth, that the chap involved had done nothing wrong, other than 'being in the possession of curly black hair and thick lips'.
Or the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to make a charge stick in court'Released without charge?'
Or would that be an uncomfortable truth, that the chap involved had done nothing wrong, other than 'being in the possession of curly black hair and thick lips'.
And that's the reason so many people get off with things they are guilty off
wjb said:
La Liga said:
He resigned prior to the hearing so I don’t think the sanction will matter too much to him...
Nearly three years for something so minor!
He should've resigned as soon as he got back to the station that day...Nearly three years for something so minor!
Chris32345 said:
TVR1 said:
Did you choose to ignore the part in all of the reporting that then goes on to say
'Released without charge?'
Or would that be an uncomfortable truth, that the chap involved had done nothing wrong, other than 'being in the possession of curly black hair and thick lips'.
Or the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to make a charge stick in court'Released without charge?'
Or would that be an uncomfortable truth, that the chap involved had done nothing wrong, other than 'being in the possession of curly black hair and thick lips'.
And that's the reason so many people get off with things they are guilty off
Countdown said:
Does he still get to keep his pension?
Yes even if he doesn't resign. Losing (Most) of their pension happens only "if the grantee has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his service as a member of a police force which is certified by the Secretary of State either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public services."It's pretty rare.
Graveworm said:
Countdown said:
Does he still get to keep his pension?
Yes even if he doesn't resign. Losing (Most) of their pension happens only "if the grantee has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his service as a member of a police force which is certified by the Secretary of State either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public services."It's pretty rare.
Or an offence ( or offences ) under The Official Secrets Act to which he has been sentenced to a term of at least 10 years imprisonment.
Regulation K5 iirc.
Countdown said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Countdown said:
Does he still get to keep his pension?
Why shouldn't he keep his pension? It will be s
t anyway given the small number of years contribution Isn't that enough ?
Why should he also lose a ( small,deferred) pension he has contributed to ?
Would you lose your pension if you were sacked ( or resigned) from your job ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff