[Closed] Plebgate cop admits misconduct and to resign

pillock.

(him, not you al)

I'm surprised he gets the option to resign rather than be sacked but perhaps it makes no difference?

And at 53 he is going to resign, will get his pension etc, not be sacked as would happen in the real world, for bringing his company into disrepute.

I think realistically he has no option druid, he just avoids the embarrasment of a disciplinary.

I'm surprised he gets the option to resign rather than be sacked but perhaps it makes no difference?

It may well make a difference to his pension?

So...a police officer was willing to lie to protect his buddies when they had a stupid spat about a gate? Makes you wonder what he would have been willing to do if his colleagues had done something serious...like shoot an unarmed man.

IIRC, this is the one who has been charged with a criminal offence, so he can still lose his pension if found guilty

This is certainly one person who needs the book throwing at.
An absolute disgrace and needs locking up for a bloody long time.
The politician should sue him back to the Stone Age. ****.

Good riddance

I thought it was the tradition to 'take early retirement on the grounds of ill health' when there was the remotest sniff of being held accountable for your behaviour? Then you get to keep your pension and perks?

So he still gets to keep those anyway, I presume, if he resigns? Its like a reward for being the fall guy, and taking the heat off everyone else? And this is what the Met regard as accountability is it?

In any job in the real world, he's have been out of the door for gross misconduct 12 months ago, and told to go and whistle for his perks and pension!

In any job in the real world, he's have been out of the door for gross misconduct 12 months ago, and told to go and whistle for his perks and pension!

Indeed. Something in the paper this morning about a copper who'd just been sent to jail for sex with a 14 year old. (Unpleasant texts sent by him as well, vile stuff). Apparently, West Mids police felt this needed to go to some sort of 'special tribunal' to decide if he should keep his job.

Er, no. Save the time and effort, cancel the tea and biccies all round. He's been convicted of sexual offenses while a copper, and serving six years at Her Majesty's pleasure. No need for a tribunal there.
It's here on the Beeb;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25675628

IIRC, this is the one who has been charged with a criminal offence, so he can still lose his pension if found guilty

I am not so sure they can touch his pension after he has resigned. iirc any such punitive measures can only be enacted against serving officers.

I am also not sure that going after someone's pension is the right thing to do anyway, if he has committed a crime, then punish him directly for that.

Also was it not that retirement for ill health basically boosted the pension, where as resignation would lock it as is. Retiring on health grounds when caught being naughty clearly was a dodgy practice.

They take your pension in the private sector?

I doubt it.

They take your pension in the private sector?

I doubt it.

Not worth worrying about - most pensions in the private sector are worthless these days anyway.

You may have part of your pension forfeited either permanently or temporarily by the police authority if you are convicted of:

• an offence of treason;

• one or more offences under the Official Secrets Acts for which you have been
sentenced on the same occasion to at least 10 years’ imprisonment; or

• an offence committed in connection with your police service which is certified by the
Secretary of State either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the State or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service (e.g. conspiracy to pervert the course of justice).

A police authority may review a decision on forfeiture and restore some or all of the pension to the pensioner or someone receiving an award in respect of the pensioner.

From the Regs...serious loss of confidence etc., hard to argue that hasn't happened.

Can they really take his pension ? After all he has paid for it ???

Crazy situation though !!!

But do those regulations apply to no longer serving officers, I could be wrong, but I don't think they do.

I'm not sure to be honest, I couldn't find the answer to that from my initial [s]research[/s] googling.

IMHO he has to pay an actual real world price for this and he should not be allowed to resign he should be sacked in disgrace as a minimum.

as for his pension - it depends on the police Terms and Conditions

I think the worrying thing is if they can go after him - and look at what they said after the actual meeting with him as well then what chance have little people got?
Its also not great for the met as they all get tarred with the same brush

For his crime, IMO he should serve time, there should be an extra tarrif for doing so as a serving police officer (as there should be for many positions of power and authority).

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forfeiture-of-police-pensions--2 ]This[/url] appears to be the most recent HO Circular on the subject. Annex A seems to imply that the first to reasons in my quote above can also apply to pensioners as well as serving officers, but talks about the third reason in terms of a member of a police force. Annex B, first para, then seems to me to imply that he could. Struggling to cut and paste on my iPad but they are very short docs, have a read.

In any job in the real world, he's have been out of the door for gross misconduct 12 months ago, and told to go and whistle for his perks and pension!

indeed, not. How many fraudsters inside the square mile have ever seen the inside of a cell, let alone the inside of a police interview room?

I don't think the city of London qualifies as the real world.

Depends if you regard the City as the real world Bravissimo? I can't think of any other profession more insulated from day-to-day reality, as known to the rest of us. Apart from maybe politicians

I don't think the city of London qualifies as the real world.

*looks out of window*

Looks pretty real to me. 😀

I don't think the city of London qualifies as the real world.

Depends if you regard the City as the real world Bravissimo? I can't think of any other profession more insulated from day-to-day reality, as known to the rest of us. Apart from maybe politicians

Both good points, well made.

Maybe not the real world, but certainly with an impact on those of us who have to exist in it. Anyway...bit of a digression. My apologies.

In any job in the real world, he's have been out of the door for gross misconduct 12 months ago, and [b]have kept his pension[/b] [s]told to go and whistle for his perks and pension![/s]

FIFY

Something in the paper this morning about a copper who'd just been sent to jail for sex with a 14 year old. (Unpleasant texts sent by him as well, vile stuff). Apparently, West Mids police felt this needed to go to some sort of 'special tribunal' to decide if he should keep his job.

This amazes me even more than the plebgate thing. This guy gets custodial sentence and has to be on the sex offenders register for life. Why does a decision need to be made? I know they will argue that it is just process but it should just happen by default.

From the BBC article:

PC Wallis's actions had damaged public trust and confidence in the police and in the integrity of his officers, Sir Bernard added.

Wonder if they're lining him up for a dig at the pension? Is he going to cop for Plebgate and the Duggan case too in terms of 'public confidence'...

Whilst not trying to defend this guy

he should not be allowed to resign he should be sacked in disgrace as a minimum.

Any pension [b]he[/b] has paid is presumably his it's just employer contributions that can be stopped...? or can it be classed similar to criminal income as he was upto no good whilst working and thus be recovered?

Its also not great for the met as they all get tarred with the same brush

I know they will argue that it is just process but it should just happen by default.

Common sense says so, but if they don't follow the proper procedures it would no doubt be challenged later on. Sharon Shoesmith debacle etc. (not comparing the cases of course, but as an example of what can happen when the procedures aren't followed correctly)

did he resign before or after he admitted wrongdoing? If before what can you do? If a police bod is accused of something similar and resigns before getting to court what happens? Innocent until proven guilty so do you refuse to accept the resignation until court case is finished? Are you even allowed to do that? Can the accused resign whilst suspended?

He's niot being allowed to resign - Met are going disciplinary.

Shame Mitchell wasn't candid at the time.

He has been bailed for sentencing on 6 February pending psychiatric reports.

That is a rather worrying statement, it looks like they are doing the groundwork for a get out of jail free card. I hope he doesn't get away with it.

Aside from the pension forfeiture issue it makes no difference - the highest sanction the disciplinary process can impose is dismissal, so the outcome is the same.

Regarding the pension forfeiture issue, this seems to depend on whether you were convicted of one of the offences that can result in forfeiture, not on whether or not you were dismissed, so again I don't see it making any difference. If a retired police officer is convicted of treason, for example, his pension can be forfeited. This chap is convicted and intends to resign, i.e. was a serving officer at the time of conviction.

it looks like they are doing the groundwork for a get out of jail free card

the poster never said it would work [they said they hoped it did not] so I am not sure why you made that point or with such scorn

[quote=MSP said]He has been bailed for sentencing on 6 February pending psychiatric reports.
That is a rather worrying statement, it looks like they are doing the groundwork for a get out of jail free card. I hope he doesn't get away with it.

Yup, sounds like a BS cover story.

The MET have a track record with suspended officers all suddenly finding themselves seriously ill and getting medical discharges just before they're about to be disciplined.

Both Mitchell and the press were warned about the officer's fragile mental state some months ago. As noted on C4 News, what is perhaps more concerning is how he was allowed to continue serving in the Diplomatic Protection Squad in such a condition.

[quote=hamishthecat said]what is perhaps more concerning is how he was allowed to continue serving in the Diplomatic Protection Squad in such a condition.

Probably because it's a BS cover story. 🙂

So no one in this 'real world' what ever that is has resigned before getting the sack. What a crock of shit, of course it happens in the private sector too. He may well keep his pension and so he should.

So no one in this 'real world' what ever that is has resigned before getting the sack. What a crock of shit, of course it happens in the private sector too. He may well keep his pension and so he should.

He was in a position of trust and a Police officer - it's not like he just did something a bit wrong, he proactively set out to lie, seemingly with the intention of damaging someone's career.

