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.
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.
Comments
If any employee in any job is accused of carrying out a criminal act, any employer has various duties. To attempt to weigh up the accusation in relation to seriousness, how likely it is to have been committed, and impact upon the job.
To put that into context, a minor offence in relation to dishonesty might not be important in relation to many jobs, but would be if the employee were (say) a Solicitor. Or a Police Officer.
Then-how likely? This is problematic. Should it be the Civil standard of proof (more likely than not) or the Criminal standard (proved beyond reasonable doubt). Lots of cases-the answer is probably between the 2-much more likely than not.
It is a balancing act. Where any employer needs to weigh up the evidence.
What the Met Police are trying to do is dispense with that. Just to claim the mere allegation of something serious means failed vetting and dismissal. Ignoring the need to check whether it is true. And ignoring the fact that there are literally thousands of jobs the Officer can do while it is properly investigated.
Imagine you are 1 of the thousands of people who have consensual sex with a married person. Who decides to say it was not consensual when his or her marriage and/or divorce settlement are at risk. Or the person whose former Partner makes an allegation purely out of spite.
You would expect your Employer to look into matters. Not just ignore all of that and Dismiss regardless. Regardless of process. Regardless of whether it was true.
And you would not want to work for any employer that did that.
This does not "prevent 300 rogue officers from being sacked". It means that 300 Police Officers being accused of stuff are investigated properly. And the ones who are rogue are dismissed.