top WPC gets her breast out
Discussion
carinaman said:
Derek Smith said:
Unlike, I think, you I have a fair degree of experience in discipline in the service, although only at a lower lever.
As I said, I'm not, that not as in not, defending the circumstances of this incident. So not defending. Have I made not defending clear enough?
All I'm trying to do is explain matters. These things are not simple. I can think of a number of reasons for the time it took to bring it to a hearing. However, I know as little about this case as you so can make no evidenced judgement on it.
On the other hand, I do know of cases where an ACPO member, as in this case, has been disciplined. These people have access to quality legal advice. They are chief officers and not to be discarded in the same manner as federated officers. A case has to be prepared with some delicacy.
Also they require, to a degree, cooperation from the disciplined officer for quick reslution. I know of a case where an ACPO officer used medical grounds to delay the hearing for more than a year. A specialist brief will cost but will know the ropes.
You might not like the processes. I have no way of changing them and don't tilt at windmills despite the disparity between the safeguards between those at the top and those of my ex-level. I'm not defending the systems, merely using my limited knowledge to explain matters.
An MP knew better in the case of Shoesmith and, ignoring advice, went all macho. It was self indulgent and, in my opinion, rather stupid. You have to work with the situation as it is. Anything else has a way of rebounding.
As I say, I can't comment on this specific case as I only know what has been published and only the most bewildered would believe that all relevant details have been exposed, so I can't comment on it. I do know the tricks that briefs in such cases can pull though.
I also know the dangers of not following proper and established procedures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...As I said, I'm not, that not as in not, defending the circumstances of this incident. So not defending. Have I made not defending clear enough?
All I'm trying to do is explain matters. These things are not simple. I can think of a number of reasons for the time it took to bring it to a hearing. However, I know as little about this case as you so can make no evidenced judgement on it.
On the other hand, I do know of cases where an ACPO member, as in this case, has been disciplined. These people have access to quality legal advice. They are chief officers and not to be discarded in the same manner as federated officers. A case has to be prepared with some delicacy.
Also they require, to a degree, cooperation from the disciplined officer for quick reslution. I know of a case where an ACPO officer used medical grounds to delay the hearing for more than a year. A specialist brief will cost but will know the ropes.
You might not like the processes. I have no way of changing them and don't tilt at windmills despite the disparity between the safeguards between those at the top and those of my ex-level. I'm not defending the systems, merely using my limited knowledge to explain matters.
An MP knew better in the case of Shoesmith and, ignoring advice, went all macho. It was self indulgent and, in my opinion, rather stupid. You have to work with the situation as it is. Anything else has a way of rebounding.
As I say, I can't comment on this specific case as I only know what has been published and only the most bewildered would believe that all relevant details have been exposed, so I can't comment on it. I do know the tricks that briefs in such cases can pull though.
I also know the dangers of not following proper and established procedures.
So an officer misuses their access to police IT systems to track and target the husband of the woman he's involved with, or wishes to continue being involved with.
The 'system' then allows him to be 'disciplined' and sacked rather than facing a High Court trial for the indictable offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
His conduct was criminal, but disciplining him and sacking him means he has no criminal record for his criminal conduct.
What possible excuse can he use to defend or excuse his unauthorised access to police IT systems to pursue a personal insterest or gain?
He misused the 'system' and the 'system' was then played to keep him out of Court for judgement by his peers.
I am struggling to see how gaming the 'system' like that benefits decent and law abiding police officers.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 1st December 19:46
Oh, that politician?? None other then Ed Balls.....
Nanook said:
Why has someone with an iota of sense about them (I already know the answer, there is no-one that meets that criteria employed there) not looked at this and used some management bulls
t bingo phrase like 'low hanging fruit' to justify sorting this case out ASAP, since it's clear what the outcome should be, based on the facts, is currently preventing a role from being carried out effectively, and is costing a lot of money?
Yes, these things take time, yes, there are procedures, yes, the people investigating it may have other things to deal with as well, but none of those are really valid excuses in my opinion. It wouldn't happen like that in the private sector, I think everyone agrees, so why is it acceptable in the public sector?
t bingo phrase like 'low hanging fruit' to justify sorting this case out ASAP, since it's clear what the outcome should be, based on the facts, is currently preventing a role from being carried out effectively, and is costing a lot of money?Yes, these things take time, yes, there are procedures, yes, the people investigating it may have other things to deal with as well, but none of those are really valid excuses in my opinion. It wouldn't happen like that in the private sector, I think everyone agrees, so why is it acceptable in the public sector?
La Liga said:
Police misconduct has specific laws and procedures given the greater exposures to complaints the police have due to the nature of the work. Due to this, drawing simplistic comparisons the private sector (as others have done) falls short. One obvious example is the legal structure (there are Barristers representing each side) surrounding the actual misconduct hearings which are heard in public. Apples and oranges.
Here's a basic intro to it all: link(replace the <u> with double underscores). Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
They may have a large workload and are investigating quite a few cases in parallel.
If they take 7+ months for a simple little bar room spat then it's no wonder their cases overlap.But it's taxpayers' money, so who cares?
(If the police claim shortage of funds, here's a good example of where waste could be cut without affecting the front line).
For example, sending a file to the CPS may take sometime for it to arrive back. Until a criminal decision is made no misconduct matters can be resolved.
I'm sure you considered that and all the other many potential variables.
AJL308 said:
The next time someone does something similar they can't sack them because it will be seen as unfair/discriminatory. Exposing your-self in a sexual manner to a subordinate coupled with sexually offensive and degrading language directed at them is now, essentially, "allowed" behavior in that all you will get is a bit of a financial penalty and a written warning.
It sets no binding precedent whatsoever. Adrian W said:
Who are you kidding Derek, are seriously trying to defend this fiasco , 10 months for a no brainer
There's still a process to be followed. I'm sure you'd prefer the police, in the business, to still have to follow the law and procedures when they're dealing with 'no brainers' for the public.
carinaman said:
The 'system' then allows him to be 'disciplined' and sacked rather than facing a High Court trial for the indictable offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
His conduct was criminal, but disciplining him and sacking him means he has no criminal record for his criminal conduct.
What possible excuse can he use to defend or excuse his unauthorised access to police IT systems to pursue a personal insterest or gain?
Simple data breaches don't reach the seriousness threshold for misconduct in a public office. Did I not mention this in another thread about the matter? His conduct was criminal, but disciplining him and sacking him means he has no criminal record for his criminal conduct.
What possible excuse can he use to defend or excuse his unauthorised access to police IT systems to pursue a personal insterest or gain?
55palfers said:
"Gross misconduct is behaviour, on the part of an employee, which is so bad that it destroys the employer/employee relationship, and merits instant dismissal without notice or pay in lieu of notice. (Such dismissal without notice is often called 'summary dismissal'.)"
Just to help out.
Potential police gross misconduct outcomes as prescribed by law, just to help out: Just to help out.
Dismissal without notice
Dismissal with notice
Final Written Warning
Written warning
Management advice
s3fella said:
Shame on you for casting dispersions on the ethics and motives are our wonderful police force.
BTW, did the enquiry mention that "lessons will be learned" before they got the white paint out?
Shame on you for taking a DM & Carinaman source / assessment as to what criminal offence should have been forthcoming seemingly as fact. Him saying 'the high court' rather than 'crown court' was a rather large red flag that he doesn't really know what he's talking about there. BTW, did the enquiry mention that "lessons will be learned" before they got the white paint out?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 1st December 20:31
carinaman said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
So an officer misuses their access to police IT systems to track and target the husband of the woman he's involved with, or wishes to continue being involved with.
The 'system' then allows him to be 'disciplined' and sacked rather than facing a High Court trial for the indictable offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
His conduct was criminal, but disciplining him and sacking him means he has no criminal record for his criminal conduct.
What possible excuse can he use to defend or excuse his unauthorised access to police IT systems to pursue a personal insterest or gain?
He misused the 'system' and the 'system' was then played to keep him out of Court for judgement by his peers.
I am struggling to see how gaming the 'system' like that benefits decent and law abiding police officers.
I'm not sure why you are asking me.So an officer misuses their access to police IT systems to track and target the husband of the woman he's involved with, or wishes to continue being involved with.
The 'system' then allows him to be 'disciplined' and sacked rather than facing a High Court trial for the indictable offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
His conduct was criminal, but disciplining him and sacking him means he has no criminal record for his criminal conduct.
What possible excuse can he use to defend or excuse his unauthorised access to police IT systems to pursue a personal insterest or gain?
He misused the 'system' and the 'system' was then played to keep him out of Court for judgement by his peers.
I am struggling to see how gaming the 'system' like that benefits decent and law abiding police officers.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 1st December 19:46
There are lots of systems I disagree with. There's some I think should be streamlined but, guess what, I'm never asked to modify them. I've had to work with them in the past and the present. This does not mean I agree with them.
In my time as a supervisor I started two processes to dismiss police officers, both of them probationers, both of them best out of the job for the public and for other officers. And for themselves as well come to that. Both processes took over six months. One, in fact, ended after I left the shift and it was taken over, energetically, by my replacement. It's a process. It is not difficult but takes planning. I complied with what I had to.
If I had not followed the processes either person could have taken the Job to court, using legislation available to all employees, and have cost the Job a great deal of money, and we would probably have had to reemploy them. The government did not ask my permission to pass the legislation.
Command rank officers have privileges as well as responsibilities. Their security of tenure is greater in the main than those below them. I think it unfair. I could rail against it, but don't. There's no point.
There's an old poem that goes along the lines of: god grant me the grace to accept those things I cannot change, the bravery to change those I can and the wisdom to know the difference. There is no point in complaining about gravity if you have to walk up stairs.
You ask for an excuse. Who are you asking this of? I've nothing to do with it. I'm just telling you the way it is.
55palfers said:
I don't think Ms Shoesmith has any relevance here. Her summary dismissal (by silly MPs and the media) was for her (lack of ?) professional judgement on a specific case/client. Not for being pissed and slagging off a junior member of her staff
I'm bewildered by your post.Shoesmith was sacked without following procedures. The conversation was about procedures, which take time. It is very apt. Almost an example of why proper procedures should be followed.
Derek Smith said:
mac96 said:
I think the issue is the delay, and the paid time off at our expense- most of us accept that we do not know what punishment is deserved, if any, for her actions.
Just that normal employers make their minds up a little faster about drunken idiocy. Days, not months.
We only know what has been written in the press. We have no idea as to what has already taken place. Here we has a senior officer, in a position of authority, with a well financed supporting body. Just that normal employers make their minds up a little faster about drunken idiocy. Days, not months.
We don't, of course, know if the reason she is off work is because she's been suspended or she's gone sick. We don't know if a hearing, or hearings, have been scheduled and have had to be cancelled or put back.
Although I know next to nothing about this case, in other words as much as anyone else posting on here, I can think of a number of reasons why the delay. Also this is a dismissal level charge, so there will be appeals.
In similar cases I know of, the senior officer has been approached, legally and with reports, with an offer so that they can leave without a dismissal on their CV. It is, the powers suggest, a way of saving money.
I don't know, of course, I'm as ignorant of the details as all other posters about the precise circumstances, but if that has gone on and it was refused then the case has to be prepared. I would assume that discipline and complaints would assume that her decision, now she's sobered up - if she was drunk in the first place of course - that she would have refused under advice.
It is all very well the macho posturing of 'sack 'em immediately' but this ignores the reality of the situation. This is senior management, not shop floor. I've got my doubts that any company would sack a person in their firm of similar level without evidence to support their action.
I am in a position to say that there is a problem with the process which has taken so long.
This may be down to design of process or its implementation in this case- either way, not satisfactory.
She may be off sick, although original article specifically said suspended on full pay. I accept journalists don't always get it right!But for me it really isn't about her as an individual.
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
Editited to add- missed your last point- again for what its worth, I have known senior managers being 'dissappeared' as it tended to be known, although you are right that I cannot point to a specific parallel example. Perhaps because in the private sector top execs of large companies don't get blotto and act the fool in front of potentially hostile witnesses?
Edited by mac96 on Thursday 1st December 20:40
La Liga, please explain why that was a 'simple' data breach?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
1. What was that officer's intent or Mens Rea? What motivated his misconduct?
2. Did his access to police IT resources allow him to use them for his own personal interest or gain?
3. Would there likely have been a force policy that clearly stated that police IT resources should not be used for personal interest or gain?
4. Did he have a legitimate operational policing justification for his conduct in targeting the husband of the woman he was invovled with?
5. Would misuse of police IT resource to target the husband of the woman he was invovled with be consistent with the wording and intent of the Constable's Oath?
6. Would the targeting of Mr H via the use of police IT resources breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act?
7. Would the targeting of Mr H via the use of police IT resources be humiliating and degrading and an unusual punishment and therefore a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act?
8. Does the Constable's Oath reference respecting fundamental Human Rights?
Was the conduct of PC Anthony Gillard:
P - Proportionate?
L - Legal/Lawful
A - Authorised (his use of police IT systems to pursue the husband of Mrs H wasn't authorised)
N - Necessary (How can it be?)
E - Ethical. (Not a chance)
It was Misconduct in Public Office.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
1. What was that officer's intent or Mens Rea? What motivated his misconduct?
2. Did his access to police IT resources allow him to use them for his own personal interest or gain?
3. Would there likely have been a force policy that clearly stated that police IT resources should not be used for personal interest or gain?
4. Did he have a legitimate operational policing justification for his conduct in targeting the husband of the woman he was invovled with?
5. Would misuse of police IT resource to target the husband of the woman he was invovled with be consistent with the wording and intent of the Constable's Oath?
6. Would the targeting of Mr H via the use of police IT resources breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act?
7. Would the targeting of Mr H via the use of police IT resources be humiliating and degrading and an unusual punishment and therefore a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act?
8. Does the Constable's Oath reference respecting fundamental Human Rights?
Was the conduct of PC Anthony Gillard:
P - Proportionate?
L - Legal/Lawful
A - Authorised (his use of police IT systems to pursue the husband of Mrs H wasn't authorised)
N - Necessary (How can it be?)
E - Ethical. (Not a chance)
It was Misconduct in Public Office.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 1st December 20:44
REALIST123 said:
Taking care of their own or afraid of kickback if they impose a fair punishment?
It's an independent panel... mac96 said:
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
La Liga said:
Police misconduct has specific laws and procedures given the greater exposures to complaints the police have due to the nature of the work. Due to this, drawing simplistic comparisons the private sector (as others have done) falls short. One obvious example is the legal structure (there are Barristers representing each side) surrounding the actual misconduct hearings which are heard in public. Apples and oranges.
Find a private company that the government has created something like this for: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2632/pdfs/...carinaman said:
La Liga, please explain why that was a 'simple' data breach?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
There's already a specific recent topic about this matter rather than you trying to derail this one. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
Misconduct in a public office said:
In Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 the court said that the misconduct must amount to:
"...an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder".
"...an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder".
La Liga said:
carinaman said:
La Liga, please explain why that was a 'simple' data breach?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
There's already a specific recent topic about this matter rather than you trying to derail this one. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986762/Po...
Misconduct in a public office said:
In Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 the court said that the misconduct must amount to:
"...an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder".
"...an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder".
I think Gillard's Misconduct was suitably high.
Gillard's conduct was stalking. He used police IT systems to pursue a personal interest or gain, something he was unauthorised to do, and very likely in breach of his force's IT usage policy to stalk Mr H to disrupt the relationship and improve his chances with Mrs H. He used police IT resources to stalk Mr H.
There was no impartiality in his conduct.
As for slating the DM as being an unreliable source of information, PC Anthony Gillard can sue them if it's wrong can't he? Police officers have been called out in Court by judges for lying.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 1st December 20:51
La Liga said:
REALIST123 said:
Taking care of their own or afraid of kickback if they impose a fair punishment?