T&Cs seem to allow him to lose his pension - it would be good to make an example of him to warn others not to do the same.

A private sector employee (and their pension) is funded by the business they work for. A public sector employee is funded by me and you. And that is the big difference - I'm not happy to pay for someone to not do the job they are paid to do. They have to play by the rules or face the consequences.

A public sector employee is funded by me and you. And that is the big difference - I'm not happy to pay for someone to not do the job they are paid to do. They have to play by the rules or face the consequences.

Anyone know if any of the MPs or lords convicted over the past few years have lost their pensions?

I think a prison sentence and loss of his job is sufficient punishment.

A public sector employee is funded by me and you

Respectfully (and I don't mean that as a BS term) public sector is funded by everyone, even the employees of the PS.

The whole "take their pension" is just a current trend of anger towards PS employees, and basically, is pathetic.

The law should apply and nothing more.

He was in a position of trust and a Police officer - it's not like he just did something a bit wrong, he proactively set out to lie, seemingly with the intention of damaging someone's career.

Correct he was that's right I'm not sure his intention was damage someone else's career though.

T&Cs seem to allow him to lose his pension - it would be good to make an example of him to warn others not to do the same.

If this case I disagree.

A private sector employee (and their pension) is funded by the business they work for. A public sector employee is funded by me and you.

It's funded by his wage and his employer, you know almost like a paying for private pension out of your wage. Ok it has the bonus of being matched by his employer but that came with his job, he no longer has that job but has paid into for what at 53 I would guess for awhile.

I'm not sure his intention was damage someone else's career though.

Why else would he fabricate the story, given there was already bad feeling towards the MP in question from sections of the Police? There had to be a motivation and this seems the logical conclusion, that he thought he could turn the knife on someone.

Why else would he fabricate the story, given there was already bad feeling towards the MP in question from sections of the Police?

A story they spun that got out of hand?

It's funded by his wage and his employer, you know almost like a paying for private pension out of your wage.

Police wages are funded by taxation, no? So 'we' pay for police pensions.

'You' pay 'us' [i]X[/i] per annum to do our job on your behalf. That money is then ours, not yours. We then [i]choose[/i] to pay so much of our salary into a pension scheme.

We might also spend some of our money on goods or services that pay your wages, so depending on how long we want to follow this money round and round for, we no doubt find that 'we' in turn pay 'your' wages, and applying the same logic, your pension 😉

Oh the old "We Pay your wages' well guess what Police pay tax too as well as their contribution to the pension, thegreatape has covered what I was going to say too. The money they earn that is then spent too which will keep someone else in employment as well as the tax they pay 'topping up' their pension.

Everyone pays tax well except operations who register as American.

Seems to me the issue of whether his pension would be forfeited/cut for this sort of misconduct is the more important issue here, not the way in which he ceases to be a serving police officer with potentially dubious morals and decision-making capabilities...

One way or another, taxpayers pay for employment tribunals/disciplinaries etc in the public sector. Although I do have issue about how long and how costly these procedures are in public service: ie it is very very long, complex and expensive process to sack someone through really obvious misconduct let alone poor performance/being rubbish. Sometimes the most righteous course of action is (pragmatically speaking) not the best one due to the cost, and also whatever public service the people involved in it won't be able to do while they are busy doing the 'right' thing.

I remember someone I knew being sacked from a reasonably paid (about 35k iirc) health service post: the easily measurable and impossible to argue against bits were what he got dismissed for. To have sacked him for everything else it was widely alleged he had done wrong would have been far more 'right' for those involved (although TBF this was staff not patients iirc, perhaps it would have been different again had their been clear direct harm to individual patients rather than the service) butthis would have cost the trust (and so you the taxpayer) far more for the same end result. Obviously this would have been easier if he had resigned, but it was still better for taxpayer to have thrown a couple of books at him not the whole bookshelf.

Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this [s]officer[/s] man for loss of earnings/career? Clearly his life and possibly bank balance now and in the future would be very different today had all this never happened or happened differently.

Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this officer man for loss of earnings/career?

He resigned didn't he?

[quote=Drac said]Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this officer man for loss of earnings/career?
He resigned didn't he?

Political resignations == not the resignee's choice

Political resignations == not the resignee's choice

Hmmm bit like this Police Officer then.

Apart from Mitchell being an innocent party and the police office being very far from that.

So the officer has been sentenced to 12 months then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

The more important issue is does anyone have moustaches like that other than coppers?

It might go down nicely (sorry) on one wing.