Met Police Stop Whistleblower’s Pay – Followed By Shock Exit Of Whistleblower

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. ideb8 says:

    I think the Met, DPS, HMIC & IPCC all try to appear to apply their disciplinary/complaint/appeal rules impartially, whether dealing with a corrupt or courageous employee.

    Their rules have become paramount. In an equivalent way to crime targets. Justice and welfare slip through hollow straws in a dry wind.

    To deal ‘efficiently’ with so many issues, having limited resources, the rules become a bulwark (as with FOIs) against time-consuming distractions.

    So, if at all feasible, obscure clauses are overly examined and interpreted and plundered for ‘excuses’.

    Then any hot coals may ‘justifiably’/’correctly’/’appropriately’ be passed up to the review or appeal level or, more often, referred down for deferred opinion to those too close to the still-smouldering fire.

    The rules are being followed. The paper employee talked while still silenced.

    The next disciplinary rule is scented, grasped at and applied – while another courageous life is measured out with desktop coffee spoons..

  2. Bob Southgate says:

    DPS only follow the rules when it suits them. When it doesn’t suit them they ignore them, safe in the knowledge they will not be held to account. We saw how the Met protects DPS officers in the case of the 6 TSG officers. The DI and 2 DS’s should have faced criminal charges, but they faced a misconduct hearing, on the orders of the IPCC. Once the hearing started Commander Julian Bennett, the chair of the hearing, stated that withholding evidence was only a simple misconduct matter. This the same Julian Bennett who finds 90% of officers appearing before him on hearings guilty.

    I could also speak about a DPS DI and DS who perjured themselves with a statement of facts they presented to a misconduct hearing in 2012. Or an investigation where the investigating officer recommended words of advice be given but he was over ruled and the officer had to face a central board. Or another case where an officer had faced criminal charges, was acquitted at court, told he would face no further action and then 2 months later was served with papers advising him he would face a discipline board.

    The DPS are put of control. It is routine for them to fail to comply with CPIA and internal procedures in investigations, to bully officers and to fail to disclose vital evidence. I know of a case where an officer didn’t receive disclosure until the day he was due to be interviewed when he was given 130 pages of statements and other evidence and expected to quickly read through it.

  3. Bob Southgate says:

    DPS only follow the rules when it suits them. When it doesn’t suit them they ignore them, safe in the knowledge they will not be held to account. We saw how the Met protects DPS officers in the case of the 6 TSG officers. The DI and 2 DS’s should have faced criminal charges, but they faced a misconduct hearing, on the orders of the IPCC. Once the hearing started Commander Julian Bennett, the chair of the hearing, stated that withholding evidence was only a simple misconduct matter. This the same Julian Bennett who finds 90% of officers appearing before him on hearings guilty.

    I could also speak about a DPS DI and DS who perjured themselves with a statement of facts they presented to a misconduct hearing in 2012. Or an investigation where the investigating officer recommended words of advice be given but he was over ruled and the officer had to face a central board. Or another case where an officer had faced criminal charges, was acquitted at court, told he would face no further action and then 2 months later was served with papers advising him he would face a discipline board.

    The DPS are put of control. It is routine for them to fail to comply with CPIA and internal procedures in investigations, to bully officers and to fail to disclose vital evidence. I know of a case where an officer didn’t receive disclosure until the day he was due to be interviewed when he was given 130 pages of statements and other evidence and expected to quickly read through it.

  4. ideb8 says:

    Yes, it’s clearly the case that rules are bent too.

    Re: ..try to appear to apply their..rules impartially..
    (the emphasis should be on ‘appear’)

    Re: ..The rules are being followed..
    Yes, sorry. Should at least have been in quotes. In the thoughts of the Met, they would have convinced themselves – as James is still employed, and so remains under their 17-month restriction “not to have contact with the public, external agencies or stakeholders” – that, once he broke that silence, the ‘rules’ suggest another disciplinary charge.

    The fact that the Met then (“minutes after”) offered earlier termination with full salary until early June in lieu of notice, confirms this mindset:

    Their concern is not in the slightest for the plight or “welfare” of the employee they smeared or for his young family whom they threatened or to discuss with him (and so more speedily resolve) his original concerns – no, none of these.

    Having felt irked that the silenced James spoke out in an act of ‘insubordination’, prompting the knee-jerk application of the rule dictating another charge, someone then saw a problem and had to make a quick face-saving offer.

    Realising James would ignore further attempts at suppression, their threat to restore silence could only result in continuing ‘insubordination’ – an insufferable prospect.

    They couldn’t contemplate an employee openly flouting a disciplinary charge. It might catch on – and debase its currency.

    ‘Who is this upstart attention-seeking Constable?’ they may have vainly lamented, ‘I, as a pukka Detective Inspector, can’t abide my authority being sidestepped, for weeks on end. It would be so endlessly humiliating..’

    The speedy offer demonstrates their true and only concern, to protect the reputation they see as not irretrievably tarnished, despite the belief by the public that the Met top brass has yielded to no-one in doing so itself.

    Having been caught without a thought for employee welfare, their logical next step should be to be ‘seen’ to check he’s ok..

  5. ideb8 says:

    Yes, it’s clearly the case that rules are bent too.

    Re: ..try to appear to apply their..rules impartially..
    (the emphasis should be on ‘appear’)

    Re: ..The rules are being followed..
    Yes, sorry. Should at least have been in quotes. In the thoughts of the Met, they would have convinced themselves – as James is still employed, and so remains under their 17-month restriction “not to have contact with the public, external agencies or stakeholders” – that, once he broke that silence, the ‘rules’ suggest another disciplinary charge.

    The fact that the Met then (“minutes after”) offered earlier termination with full salary until early June in lieu of notice, confirms this mindset:

    Their concern is not in the slightest for the plight or “welfare” of the employee they smeared or for his young family whom they threatened or to discuss with him (and so more speedily resolve) his original concerns – no, none of these.

    Having felt irked that the silenced James spoke out in an act of ‘insubordination’, prompting the knee-jerk application of the rule dictating another charge, someone then saw a problem and had to make a quick face-saving offer.

    Realising James would ignore further attempts at suppression, their threat to restore silence could only result in continuing ‘insubordination’ – an insufferable prospect.

    They couldn’t contemplate an employee openly flouting a disciplinary charge. It might catch on – and debase its currency.

    ‘Who is this upstart attention-seeking Constable?’ they may have vainly lamented, ‘I, as a pukka Detective Inspector, can’t abide my authority being sidestepped, for weeks on end. It would be so endlessly humiliating..’

    The speedy offer demonstrates their true and only concern, to protect the reputation they see as not irretrievably tarnished, despite the belief by the public that the Met top brass has yielded to no-one in doing so itself.

    Having been caught without a thought for employee welfare, their logical next step should be to be ‘seen’ to check he’s ok..

  6. Bob Southgate says:

    Employee welfare left the building a long time ago. Why else would you have a system in the met where Occupational Health can make recommendations to management about the welfare of an officer which can be ignored whenever it suits the managers! I was off once and OH got involved. My managers said they would accept any reasonable recommendations made by OH. One such recommendation was to move me to another team under a different supervisor (and one had indicated he would be delighted to have me) but the managers deemed that “unreasonable” and refused to do it.

  7. Bob Southgate says:

    Employee welfare left the building a long time ago. Why else would you have a system in the met where Occupational Health can make recommendations to management about the welfare of an officer which can be ignored whenever it suits the managers! I was off once and OH got involved. My managers said they would accept any reasonable recommendations made by OH. One such recommendation was to move me to another team under a different supervisor (and one had indicated he would be delighted to have me) but the managers deemed that “unreasonable” and refused to do it.

  1. April 12, 2014

    […] Met Police stop whistleblower's pay – Channel 4 News. PC James Patrick, who resigned from the force over his treatment at the hands of senior officers, is claiming constructive dismissal, sa…  […]

  2. April 12, 2014

    […] Met Police stop whistleblower's pay – Channel 4 News. PC James Patrick, who resigned from the force over his treatment at the hands of senior officers, is claiming constructive dismissal, sa…  […]

  3. April 12, 2014

    […] Met Police stop whistleblower’s pay – Channel 4 News. PC James Patrick, who resigned from the force over his treatment at the hands of senior officers, is claiming constructive dismissal, saying he was victimised for speaking out.  […]

  4. April 12, 2014

    […] Met Police stop whistleblower’s pay – Channel 4 News. PC James Patrick, who resigned from the force over his treatment at the hands of senior officers, is claiming constructive dismissal, saying he was victimised for speaking out.  […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: