Withdrawing police vetting?
Discussion
Officers cannot be sacked through vetting - court https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
eldar said:
Officers cannot be sacked through vetting - court https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
According to the story. Vetting was removed because of (yet to be proven) allegations. The judge said that vetting removal cannot (of itself) be used as grounds for sacking. Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
Seems like they're trying to have three bites of the cherry.
1) Criminal
2) Misconduct
3) Vetting
There was no case to answer for misconduct.
1) Criminal
2) Misconduct
3) Vetting
Sir Mark said:
Speaking to reporters outside Scotland Yard, Sir Mark said: "We now have no mechanism to rid the Met of officers who were not fit to hold vetting - those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or those who cannot be trusted to enter the homes of vulnerable people.
"It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them."
Then build a gross misconduct case again them. "It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them."
Pica-Pica said:
eldar said:
Officers cannot be sacked through vetting - court https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
According to the story. Vetting was removed because of (yet to be proven) allegations. The judge said that vetting removal cannot (of itself) be used as grounds for sacking. Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
MrBogSmith said:
Seems like they're trying to have three bites of the cherry.
1) Criminal
2) Misconduct
3) Vetting
There was no case to answer for misconduct.
Looks like they tried to 3) vetting as the first bite before the others were concluded1) Criminal
2) Misconduct
3) Vetting
Sir Mark said:
Speaking to reporters outside Scotland Yard, Sir Mark said: "We now have no mechanism to rid the Met of officers who were not fit to hold vetting - those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or those who cannot be trusted to enter the homes of vulnerable people.
"It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them."
Then build a gross misconduct case again them. "It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them."
Pica-Pica said:
eldar said:
Officers cannot be sacked through vetting - court https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
According to the story. Vetting was removed because of (yet to be proven) allegations. The judge said that vetting removal cannot (of itself) be used as grounds for sacking. Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
The Standard said:
A public complaint was made on August 12, 2019 accusing him of two sexual assaults and rapes in cars in public car parks on December 3 and 9, 2018.
There was also a rape and indecent exposure claim in 2015, an allegation of sending inappropriate messages to colleagues in 2019 and alleged inappropriate behaviour at work two years later.
An ex-partner made further accusations of domestic abuse in 2022.
Perhaps the commissioner should be questioning how his investigatory teams can't manage to put a gross misconduct case from the above. There was also a rape and indecent exposure claim in 2015, an allegation of sending inappropriate messages to colleagues in 2019 and alleged inappropriate behaviour at work two years later.
An ex-partner made further accusations of domestic abuse in 2022.
I'm 100% behind the officer on this
The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
I am staggered that senior police officers don't see the problem with this action.
Surely they understand concepts like evidence, due process, fairness (justice)
But it seems it's just lip service when they want it to be.
And this "independent" victim commissioner who says it is stopping "dangerous" police officers from being removed?
How independent are they I wonder?
As people have said, the cops can't use vetting removal as a back door to circumvent either a disciplinary outcome or a legal outcome, and the fact the high court have had to explain it to them should mean the senior cop takes a good look at the advice he's getting.
I agree with an officer being off the front line whilst allegations are investigated, but once not proved or nfa is being done, I don't agree with just sacking them via this backdoor.
Surely they understand concepts like evidence, due process, fairness (justice)
But it seems it's just lip service when they want it to be.
And this "independent" victim commissioner who says it is stopping "dangerous" police officers from being removed?
How independent are they I wonder?
As people have said, the cops can't use vetting removal as a back door to circumvent either a disciplinary outcome or a legal outcome, and the fact the high court have had to explain it to them should mean the senior cop takes a good look at the advice he's getting.
I agree with an officer being off the front line whilst allegations are investigated, but once not proved or nfa is being done, I don't agree with just sacking them via this backdoor.
Earthdweller said:
I'm 100% behind the officer on this
The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
Exactly, in this country it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
eldar said:
Officers cannot be sacked through vetting - court https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o
Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
The repercussions -Can someone explain the possible repercussions of this?
The Met will have to lawfully sack Officers
Some Officers that have been sacked in this manner may get their jobs back.
The Met will have egg on their faces because they can't sack as many Officers as they told the public they would, and now because they've admitted that doing so unlawfully was 'easy'.
Earthdweller said:
I'm 100% behind the officer on this
The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
Agreed. If he's been cleared of any wrongdoing how can they still try to sack him?The Met are taking the piss and the Judge is correct
The officer in this case had allegations made against him and faced investigation. The allegations remain just that, allegations that have not been proven either in a court of law nor in disciplinary hearings
There were no criminal charges laid and he faced a misconduct hearing which found there was no case to answer and he was cleared of any wrongdoing
The Met then decided to withdraw his vetting clearance because of the unproven allegations and sack him because he no longer had clearance.
This Despite the fact that he had been found by the Met themselves to have no case to answer and had done nothing criminal nor against the code of discipline
MrBogSmith said:
I think the Met know there are quite a few serving officers who probably shouldn't be police officers (this chap sounds a prime candidate for being one), but they've messed up investigating the complaints against the officers so are looking for a 'solution'.
This Officer is definitely unsuitable. He admitted to engaging in sexual activity in a public place, and admitted having an affair (dishonesty).DPS screwed up by not investigating these properly.
Now The Met have screwed up because there will be more unsuitable Officers getting their jobs back.
- that's not to say every Officer sacked in this was is unsuitable.
If you read the judges summing up, she states that it's the failure of previous government to pass a law that would make this legal.
Then passed it back to the home secretary to fill the loophole.
So, it won't be long before these officers can be sacked legally.
The main disadvantage of not having vetting is that you can't really fulfill the role of a constable as there's vunerable people etc that you're no longer allowed contact with.
Also, it can be disclosed as part of court cases etc
So what do you do with the officers? The MET are having to put them on 'special leave'. how many officers do you as the tax payer want to be paying to be sat at home? There'll be some uproar about that.
Another damned if you do, damned if you don't position for the MET? (and subsequently other forces)
Then passed it back to the home secretary to fill the loophole.
So, it won't be long before these officers can be sacked legally.
The main disadvantage of not having vetting is that you can't really fulfill the role of a constable as there's vunerable people etc that you're no longer allowed contact with.
Also, it can be disclosed as part of court cases etc
So what do you do with the officers? The MET are having to put them on 'special leave'. how many officers do you as the tax payer want to be paying to be sat at home? There'll be some uproar about that.
Another damned if you do, damned if you don't position for the MET? (and subsequently other forces)
nordboy said:
If you read the judges summing up, she states that it's the failure of previous government to pass a law that would make this legal.
Then passed it back to the home secretary to fill the loophole.
So, it won't be long before these officers can be sacked legally.
The main disadvantage of not having vetting is that you can't really fulfill the role of a constable as there's vunerable people etc that you're no longer allowed contact with.
Also, it can be disclosed as part of court cases etc
So what do you do with the officers? The MET are having to put them on 'special leave'. how many officers do you as the tax payer want to be paying to be sat at home? There'll be some uproar about that.
Another damned if you do, damned if you don't position for the MET? (and subsequently other forces)
It's troubling to be fair Then passed it back to the home secretary to fill the loophole.
So, it won't be long before these officers can be sacked legally.
The main disadvantage of not having vetting is that you can't really fulfill the role of a constable as there's vunerable people etc that you're no longer allowed contact with.
Also, it can be disclosed as part of court cases etc
So what do you do with the officers? The MET are having to put them on 'special leave'. how many officers do you as the tax payer want to be paying to be sat at home? There'll be some uproar about that.
Another damned if you do, damned if you don't position for the MET? (and subsequently other forces)
Police officers are frequently subject to malicious allegations
It is absolutely right that all allegations are investigated against
A) Criminal standard if there are alleged criminal offences
B) Discipline regulations
If someone is cleared of any wrongdoing against A + B then that should be the end of it
It can't be right that a manager can say "I don't like you" and then sack an officer based on their opinion
This officer may well be a "wrong un" but there has to be safeguards in the systems and the senior management must abide by the law and the regulations
"You haven't committed a criminal offence ot a discipline offence but we don't like you so you're sacked" is not an outcome any of us should welcome or tolerate, and that is what it amounts to
I have zero tolerance for bent coppers but senior managers need to do their jobs properly and abide by the rules and act lawfully
What they tried to do has quite rightly, by the Judge, been ruled unlawful
I don't think anyone in any role not just policing would want o be in a workplace where a manager could sack you for having done nothing wrong, it's open to so much abuse
a340driver said:
I don't understand. Part of my contract as a pilot is to pass vetting for a LHR pass. If I don't pass that I lose my job.
Why are the police given different sets of rules?
They aren't Why are the police given different sets of rules?
This officer passed vetting, the Met dciddd to remove his vetting clearance and then sack him
That is what the Judge said was unlawful
Derek Smith said:
The commissioner appears to want to be able to sack police officers on the grounds of unproved allegations only. He doesn't seem to realise just how unjust this is.
One rule for them, one rule for the public.
It certainly is when you look at some of the discipline outcomes for senior officers, only last week we had a ChiefSupt get words of advice for some serious sexual harassment in the workplace of a PC One rule for them, one rule for the public.
Things that get you sacked as a PC/SGT will be brushed under the carpet or have minimal sanction if you're a senior offficer
Earthdweller said:
This officer passed vetting, the Met decided to remove his vetting clearance and then sack him
This is the crux of the matter. If the conduct was "misconduct" that might have resulted in sacking then that should have been dealt with at the time. If the officer has, since then, been of good behaviour you can't go back afterwards and say, "we perhaps could have sacked you at that time but didn't, so we're going to sack you now".Overall the situation shows what a shambles some of these public sector bodies are in.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff