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.
Drunk police officer told colleague ‘I bet you’re a big boy’
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
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/police-officers-who-fail-background-checks-to-be-automatically-sacked/ar-AA1DpU0B?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=d90e5be11346469f8d353960137f70b2&ei=111
Number of officers and civilian staff on paid leave due to failed vetting causing "a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money"? 29.
There are clear procedures relating to police vetting prior to joining. Afterwards? Not so much.
The starting point for any employment relationship is Mutual Trust and Confidence. So-for example-if any employee is accused of something, an employer reviews the employment relationship. For every job. To review whether Guilty, severity, etc. Except now for Policemen.
What will happen is this. Large amounts of serving Officers get Divorced every year. Want to keep them? Treat them like every other employee. Fancy getting rid? Interview spouse. See if there can be any allegation of violence/sexual misconduct (there normally is, even in happy marriages). Then organise vetting and get rid.
Every estranged spouse will know they have the power to get their estranged Partner sacked. Just make an allegation publicly. And sit back.
Someone, somewhere will make a public allegation against the Commissioner of Police. Think he will agree he should be summarily dismissed?
Here is a ridiculous waste of public money. Happening hundreds of times every year. And this happens nowhere else.
1. Allegation made against Officer
2. He accepts this, and Resigns
3. For some reason I cannot fathom, there is then a massive Disciplinary Hearing as to whether the person who has resigned would have been sacked. Which the ex-employee next to never attends-why should he care?
Why? What is the point. Get the ex-employee to agree he can never again apply to be a policeman. Would cost about £5. Rather than £Thousands.
Imagine if a CEO in a Shareholder Company insisted on these Disciplinary Hearings, gathering evidence, calling witnesses, and employing Lawyers. In relation to someone who has already gone.
A senior police officer who engaged in sexual behaviour without consent has been sacked.
Tom Simons, a former chief superintendent, was dismissed by Essex Police after a disciplinary hearing found he abused his position for a sexual purpose with a colleague.
He also engaged in sexualised behaviour at work with two colleagues and failed to disclose his relationship with a colleague when he knew he should do so, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said.
An independent hearing chaired by Assistant Chief Constable John Murphy of Bedfordshire Police took place after an investigation led by the IOPC.
Essex Police had referred the case to the IOPC to investigate in March 2022 following multiple allegations, at which time the officer was suspended.
ACC Murphy decided that the gross misconduct hearing should take place in private to protect the anonymity of the individuals who had spoken-up to complain about the behaviour of the former officer and to ensure the integrity of the proceedings as they happened.
Following the hearing which commenced on 31 March and which concluded this past week, the chair decided to name the former officer in the interests of transparency.
Essex Police made strong submissions to the chair requesting that, if charges were proven, the officer should be named at the end of proceedings.
Essex Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington said: "There is simply no place in policing for people who think, wrongly, that they can get away with sexual misconduct.
"I pay tribute to the witnesses in this case and to those who supported them in coming forward.
"If you try to get away with sexual misconduct or the kind of abhorrent behaviour we have seen in this case, we'll catch you.
"This case is particularly disappointing given the seniority of the former officer.
"I pay tribute to the witnesses in this case and to those who supported them in coming forward. You saw something that was wrong and then you did the right thing. I want to praise your courage in being up-standing and in trusting us to see this through.
"It's super-clear in Essex; if you speak up, you'll be listened to and there will be action to help you. But if you try to get away with sexual misconduct or the kind of abhorrent behaviour we have seen in this case, we'll catch you. We'll investigate you and if allegations are proved then we'll do everything in our power to make sure you never work in policing again.
"I will be completely frank. This case is particularly disappointing given the seniority of the former officer.
"Finally, I would like to thank the professional journalists who have reported on this important matter so responsibly; you are helping to shine a light on a serious case while rightly protecting the anonymity of a number of people who so bravely spoke-up.
"I would also like to thank the Essex Police detectives who helped the IOPC gather the evidence which brought Tom Simons to justice; your dedication to duty is clear to see."
The panel also found Mr Simons had breached a number of professional standards.
The IOPC said despite being reminded about his behaviour, Mr Simons continued to "behave inappropriately".
Essex Police said the IOPC conducted a full criminal investigation and that Mr Simons was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
But in June it was decided no criminal action would be taken.
https://thurrock.nub.news/news/local-news/top-essex-police-officer-dismissed-over-sexual-misconduct-257955
This man was suspended on full pay in March 2022. The Disciplinary Hearing that dismissed him took place in March 2025. He would have been paid over £250,000 while suspended.
That is far, far too slow.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/former-police-officer-jailed-over-120234736.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/drunk-police-officer-told-colleague-162646675.html
Crikey, the definition of "sexual assault" has changed since I was a young man.
In those days the occasional grope on a drunken night in a pub was the norm.
What is the point of having a disciplinary hearing, involving thousands of pounds of preparation, plus the time of a Barrister and the Assistant Chief Constable, among others.
She had already left. What is achieved by spending thousands to come up with a ruling that, if she had still been there, she would have been sacked? She has long gone.
What is achieved by making national news out of a single incident of a woman being stupid while drunk?
Have the police not got better things to do? Like, for example, spending that money disciplining police officers who are still there?
You could look at it from another point of view and suggest that she was a vulnerable woman whose colleagues got drunk and she then made some inappropriate comments and unwanted advances to two colleagues, whilst very drunk.
I would like to think that as soon as she made the first mistake they would have phoned her boyfriend, explained that she was drunk and not in control of her behaviour, and got her taken home, or taken her home themselves, they were all serving police officers after all, I think they failed her badly.
She's lost her job and career and the other officers are the 'victims', I would be questioning the other officers actions as they certainly didn't protect her from herself.
I am a firm believer that you treat all employees equally, and in broadly the same way. Regardless of whether they work for Central/Local Govt or in private industry. But it is getting worse.
Let me give 2 quick examples, to show what I mean.
1. Nearly all police disciplinary hearings are a matter of public record. Unlike anywhere else. As an example, a serving officer was accused of Raping a fellow officer. Made public on a Police website. A year later, shown that the allegation was untrue, and motivated by malice. What other employer would have made the allegation public?
2. Once advised a lady about a letter she had received. She had been off sick, on full pay, for about 7 years. The letter was calling her to a Meeting, and asked her to bring supporting medical evidence. I explained that this was to be a Capability Hearing. Where the Employer examined when she could return to work, whether there could be a phased return via part-time, lighter duties etc. And to explore whether should instead dismiss on Capability grounds. Lady exploded, saying this was ridiculous. I patiently explained this was not accusing her of doing anything "wrong", just whether she could/should return. She was outraged. I knew fine well she worked as a Civil Servant: no-one else would have given full pay for 7 years before going down that road