Falling Foul Of Employment Law...

A judge has ruled that three white police officers were unfairly passed over for promotion because of their race. Detective Inspector Phillip Turner-Robson, Inspector Graham Horton and Kirsteen Bishop, a custody inspector, brought employment tribunal proceedings against Thames Valley Police claiming to have been disadvantaged because of they were, as described in the tribunal, 'white British.'

The tribunal heard that in an attempt to improve diversity among senior staff a superintendent at the force was told to 'make it happen' by appointing an 'Asian' sergeant to the rank of detective inspector.

In other words, told to do something illegal. But Julia, you will say, why expect a modern-day senior police officer to know the law? And you'd be right. 

But the HR department did know the law:

This was despite having been warned about the legal risks of not holding a competitive process.

Looks like not all the scofflaws are on the other side... 

...the following month, Superintendent Emma Baillie made the decision to move Sergeant Sidhu, whose forename was not provided, into the role without undertaking any competitive process or advertising the vacancy to staff, the tribunal was told. The sergeant had not even been promoted to inspector at the time she was made detective inspector, the tribunal heard, after deputy chief constable Jason Hogg and the Superintendent had 'jumped the gun' and given her the senior role.

It gets better and better, doesn't it? 

She then tried to 'retrospectively justify' the decision by saying the appointment came under a 'BAME Progression Program which clearly did not exist at the time'.

In other words, by lying. Don't they frown on that sort of thing?

Why, yes Ted, they do, don't they?

Why is she - and Hogg -  not facing malfeasance in public office charges? 

Passing A Law Is Only The Start...

Under Clare’s law – named after Clare Wood, 36, who was murdered in 2009 by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton – people have a right to ask police whether a partner or ex-partner has a history of abusive behaviour. Public bodies can also apply to warn people who may be in danger.

Hurrah! Job done, everyone off to the pub to celebrate! 

But an analysis of official data has found dramatic variations in the implementation of Clare’s law, which is officially known as the domestic violence disclosure scheme, with some forces supplying information in up to 75% of cases, while others reject almost all requests.

Ah. Maybe not. 

Experts said there were multiple reasons why police forces could have drastically different disclosure rates, including that some did not prioritise Clare’s law requests, took different approaches to perpetrators’ privacy rights, or applied different standards when assessing whether applications met the threshold.

*sighs* Back to the drawing board... 

The Question No-One's Asking...

The arrest in London of a radical French publisher under counter-terrorist powers has been referred to the police watchdog after the reviewer of terrorism legislation found that it was wrong.

Ernest Moret, 28, was held for almost 24 hours by counter-terrorist police and asked about his opinion of Emmanuel Macron and participation in anti-Macron protests after he arrived at St Pancras station in April for a book fair.

...is why on earth the UK police farce should be protecting a French politician in the first place? Given that there was no danger to that politician in this country, as he wasn't even here! 

In a damning report published on Friday, Jonathan Hall KC, the reviewer of the terrorism legislation, said the police should not have used schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to confiscate Moret’s phone and laptop and demand he reveal passcodes to the devices.

Moret’s lawyer, Richard Parry, said his client was “very pleased” with Hall’s report. “We will now be writing to the Met commissioner asking for a full apology and compensation for all the distress of the detention and everything else that’s followed.

“The police shouldn’t be doing this. They really need to get their house in order. Mr Moret has been the sacrificial lamb to highlight the extreme dangers of crossing the line from terrorism into public order policing. It has gone too far.”

You're not wrong, but I wish you hadn't stuck your hand in my pocket. Because we all know that's where the compensation is coming from in the first place... 

Announcing that the case would be referred to the IOPC, Commander Dominic Murphy, who leads the Met’s counter-terrorism command, said the force accepted that use of terrorism powers should be subject to “constant vigilance and attention to safeguards”. He added: “We fully cooperated with this review and we know how important it is that our work is as open and transparent as it can be, so that the public can have confidence and trust in what we do and how we do it.”

The public no longer has that, though, does it? Because they are well aware that the police no longer represent their interests, but those of everyone else instead. 

What's The Point Of The ICO...?

The blunder happened when a recording app, which automatically records all calls, was rolled out in 2017. It was downloaded by 1,024 employees – many unaware their phones were logging calls. The app was supposed to be used as recording software by a small number of hostage negotiators to support kidnap and crisis negotiations.

But both forces chose to make it available for all staff to download on their work phones in 2017, which meant they continued to automatically record conversations for almost four years.

Yesterday the watchdog said it was highly likely that the app captured a large variety of personal data during these calls and the processing of some of this data was 'unfair and unlawful'.

So, a million pound fine is in the offing. But... 

Stephen Bonner, ICO Deputy Commissioner, said: 'Sussex Police and Surrey Police failed to use people's personal data lawfully by recording hundreds of thousands of phone calls without their knowledge.

'The reprimand reflects the use of the ICO's wider powers towards the public sector as large fines could lead to reduced budgets for the provision of vital services.

'This case highlights why the ICO is pursuing a different approach, as fining Surrey Police and Sussex Police risks impacting the victims of crime in the area once again.'

So, basically, if you're in the public sector, you can get away with anything? 

‘I’m happy he’s now been convicted, but it shouldn’t have taken third-party intervention to have got to this point.’

Well, no, indeed it shouldn't. But it seems that's what it now takes for our achingly-woke police farce to do their job:

A woman who took a picture of a teenager who groped her at a bus station was staggered to be told by police that the case would be shelved – due to a lack of evidence. The force reopened the investigation only after the 25-year-old victim passed on her photographs of the tagged groper to her local newspaper.

When a journalist contacted Derbyshire Police, officers issued a public appeal and within days, Daniel Oakes had been arrested.

And their excuse this time? 

Derbyshire Police initially claimed that a ‘full and proportionate’ investigation had taken place, but that ‘no offender was able to be identified’ – causing the case to be ‘filed’.

However, police later said that although it had been earmarked for filing, it first needed a sergeant to review whether ‘the images were of good enough quality for an identification to be made’.

The pictures are crystal clear. Why did it need a 'review' to determine that? And the police weren't the only ones failing in their duty:

The victim said that she had been left feeling ‘isolated and alone’ as a result of the response from police and a security guard at Derby bus station, who had threatened to remove her when she reported the sex assault. She was told to ‘stop being childish’ and get on her bus.

Wait, what?! 

The victim said: ‘I experienced a significant lack of help and support from not only the police, but the security staff at the bus station, who dealt with the matter very poorly.’ She added: ‘I was treated like the crazy one. I needed help and none was given.’

I wonder if that's a response to the continual flow of false accusations? Or did the guard simply feel that it was easier to bully a lone woman than tackle a (potentially armed) youth?