It's an independent panel... mac96 said:
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
La Liga said:
Police misconduct has specific laws and procedures given the greater exposures to complaints the police have due to the nature of the work. Due to this, drawing simplistic comparisons the private sector (as others have done) falls short. One obvious example is the legal structure (there are Barristers representing each side) surrounding the actual misconduct hearings which are heard in public. Apples and oranges.
Find a private company that the government has created something like this for: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2632/pdfs/...I suppose in a way though you have answered my question indirectly- it is presumably seen as too difficult to draw a line between what you might describe as external facing misconduct, and the internal type which I suggested could follow normal industry practice. And you wouldn't want the former being pushed through a process designed for the latter just because it was arguably near the dividing line, or endless arguments about which process to follow for a particular case.
So- thank you.
Derek Smith said:
55palfers said:
I don't think Ms Shoesmith has any relevance here. Her summary dismissal (by silly MPs and the media) was for her (lack of ?) professional judgement on a specific case/client. Not for being pissed and slagging off a junior member of her staff
I'm bewildered by your post.Shoesmith was sacked without following procedures. The conversation was about procedures, which take time. It is very apt. Almost an example of why proper procedures should be followed.
I didn't understand quite why you even mentioned her in the context of our (apparently) pissed tit-flasher and public berater of juniors.
carinaman said:
I'm not trying to derail this thread. I referenced that case in response to Derek Smith's one about the system.
I think Gillard's conduct was suitably high.
What you think doesn't matter. You have little to no knowledge of criminal law and no experience of applying it. The application of the law to the circumstances by those qualified and competent to do so is what matters. I think Gillard's conduct was suitably high.
For example, a ruling by the Lord Chief Justice (someone who does know what he's talking about) emphasised the high threshold of seriousness needed to prosecute the offence last year.
mac96 said:
That is only explaining how the process works. It does not justify why incidents of the sort here have to go through a process comparable to an accusation of serious misconduct affecting the public. I did say before that it could be poor process not poor implementation, and I fully accept that process is not designed by the police themselves.
I suppose in a way though you have answered my question indirectly- it is presumably seen as too difficult to draw a line between what you might describe as external facing misconduct, and the internal type which I suggested could follow normal industry practice. And you wouldn't want the former being pushed through a process designed for the latter just because it was arguably near the dividing line, or endless arguments about which process to follow for a particular case.
So- thank you.
The police are unique. Their misconduct hearings are held in public (that doesn't happen in the private sector) and the laws and procedures are comprehensive and thorough. That doesn't happen in the private sector. That is one of many fundamental differences and a reason why the matter is going to be investigated to the nth degree and subsequently take a time period that initially strikes one as quite long. I suppose in a way though you have answered my question indirectly- it is presumably seen as too difficult to draw a line between what you might describe as external facing misconduct, and the internal type which I suggested could follow normal industry practice. And you wouldn't want the former being pushed through a process designed for the latter just because it was arguably near the dividing line, or endless arguments about which process to follow for a particular case.
So- thank you.
You're presenting information that is going to scrutinised by barristers who are experts in the relevant areas of law. Not an HR manager and whoever else who wear many hats in he private sector (I've seen private sector internal investigations for misconduct matters and they were rubbish and exposed those organisations to risk within employment law). If you've neglected aspects or not followed up reasonable enquiries then you're more likely to let misconduct go unpunished. Now that would look poor at a public hearing.
mac96 said:
For what its worth, I am not in the 'sack her immediately' camp.And neither am I saying she deserves to be sacked now- I am not in a position to judge.I actually have some sympathy- I have had colleagues go down the route through booze to unemployability. Which I certainly hope does not happen to her.
I am in a position to say that there is a problem with the process which has taken so long.
This may be down to design of process or its implementation in this case- either way, not satisfactory.
She may be off sick, although original article specifically said suspended on full pay. I accept journalists don't always get it right!But for me it really isn't about her as an individual.
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
I think La Liga puts is well in his post above.I am in a position to say that there is a problem with the process which has taken so long.
This may be down to design of process or its implementation in this case- either way, not satisfactory.
She may be off sick, although original article specifically said suspended on full pay. I accept journalists don't always get it right!But for me it really isn't about her as an individual.
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
I agree that processes can take what seems an unquestionably long time. Pre CPS I could arrest someone on a Tuesday evening and, if the CRO had managed to clear the prints, present the case in the morning to the magistrates for trial and have a conviction by 10.30 am Wednesday. Nowadays it can take months. Whilst I am irritated by justice being delayed, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the CPS and can see the reasons it was brought it.
Everything costs, and justice certainly does.
I would assume, and it is a safe assumption, the checks and processes have been brought in because of that much derided, but essential, 'lessons will be learned' reason. In other words, the processes are brought in to modify or replace those that were found ineffectual.
Posters on here seem to be suggesting that this could have been cleared up in a day or so. However, this woman was almost in the clouds. If a company tried to dismiss someone at that level with insufficient investigation, I'm sure they would make the company pay.
Here's an example of a straightforward case for a lowly pleb, without the security of a command rank: one of the PCs I started dismissal procedures against was interviewed within days of my report going to my super and said there was a conflict, a clash of personalities they reckoned, between them and a sergeant. Something similar was expected and there was another nick warmed up and warned about the person and a transfer was established the following day. The PC was given three months on weekly reports. The inspector on the new shift was scrupulously fair and the reports included good and bad. There wasn't enough to start dismissal on grounds of likely to be a terrible PC. They then went on monthlies and eventually the PC was found in flagrente, not criminal but procedural. Even then immediate dismissal was not an option and the report was treated in exactly the same way as it would have been if the person had had an exemplary career.
Weekly reports were reinstated with a final warning and the PC complained that they were being put under unreasonable pressure. This again was expected and the division could show that they had been supportive by reports of interviews and feedback. The Federation supported the officer with advice because that was their job.
I was complained about, as was my sergeant, as was the person's new inspector and sergeant and these were investigated. The two sergeants got 'advice'. This is tantamount to suggesting that they didn't do it, but not to do it again.
The person was disciplined on a third count and required to resign. Precedent was used and off they went. They later tried to sue the job but the punishment was upheld.
It took me a fair bit of time, it took the new inspector more time, and for the new sergeant it was testing.
Research into the PC's recruitment showed that they had been turned down twice for PC and then had applied a third time and the rating was just over minimum.
The legislation is there for a reason, one assumes. We complied with it and the parting of the ways was secure. I 'knew' the PC wouldn't make a half way decent one, as did my sergeant, but the processes were there. It is much more difficult to cast a command rank officer than a probationary PC.
55palfers said:
I too am bewildered. My post was illustrating that Shoesmith's sacking was no more than a summary execution by MPs and the meedja.
I didn't understand quite why you even mentioned her in the context of our (apparently) pissed tit-flasher and public berater of juniors.
I've tried to explain what is obvious to me.I didn't understand quite why you even mentioned her in the context of our (apparently) pissed tit-flasher and public berater of juniors.
Derek Smith said:
mac96 said:
For what its worth, I am not in the 'sack her immediately' camp.And neither am I saying she deserves to be sacked now- I am not in a position to judge.I actually have some sympathy- I have had colleagues go down the route through booze to unemployability. Which I certainly hope does not happen to her.
I am in a position to say that there is a problem with the process which has taken so long.
This may be down to design of process or its implementation in this case- either way, not satisfactory.
She may be off sick, although original article specifically said suspended on full pay. I accept journalists don't always get it right!But for me it really isn't about her as an individual.
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
I think La Liga puts is well in his post above.I am in a position to say that there is a problem with the process which has taken so long.
This may be down to design of process or its implementation in this case- either way, not satisfactory.
She may be off sick, although original article specifically said suspended on full pay. I accept journalists don't always get it right!But for me it really isn't about her as an individual.
Also no one has convincingly explained why private sector practices don't translate to the Police in cases like this. Slow process is bad for everyone, even the person being judged.
I agree that processes can take what seems an unquestionably long time. Pre CPS I could arrest someone on a Tuesday evening and, if the CRO had managed to clear the prints, present the case in the morning to the magistrates for trial and have a conviction by 10.30 am Wednesday. Nowadays it can take months. Whilst I am irritated by justice being delayed, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the CPS and can see the reasons it was brought it.
Everything costs, and justice certainly does.
I would assume, and it is a safe assumption, the checks and processes have been brought in because of that much derided, but essential, 'lessons will be learned' reason. In other words, the processes are brought in to modify or replace those that were found ineffectual.
Posters on here seem to be suggesting that this could have been cleared up in a day or so. However, this woman was almost in the clouds. If a company tried to dismiss someone at that level with insufficient investigation, I'm sure they would make the company pay.
Here's an example of a straightforward case for a lowly pleb, without the security of a command rank: one of the PCs I started dismissal procedures against was interviewed within days of my report going to my super and said there was a conflict, a clash of personalities they reckoned, between them and a sergeant. Something similar was expected and there was another nick warmed up and warned about the person and a transfer was established the following day. The PC was given three months on weekly reports. The inspector on the new shift was scrupulously fair and the reports included good and bad. There wasn't enough to start dismissal on grounds of likely to be a terrible PC. They then went on monthlies and eventually the PC was found in flagrente, not criminal but procedural. Even then immediate dismissal was not an option and the report was treated in exactly the same way as it would have been if the person had had an exemplary career.
Weekly reports were reinstated with a final warning and the PC complained that they were being put under unreasonable pressure. This again was expected and the division could show that they had been supportive by reports of interviews and feedback. The Federation supported the officer with advice because that was their job.
I was complained about, as was my sergeant, as was the person's new inspector and sergeant and these were investigated. The two sergeants got 'advice'. This is tantamount to suggesting that they didn't do it, but not to do it again.
The person was disciplined on a third count and required to resign. Precedent was used and off they went. They later tried to sue the job but the punishment was upheld.
It took me a fair bit of time, it took the new inspector more time, and for the new sergeant it was testing.
Research into the PC's recruitment showed that they had been turned down twice for PC and then had applied a third time and the rating was just over minimum.
The legislation is there for a reason, one assumes. We complied with it and the parting of the ways was secure. I 'knew' the PC wouldn't make a half way decent one, as did my sergeant, but the processes were there. It is much more difficult to cast a command rank officer than a probationary PC.
I know no one is supposed to change their mind during a PH debate but as I said in response to La Liga above I think I have moved to an acceptance that because of the wide variety of possible police misconduct issues a private sector approach is difficult to use. And I suppose that sacking a very senior police officer does have more political ramifications (rightly or wrongly) than sacking a CEO of a large corporate.
Derek Smith said:
55palfers said:
I don't think Ms Shoesmith has any relevance here. Her summary dismissal (by silly MPs and the media) was for her (lack of ?) professional judgement on a specific case/client. Not for being pissed and slagging off a junior member of her staff
I'm bewildered by your post.Shoesmith was sacked without following procedures. The conversation was about procedures, which take time. It is very apt. Almost an example of why proper procedures should be followed.
My firm does not have a huge HR function, but it is a huge organisation.
2 weeks is an unlikely turnaround time in most cases, but then so is 30+ weeks.
Following proper process does not require you to take months on end to do anything, and those that hide behind this excuse (for HR/finance/etc) usually have no idea what world class procedures actually look like.
wsurfa said:
Proper procedures do not take over half a year. As I posted earlier my firm dealt with similar issues in half a month, ones which were complicated by other factors.
Your firm doesn't have its own specific and comprehensive laws dealing with misconduct. The internal investigation your firm carries out won't be scrutinised by an internal legal panel who'll make the judgement. Your firm won't have the matter held in public. La Liga said:
Your firm doesn't have its own specific and comprehensive laws dealing with misconduct. The internal investigation your firm carries out won't be scrutinised by an internal legal panel who'll make the judgement. Your firm won't have the matter held in public.
My firm does have flesh eating internal auditors who will scrutinise everything said/done/not done etcMy firm does have extensive guidance and rules relating to misconduct
My firm does have to deal with multiple unions and works councils which in many cases can require external review of both process and outcomes
Any firm can have a matter in public if it is big enough or ends at EAT
Your point was what exactly? That half a year is an entirely reasonable period?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff