Police marksman under investigation (88)

OK. If those things are true, it's hard to defend, and I'm not trying to, because they're not in the report I read. That report suggested strongly that he'd been suspended just for having pictures of himself in uniform with his gun on a dating website. That's the issue I wanted to discuss. Maybe it actually had nothing to do with his suspension (although I suspect it did). Anyway, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I can't believe I've been sticking up for a police officer! Down wiv de oppressors, innit!

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence and insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me - Hunter S. Thompson.

You fash pig! You just want a thrashing, dontcha?

"People are inherently evil, but very, very funny" - Joe Orton.

Wow! I must check my keyboard! I didn't realise I'd typed that...

Anyway, yes I did read what you said and you sounded like a 'Sun Reader'.

I'll admit I was having a bad day, and it did make me lose my temper a bit because:

We're a group of people who seek clemency off the general public to accept our sexuality as being of no danger to anyone. Yet, here the news agencies pick up on the word 'dominant' and the sun goes on to describe his 'sick desires'. All I saw that far into the thread was a bunch of people washing their hands of the matter and joining in the lambasting and the kicking...

When you say, for example, 'waving his gun around', the only picture I've seen is him with his gun holstered and at that point you don't even know if it's loaded. I could tell you what would happen to a sailor who waves his gun around for any reason...he'd get his nose broken or he'd have the gun taken off him and he'd be on a massive disciplinary - I'm sure policemen have an equal sense of self preservation, so I'm sure he wasn't 'waving his gun around'.

I think this guy deserves a disciplinary... I don't think he deserves the sack. And yes, being ex-military I'd say that guys DO use what they do for a living and the dangers inherent in it to pull - I've watched it; hell, I've done it (conversationally). Being in the forces or emergency services is like nothing you can imagine: It's a very macho environment (perhaps not the ambulances so much) and also one which can rob you of your humanity and make you feel very alone - so do they act like idiots and have little sensitivity? Yes. I'd say that can often become a character trait of people in those jobs. I could tell you stories, but I won't.

This was also part of what annoyed me: people put their expectations on the forces and the police, etc. and forget that they are humans and they do fuck up - they seem to think that there's some magical conditioning process that they go through that makes them immune to Mr Cockup.

I didn't see this guy as a danger - I did see this guy as someone who needed to be disciplined, probably for his own safety - I thought the justifications given were shite. How do you actually know he would have been black-mailable? People will only be black-mailable over issues like this as long as sex negativity continues

If he was fucking on the job then he should have been torn up for that, but again, I'm not sure it's a dismissal.

I have to say that Black Sheep Boy mainly said everything I want to.

@mushroomgirl: My knee is OK now. But FYI, if you're not creating a performance issue or risk in your job (and I'm sure that if anyone wanted to find out about CO 19, there'd be more foolproof ways of doing so) why is it a sackable offence? and; if your second para about mental illness not being held as true any more is being employed in the judging process here, then why was the word 'dominant' flagged up SO massively: surely it wouldn't have been a concern...

I'm often quite vitriolic over stuff (and last time I checked this was the BDSM ACTIVISM board); this time it's different...I think I've seen this kind of person before and it's easy to not understand them, but I've worked with them before and I got a protective twinge...which I don't think you guys will understand, but hey...

Edited 14 Nov 09, 2:12 AM by NaughtyJim

Although the papers have been quick to pick up on the fact he was both, "Adventurous" and, "Dominant", no official from the Met have mentioned these as reasons for his removal from firearms duties.

Indeed, they haven't mentioned them, instead citing the fact the officer talked about sensitive ops, which were reported as including the shooting of Mark Saunders, a lawyer shot last year, as well as sharing naked pics of himself. The reports also mention that his Unit was responsible for possibly intervening in terrorist activities.

Taking an opinion from what has been put out there by the news, the decision of his hierarchy is more to do with his big mouth and lack of discretion, rather than his supposed enjoyment of anything kinky.

All hail Zoidberg, saviour of the Universe!

At last someone has spotted that this officer has NOT been sacked but merely moved from a specialist role to a non specialist role and is now the subject of a discipline enquiry.

