Met police officer accused of rape by two female colleagues but wasn’t suspended

[IDanielRadcliffe]

mobile.twitter.com/TBIJ/status/1377519809047502848

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-04-01/met-officer-alleged-to-have-violently-sexually-abused-two-colleagues

On the same day that the first British police officer has been convicted of terrorism too. I wonder if all the fluffy PR activity has meant they have have been oblivious to problems in their own ranks.

It seems to be just in the last few weeks that people are realising the police force is essentially a network of organised thuggery. I'm glad people are noticing but really it's been a long time coming.

Police are a mixed bag just like any other profession

@Saltyslug

Police are a mixed bag just like any other profession

If a staff member at my job was accused of assaulting two colleagues, they would be suspended. It's not a 'mixed bag' it's institutionalised sexism.

The institutional sexism is bloody awful

This is from Australia last week. Suspended with full pay and his name withheld.

I’ve worked with a lot of coppers and although many go into the force from a genuine desire to help, there is definitely a number more interested in power. In hierarchical organisations, men who enjoy authoritarianism are often very successful.

It's not acceptable to be a mixed bag. They are in a position of trust and hold immense power. If the police don't hold their own to the same or higher standards as the rest of us, they're not fit for purpose.

In hierarchical organisations, men who enjoy authoritarianism are often very successful

I disagree- like in any organisation, people who are charming and personable tend to do well. People who enjoy power but aren't able to wield it without pissing other people off tend not to get far.

Secondly, being suspended on full pay is the norm, while you investigate the complaint- you can't sack someone off the back of a complaint. Being suspended on full pay means the complaint is being taken seriously and being investigated. I don't know why people tend to specify "on full pay" because suspending someone without pay is pretty much sacking someone, and in the UK (and Australia) you can't sack someone without a reasonable process.

In most parts of the public sector at least, you would be suspended on full pay if an allegation far less serious than rape was made. The police should be no different.

The principle that officers should be suspended on full pay pending investigations is right but there are examples where it has helped people play the system - for example, to delay hearings on the grounds of sickness. Then people retire on medical grounds and because - unless there are criminal proceedings - the inquiry is ended because the biggest sanction that someone would lose their job has gone.

Hillsborough (the football tragedy for those outside the UK) is another example. It took so long to launch an inquiry that all the officers there on the day had retired. A decision was taken that none of the officers present would face prosecution. Six officers in charge of the decisions the police made at the match were eventually prosecuted but I think only one ever went to trial and was found innocent, much to the distress of the families.

Despite this, I don't see an alternative to suspending people on full pay. I am just pointing out that it can be abused.

Systems to vet people joining the police can never be 100% foolproof but I expect higher standards of the police because of their role in society. I also expect them to investigate allegations about individual officers' conduct fully. Strikingly, in the example given by IDanielRadcliffe, the officer was not suspended at all and the two women victims said an investigation by another police authority was inadequate. Although there are different standards of proof, the women have received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Yes, I agree that is shocking. Any allegation of sexual misconduct would, on the face of it, be gross misconduct, and therefore require suspension until fully investigated.

As for people going sick to long out the investigation- it's the oldest trick in the book. For the Hillsborough families, it is a furphy that they could be sacked as punishment. Being sacked is the consequence of beach of contract. It's not a punishment as such. The fact that only one officer was brought to trial and found evidence is because imposing criminal sanctions is significantly harder that imposing contractual sanctions, the burden of proof being significantly higher in criminal sanctions.

As for systems to vet people joining the police... How do you do so without being prejudiced? The only thing you can really look for is things like no criminal record etc which already happens.

It is a public relations disaster. It damages their ability to police. Unless they deal with the racists and misogynists and the powerdrunk ones they are going to lose the public's respect. Mine has been damaged.

The principle that officers should be suspended on full pay pending investigations is right but there are examples where it has helped people play the system - for example, to delay hearings on the grounds of sickness. Then people retire on medical grounds and because - unless there are criminal proceedings - the inquiry is ended because the biggest sanction that someone would lose their job has gone

The loophole allowing them to retire on medical grounds whilst under investigation should be closed, it is being abused and it usually means they receive a generous ill heath pension and can leave without a stain on their record.