One has to be careful of dismissing due process for the sake of expediency. Miscarriages of justice can involve police officers in discipline hearings just as much as the accused in the criminal courts. The we will not tolerate brigade are not noted for their judicial expertise and will sacrifice officers who may have required assistance with mental issues, of which we are reading so much on this site recently. Let us not have one rule for the general public in the criminal courts and another rule for police officers in the kangaroo courts of the IOPC driven gross misconduct hunt a bobby crusade.

Perhaps he can revisit the "Two bites at the Cherry" approach. If a Force/PSD/IOPC think their case is nailed on and go all the way through the Criminal Procedure and they lose then any case should end there, Not as it is with a "Well we will get you in our on Court? and convict you anyway.

Cops are in a unique and vulnerable position with many malicious allegations. Any future process must have appropriate safeguards. Confidence is already low.

Perhaps some streamlining of the process is overdue. Having said that it is the Met who seem to have difficulty in identifying and dealing with what amount to criminals in their midst. I'm not sure if it is the same now, but for a very long time if a candidate failed a provincial forces selection they were directed to apply for the Met!!!! Clearly, there are criminals in other police forces (sorry can't use that term anymore). The issue is that the Fed are a complete bunch of leather swivel chair warmers so can't be trusted to be involved in a constructive way when new discipline processes are designed. The danger is minor complaints which in my expereince are usually because of a missunderstanding or malicious could be used to get rid of officers when times of cut backs or poor managment.

As per my profile moniker, I have been treated like dog dirt, a fact which so far has taken me 17 years to redress. Perhaps "Jimmy" would do better to look within his own department before opening his gutter headline trap first. Commander Bond is here Commissioner

One of the main issues for the Met is it’s size. In smaller forces nearly everybody knows each other so someone who’s up to no good tends to stand out. In the Met people can move around the organisation and keep below the radar relatively easily.

Firstly it is imperative to remember everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Welfare needs to be put in place to support accused officers. We should also be coaching staff to improve but if they don’t make the mark then they need to be dismissed as they don’t meet the grade end of. However, In return for these changes Policing needs to be paid correctly because that’s what we all go to work for, fair pay for a fair days work. When staff are overworked, under supported it is obvious their performance will drop so forces need to ensure that all departments are fully staffed. Unfortunately minimum staffing levels are a thing of the past but this also needs to be readdressed and cops compensated for working in a force which is below safe levels. I am sure recruitment, retention and training would be a real priority rather than the current knee jerk reaction to bring people in. Also in terms of performance how can you call out a student officer who has a portfolio to complete, a degree and learn a new role be effective. The system for new recruits need to be addressed. How about they are recruited in to a role that they will stay in until degree is finished before moving them.

I don't think any officer in any force has an issue with an officer convicted at court of a criminal offence losing their job.That it can take a period of admin afterwards to complete that procedure is not an issue as such as made out by the Met spokesman and certainly not, as suggested, having a concerning impact on resources and operational capacity. The issue I have is the vaguely worded terms such as 'shouldn't be in the job'. What benchmark is being used for this? Police disciplinary boards are being used as a catch all to review this 'concept' for those who have either been charged,gone to Court,been found Not guilty/No case to answer/Dismissed. All at the lower standard of proof. Or, as chewed over by non conformists like myself, in a PO article recently about the officer who was effectively 'found proven' of the offence of Rape in a Disciplinary hearing even though CPS had reviewed and not authorised charge for the offence. Fairness and due process need to be adhered to and the comments made by the Met spokesman above are just SMT chewing at the same bone looking to sound 'on message'

@MP2004 Unfortunately, the moving around of poorly performing officers has long been an issue in the MPS. Nervous supervisors often choose not to deal with them, and confident supervisors choose to deal with them but then spend months/years fighting malicious complaints as a result. It's nonsense really. In my experience, the officers who are not cut out for the job usually become obvious at some point during their two-year probation - Mr Savell is right that getting them out quickly in that period will save a lot of headaches for all parties later. If you're not able to demonstrate a level of competence within your probationary period, the truth is you never will.

Retired brief. Spot on. Expediency is desired by Chief Officers when it suits their agenda. Perhaps when it involves them or one of their own not so much.

what about the Met Commander - suspended for over two years? same force as author - kettle/pot.