The APP covers this you should have been doing most of it anyway!

So reading this if an officer gets a written warning for some misconduct issue (i.e. not enough to warrant sacking them) then they will try and sack them by removing their vetting clearance? Who dreams this stuff up? What is the point in having a graduated misconduct system if all you are ever going to do is try and sack people for any issue that arises? You may as well just receive a complaint and tell the person to resign immediately as they will get sacked anyway. What is "adverse information?"- does that mean an aggrieved ex partner who knows what to say to get the officer into bother? Does it mean a criminal who is peeved with being nicked by a decent copper and makes spurious complaints? Does it mean someone who is offended by the officer's personal opinions? No one wants to work with bent or corrupt cops and quite rightly they should be gotten rid of, but equally the force shouldn't be looking to sack everyone for any complaint or misconduct finding that occurs. It makes the whole misconduct process a pointless excercise and shows again how having no employment rights is open to abuse by police management. In the end, all of these draconian systems are going to put off new recruits and just make decent people who may make the odd mistake or misjudgement leave the police and work for an organisation that values their skills for more money. The end result.... a load of coppers paralysed by fear who don't bother tackling things and for society that is not a good thing.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes The job is not riddled with corrupt deviant officers, far from it. There are a handful who must be weeded out at every opportunity. However the MSM obsession with its anti police narrative has effectively neutered the operational policing with the young officers shying away from any kind of hands on policing being in fear of getting disciplined sacked and even imprisoned for doing their job. The idea of vetting every officer every time a concern is raised will as Captainover points out lead to an avalanche of malicious complaints that will swamp the job. Leading to a huge number of officers counting paperclips whilst the PSD/Vetting departments investigate the complaint.

The vetting process doesn't tell anyone how an officer is thinking, it relies on trust and integrity to disclose. Will the vetting process include an eamination of whatsapp messages?

Most forces have been doing this but it only seems to matter or be mentioned when the Met are deemed to have thought of it first. Most PSDs and vetting departments operate fine but are now being down graded by the HMIC to suit the political narrative and not make the Met look as bad as it is.

The Met should be highlighting the dangerous and good work the majority of staff do every hour of every day. And stop banging on about a ‘Line of Duty’ corruption fight. Corrupt Officers should be dismissed but the honest majority need support now.

The term 'Double Jeopardy' comes to mind here. The Police Service rightly must have high standards of professionalism but all to often the rules that apply to hardened criminals are not applied when dealing with a police officer whoi has done something wrong. The IO should have established whether such action was deliberate or a genuine mistake when dealing under pressure with an incident. That way the message goes through the ranks and cannot be criticised. AND spped up the process. You are police officers not solicitors to whom timedealing with a case means nothing.

Exactly.

It is now time to review how Police Forces are managed. The senior management team needs to include some independent directors with the powers to issue directives that the Force will be obliged to follow.

I absolutely agree 100% The complaints process needs to be truly independent which sadly it just isn't at the moment

I agree officers should have nothing to fear if they are doing their job properly and responsibly. Professional Standards only act as "a rubber stamp" at the moment and have no real powers.

I agree officers should have nothing to fear if they are doing their job properly and responsibly. Professional Standards only act as "a rubber stamp" at the moment and have no real powers.

As I understand this, they are proposing a system where a police officer could be charged with an offense and be found not guilty, then could be subjected to a disciplinary hearing and it be found that they did not commit any misconduct. Already the officer is more likely to be charged with an offense on weak evidence because of appearances, and already they’ve been subject to the “two bites of the cherry” situation that only police officers have to tolerate. Now we’re looking at a third step where the officer’s background, social life and online activity are scrutinized, with the chance of further jeopardy to their job. This is grossly unfair and excessive, and that fact that it’s given an Operation Name, as if it were some big criminal investigation, adds insult to injury.

If I am reading this correctly - as soon as 'concerns over an officer' are raised the default re-vetting kicks in. It seems pretty obvious that any little problem with the vetting (lives in the same street as a criminal) will allow the Met to sack that officer. This means that he could be quite innocent of any wrongdoings, but because a good hard working officer has brought himself to notice he is sacked without any form of investigation. I suppose if we do it the correct way and launch an investigation into the officers alleged wrongdoing, it costs money and is not necessarily a sacking offence. Come on Federation, this is a misuse of power and completely unnecessary. If I was still a serving officer I would be looking for another job.