You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Rogue Officers.
Why did it take seven years to sack the drug-taking, orgy-loving Met detective in the elite rape squad… and why has he kept his pension?
Why did it take seven years to sack drug-taking, orgy-loving Met detective in the elite
Warren Arter is estimated to have earned around £400,000 since he was suspended over allegations that he abused his position 'for a sexual purpose', and used and supplied cocaine. After an anonymous tip off, Arter was investigated and arrested on suspicion of alleged misconduct in public office. It soon transpired that Arter had had 'inappropriate' contact with other victims of crime. He was also a regular cocaine user, had possibly supplied the substance to others and had attended drug and sex parties where he turned a blind eye to wrongdoing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12252171/Why-did-seven-years-sack-drug-taking-orgy-loving-Met-detective-elite-rape-squad.html
Why did it take seven years to sack drug-taking, orgy-loving Met detective in the elite
Warren Arter is estimated to have earned around £400,000 since he was suspended over allegations that he abused his position 'for a sexual purpose', and used and supplied cocaine. After an anonymous tip off, Arter was investigated and arrested on suspicion of alleged misconduct in public office. It soon transpired that Arter had had 'inappropriate' contact with other victims of crime. He was also a regular cocaine user, had possibly supplied the substance to others and had attended drug and sex parties where he turned a blind eye to wrongdoing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12252171/Why-did-seven-years-sack-drug-taking-orgy-loving-Met-detective-elite-rape-squad.html
Comments
1. Replacing an Independent Chairman on a Misconduct panel, and replacing them with a Chief Constable. That has various effects-it is no longer independent, it means that the Employer decides whether an Employer can dismiss, and the number of Disciplinary proceedings mean this will be impossible. Plus it will make taking Employment Tribunal proceedings easier.
2. The "why does bad policeman get to "keep" his pension" in the top article. Name another job where, if you can be dismissed, you also lose your pension, which may be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds? And it is not like it is some form of gift-policemen typically pay 11.5% of their salary in pension payments. Ever heard of a Chief Constable losing his Pension? No.
Usually in a workplace pension, both the employee, and the employer make regular contributions.
It may be fairer if an officer that was guilty of a serious criminal offence should lose the employers contribution, but not the whole pension.
Police are treated differently to other employees anyway, and forces seem reluctant to get rid of their own.
The Wayne Couzens documentary the other day, highlighted some of their problems.
Yet they regularly seem short of solutions.
The days when employees could be made to be personally liable to employers have been over for 100 years.
Police are treated differently to other employees. So-for example-police officers are not allowed to join a Trade Union. And there are separate Federations according to Rank, the largest being Police Federations (Chief Inspector and below).
It is important to bear in mind that there are 2 separate complaints, that interrelate.
1. Belief that various pay/conditions need to be less favourable to Police; and
2. The lowering of standards of serving/joining Officers
The 2 go hand in hand. One results in the other.
Although it does seem annoying from time to time, that a particular officer will receive a very good pension, despite serious wrongdoing.
I think it more important that they recruit the right people, and carry out their vetting procedures properly.
Maybe they should extend their probationary periods.
Perhaps it should be made easier to get rid of rogue officers.
"Recruit the right people, and carry out their vetting procedures properly."
Completely agree. But there is absolutely nothing stopping Chief Constables doing exactly that. The simple reason those standards slipped was because of politicians. The sudden demand to replace the 20,000+ Policemen shed by the self-same politicians. Causing a temporary massive burden on the vetting system
"Extend probationary periods".
Never mind the official periods. In the absence of certain discriminations, it is usually simple to dismiss any employee with less than 2 years' service. Which does rather beg the question as to why senior management fail to monitor during that first 2 years.
"Should be made easier to get rid of rogue officers."
It is no more difficult than elsewhere. It is just a Chief Constable failing to do his job properly wanting to make the rules easier so he can hide his own failings.
I would suspect that all of them have spent many years in the job.
I think that most of them started at the bottom, and worked their way up through the ranks.
Therefore, you would think that as a group, they would be well suited to making regular improvements.
Although that doesnt seem to be the case.