Sacked in secret..............

[Tawi2]

Who will police the police?Drunk while armed :rolleyes::NoNo:

Sacked in secret: The hushed-up hearings of police who are found guilty of crimes and misconduct
By Eleanor Harding


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385009/Hundreds-UK-police-sacked-secret-misconduct-committing-crime.html#ixzz1O8uOnZnW

[Tawi2]

SOURCE'Police used baton' on sick man who died after being CS gassed


By claire carter health correspondent


A SERIOUSLY-ILL patient who died after being CS gassed and restrained may have also been struck with a baton by police, an inquest was told.

[johncar54]

I am not defending police officers who are guilty of criminal acts nor those who breach the strict police discipline regulations, but the public generally do not know sufficient about the internal working of the police service to be able to make rational judgements. Newspapers of course love to make mountains out of molehills and never fail to do so even when they need to distort the truth to make a headline.

Firstly the 'appalling' number of police officers dismissed 477 in three years. That is just about 1 per thousand.

And be aware that the police discipline code is so strict that, for example being unfit for duty whilst off duty is an offence. That strictly includes for example a police driver who has had couple of beers in his home on his day off. If he is 'over the top' to drive, if called back on duty, he is in breach the code.

Common assault was quoted. That is where the force threatened is not usually applied, So if I say I will thump you, that amounts Common Assault. If I hit you that would probably be Actual Bodily Harm. Kissing a person against their will, spitting at a person, etc are also examples of Common Assault.

Drunk whilst armed. Not as far as I know a criminal offence, thus an officer who, might have had just a pint and thus is unfit to drive, not as most would understand raving drunk, would quite rightly be in breach of the discipline code.

The discipline code is also 'used' to get rid of officers who are not completely suitable but who are not actually bad enough to be sackable, what one might call 'a ways and means' of sacking them.

As for the comments that officers have been dismissed under the Discipline Code for committing criminal acts, that is most unlikely. If there is 'some evidence' to bring a criminal charge, in most cases police officers are taken to court. This includes cases where the evidence would be far too little to justify a prosecution again any other member of the public. The Crown Prosecution Service/DPP will often advise in the case of a police officer 'give it a run.' i.e. prosecute and maybe he will be convicted. Of course when that happens and the jury cannot be convinced and they acquit, the out cry is that the officer 'got off.' In some cases where the evidence to so flimsy that there is no chance of a conviction, the Discipline Code is used to sack the officer. Another consideration is that if the evidence is too weak to get a criminal conviction it might be better to bring a discipline charge, as if the officer is acquitted by the court he would probably continue to be a police office. The 'cowboy' court of the discipline code would ensure he was sacked.

As for the proceedings being public. That could result in less officers being charge with discipline offences as the `public might be up in arms at the pettiness. Of course, that might result in more 'justice' for individual officers, as the discipline court would be less able to ride rough shod over the officer's rights to get the result they want, but overall might also mean that officers, who fall a little below the high stands required, would continue to be employed.

Police officer are employed under Statue not employment laws. They thus have considerably less rights than other workers. Making the discipline procedures more open might result in officers being employed under the Employment Acts and thus, would result in officers, at present almost without rights, being defended by trade unions, with all that that implies !

I repeat, I am not defending police officers who are guilty of criminal acts nor those who breach the strict police Discipline Regulations. This is just a brief attempt, by someone who knows, to shed a little light on a very complex situation, so please don't go nit picking with every word I have used.

[Tawi2]

I love fishing,I always get a bite :laugher:

but the public generally do not know sufficient about the internal working of the police service to be able to make rational judgements
I am not going to nit-pick your words John because I am a simple member of the public and therefore am incapable of making rational judgements concerning the police :)