Met Police officer David Carrick admits to being serial rapist

It's not a view. It's a fact. To be found guilty of a crime I have to commit the crime. Gross misconduct does not have to involve a crime. I can be guilty of GM without actually breaking any laws. It really is that simple. It's not a second go. The 2 investigations are independent.

 

It wouldn't matter what you or I thought it was. If the person you threw the insult at thought it was, it would be treated as such until it could be proven whether it was or not.

 

Yeah, sure. But you know damn well you'd never get it past any court and the police wouldn't even bother taking it to the CPS however hard the victim shouted "hate crime".

 

Wrong about what ? My opinion?

 

Your opinion that acquittal of a criminal offence is, or should be, an end of any disciplinary consequence is unfounded in fact.

 

Agreed! It's still my opinion...

 

Ok, let’s agree then that where you got snarky about my presumptions, you can now get snarky about my certainty instead.

Best not to confuse opinion with knowledge, IME.

 

You're doing it again - you have no idea about my knowledge. Understanding how it all works and having an opinion that in some cases it isn't right, doesn't mean I'm wrong, or mixing knowledge with opinion. It means I disagree with some cases of people being charged and tried, and then had again in a disciplinary process. I understand how it all works I just happen to disagree with some of it. Some.

 

I’m not doing it again. Based on what you’ve posted on here, you’re confusing your opinion with knowledge. You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously. But don’t claim it as anything with any more validity than that.

 

I haven't. I accept that it's just my opinion.

 

Ok, and you’re entitled to defend it but that’s not what you’re doing. You’re attacking people for challenging the basis for your opinion.

If you’d said ‘I know this is how it is, but I think it’s unfair, because…’ we could have a discussion. You didn’t. You resorted to snark.

 

I think you resorted to front-loading me in your post 76. I'm not 'attacking' you or anyone in response. I've been quite clear about my opinion. I'm well aware what the law and what disciplinary proceedings allow, I just don't agree that it's right in all circumstances. A message on here has no intonation but in the softest and nicest way, I don't need telling how it all works or what a NG finding means.. I may just have a little smattering of working knowledge of this stuff as I'm sure you do.

I'm never going to argue that the officer in the case mentioned in this post earlier deserves to go - no question for me there. But back to a hypothetical example: someone gets prosecuted for rape and found NG. Maybe the case hinged on consent. Is it right for an employer to then discipline that person?

I'm not trying to fall out with you here, but I was trying to provoke a discussion about whether disciplinary can always be morally right after trial. Very often, yes, but sometimes I think not. It's just a point of discussion, nothing more.

 

I’m not familiar with the term ‘front loading’ so can’t really comment. But any inferences I’ve drawn derive from the way you argued your point, starting with #34. There wasn’t much basis for an assumption you knew how this worked in any level of detail, indeed your own comments in that one imply that you don’t understand it, not that you understand it but disagree with it. I’ve not given you snark in return and I think we’re both trying to have an engaged discussion on this.

 

The family of Dalian Atkinson said:

“Dalian Atkinson’s family welcomes the panel’s decision that the assault on Dalian as he was dying constitutes gross misconduct. However, as a probationary officer, having demonstrated such violence and poor judgement, it is very concerning that she was not dismissed immediately this afternoon and that she will be put back on the streets as a serving police officer. This brings the police service into deeper disrepute.”

Deborah Coles, Director of INQUEST said:

"Police accountability after deaths is extremely rare. The fact that this officer will be keeping her job reinforces the reality of this farcical system. "

https://www.inquest.org.uk/dalian-atkinson-gross-misconduct-finding

 

The word ‘probationary’ doesn’t seem to mean much here, does it?

 

You do wonder how she might be progressing...

 

Oh good.

More than 100 Metropolitan Police officers being investigated for sexual misconduct are currently working without restrictions, figures reveal.
The Liberal Democrats have found that as of 3 February, more than a quarter of 548 officers being investigated for domestic abuse and sexual misconduct were working as normal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65005957

 

The Metropolitan police is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia, an official report has said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...t-misogynistic-homophobic-louise-casey-report

Met Police: Women and children failed by 'boys' club', review finds

In London, Baroness Casey says policing by consent - the idea ordinary people trust the police to act honourably and be held accountable - is broken.

The report says leadership teams at the top of the Met have been in denial for decades, and there has been a systemic failure to root out discriminatory and bullying behaviour.

"Deep in its culture it is uncomfortable talking about racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of discrimination."

The Met's Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has apologised to Londoners.

He said: "It is ghastly. You sit down and read that report and it generates a whole series of emotions. It generates anger, frustration, embarrassment."

[Now let's have the Orgreave inquiry]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65015479

 

Gross misconduct hearings almost always happen after the conclusion of criminal cases. It is by no means a given that aquittal at a criminal court means the gross misconduct hearing is dropped. Often the opposite.
One issue with any tribunal or hearing is 'stated cases decision' previously afforded to similar circumstances. Personally,I have conflicting opinions on this aspect - deal with the case uniquely, or use a barometer of what has been decreed elsewhere?

The met situation is clearly dire, and the steps being taken to re-establish some line of transparency will not be completed quickly.

 

There clearly need to be stronger advice to the public about the dangers of contact with the police at this point in time. The whole thing falls down about being asked for contact details etc. Of course nothing will happen - perhaps a few inclusivity courses and some box ticking exercises as previously.