Helen
Implicitly explicit
Keeping you on would, in fact, be a punishment for the colleague. Expecting you to work with someone who has said that would be abusive.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The behaviour of UK police officers.
- Thread starter Nessie
- Start date
Yup. And our HR department would be well aware of the potential problems and if this hypothetical colleague left, the possibility of getting sued for constructive dismissal.
Last edited:
Let's pull back a bit though. You are making the case that we shouldn't sack a police officer if no red flags are present and it's a one off, correct?
If that is the case, then why should wee johnny who, upon being arrested for lifting a packet of chewing gum from a local shop, and run through checks is found to be a first offender, be charged?
It's a one off, an impulse with no red flags, now his life will be somewhat harder following the conviction.
Gulliver Foyle
Penultimate Amazing
Once off is behaviour so vile as to warrant a sacking. If I said something like what he said to one of my colleagues, I'd expect to be sacked.
Exactly. It still says something about the work environment and culture that, even off duty he felt free to say that.
And even retired cops still want them on the streets, policing you, with that vile attitude.
Whilst I do joke about it this is meant to have been fixed. We've had all the reports, all the inquiries, all the promises of lessons learned, that the police force today is very different from what it used to be but all that has happened is that the rotten barrel gets a new thin veneer of shiny wood but that soon starts to peel away and it remains the same rotten barrel that spoils every apple that remains.
And the only thing with a chance of fixing this in the future is to have zero tolerance for this behaviour and trying to increase diversity of the new intake
I sadly have to disagree - that has apparently been tried or so we have been told.
The thing is let's say that kind of talk was considered "lad's talk"/"banter" back in the 1970s, there is no one employed by a company of any size today that doesn't know it is not acceptable*, how can other employers have no problem getting that across to thousands of employers by way of usually an on-line video of 20 minutes and a few brief questions every couple of years or so? Why doesn't that happen in the police forces? This is why I say the barrel is just as much an issue as any single bad apple. The police forces have proven over decade after decade that they cannot reform themselves so that's why I say the police forces need to be rebuilt from the ground up, carefully ensuring no rotten apples are transferred into the new forces.
*Of course such "banter" does occur in companies large and small but because the employees know it would be a sackable offence they will be very careful to keep that within a tight circle of other employees. They know it is wrong.
I think that was my miscommunication. I think that we are in violent agreement.
The management have demonstrated their tolerance for bad behaviour because the barrel is indeed infested with rot from the top.
Which is why 8 former or current chief inspectors were under investigation or awaiting disciplinary proceedings in July 2026.
And yes. What I was implying is that I have seen no evidence of zero tolerance for such behaviour, and indeed a low tolerance for reporting it.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,795
The officer should be punished, by a warning, fine or demotion. The sack is too strong a punishment.
Wee Johnny, for his first offence, should be given a warning or fine. Sending him to prison is too strong a punishment.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,795
That is what is happening, as police officers are being sacked for first offences, which in the past would have resulted in a warning, fine or demotion.
I think you'll agree that Wee Johnny getting a fine or a warning is going to have a bigger effect on his life than PC Bawbag getting busted back to constable with a disciplinary fine from his wages.
One is handled under employment law and professional misconduct regulations. That means it does not result in a public criminal record.
The other means that Wee Johnny has, at best, a Recorded Police Warning on record for 2 years, at worst, a fine, a criminal conviction and a criminal record.
What you are proposing is favouring the police and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ the public.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,795
You were comparing disgusting words at work to a theft. So the results will be different. My point stands, for a first offence, that appears to be out of character, the punishment should be at the lower, not the higher end of the scale.
Which is a start. Bringing the police reluctantly into line with normal workplaces is only a start. It is not sufficient.
Remember there is evidence that the culture of the Met hasn't changed since Wayne Couzens was being referred to as "the rapist" by colleagues without any action being taken, and if course David Carrick was also in the same unit, apparently with the nickname "the bastard" but again both of these were considered okay in the unit and in the wider police force.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,795
I think the evidence is that the culture is changing, with some still holding onto the old culture of ignoring misconduct and others now prepared to report it. It was never going to be the flick of a switch.
I bet you some workplaces have people whose conduct is dreadful and others where there is zero tolerance to anything. I am sure most places are like the police, where some people live charmed lives and get protected and others do something minor and get the book thrown at them. I do not believe the police is an outlier when it comes to workplace conduct and discipline.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Paywall on this article, but "Reader View" works.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yep "communications offences" - domestic violence victims should have to just accept that their attacker can send them text after text after text, or that a stalker can send messages after message to their victim, that someone can send hardcore porn over and over again to someone, I mean such behaviour is simply "free speech" and sorry there is nothing a society should do about it....
Rolfe
Adult human female
Maybe if that was a true description of what people are being arrested for, your point would be valid.