There have been many people posting here about stuff they do not know about or fully understand and are missing the point here. I mean no offence to them but please just stop and look at the bigger picture here and do not get drawn into what the media have created for the general public to feed on.

The basic facts behind the decision of the Met Police to remove him from his posting to CO19 are simple and very clear to those who have an understanding of the way in which the Met, or indeed any other Police Service thinks, along with an understanding of their discipline code, that being that he has brought the Service 'into disrepute' and breached Service Policy by talking about sensitive information.

All of this could have been avoided if he had read the numerous internal memos sent out by the Directorate of Professional Standards about the use of personal information on dating and social networking sites and the do's and don'ts about what to talk about.

Their guidance is very simple:-

• Don't do anything stupid like talk about sensitive material.
• Don't post pictures of yourself in uniform.
• Don't get your chap out and post pics of it.
• Don't post personal information which could lead to identity theft or that could lead to breaches of security by use of police information.

What is required by an officer working in a firearms environment is sound judgement, integrity and an understanding of the consequences of their actions. Nobody is interested in their sexual preference or choice of perversion.

This officer has shown a lack of all of three key elements I mentioned by disclosing information about an incident that he was allegedly involved in which could lead to compromising the safety and integrity of future operations.

Like it or not the Met Police Service has a discipline code which has a catch all of doing anything which would 'bring the Service into disrepute', and on this occasion he has done so by bringing himself and the Service to public notice in a manner which makes not only the unit he works in, but the Service he works for, look unprofessional.

The fact that this is as a result of a profile on a dating site is not the issue, nor is it the fact that he mentions his sexual preferences, these coupled with the information that he is a police officer, on Uniformdating.com is not the issue.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM DOING THAT

The issues start when he then identifies himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer, and that he gives details of his unit. Now this starts to cause issues for the Met, but the final straw is that he goes on to discuss restricted information with somebody who is not permitted to have that information. At this point he has already dropped himself in it purely by disclosing that information. He then goes on to add fuel to the fire by sending a picture of himself, in uniform, at work, which further goes to identify both where he works and who he works for which only goes to further demonstrate his lack of judgement and professionalism.

Had this been all then he would have probably got away with it had it not been for the motives of the female he was involved in.

The next event in the sorry tale is that the female he had been in contact with decides to make some money out of this and goes to the gutter press who take what she has said, the messages and photos he has sent her in confidence, and in true 'Sensationalising Sexy Sore away Sun' style make this an issue about Sex and being Kinky, rather than the true issue which is one of a lack of judgement and integrity.

Why? Because, it sells more papers for them if they add a hint of sex to the tale.

It is that, and that alone, that has led this officer to be removed from a specialist posting, partly for his own protection, as there are those out there in the criminal world who would use this information to compromise this officer further, and partly because he has breached the discipline code, (that he signed up to when he joined), by giving away privileged information and also acting in an unprofessional manner by allegedly having sex whilst on duty.

The issues of his sexual preferences and the posting of pictures are secondary to the core issues and have only been used as a means of sensationalising the story so as to suit the aims of the Sun newspaper, which are to sell papers and to discredit the Metropolitan Police Service where ever possible.

This is not an issue over sex or perversion and should not have been turned into one by either the papers or indeed members here.

If you believe that giving away restricted information and acting in a wholly unprofessional way by having sex on duty, are standards that demonstrate good judgement and are acceptable standards to have as a Firearms Officer then by all means climb upon your horse and crusade away about the outrageous injustice of this story. However ask yourself this;

• If you in your own jobs had given away company information to a 3rd party who, in turn, then used it to gain an advantage over your company and in so doing cost your company shall we say a lucrative contract or showed a bad image of your company. Or
• Been found having sex during work time in the store room.

Do you think you would be so lucky as this officer is so far, and would have kept your job? Maybe, maybe not.

The issue of his 'Dominance' is a total red herring as I know of an instance where a then serving police officer had pictures of them self at a fetish club, in bondage, being punished by a Domme, published on the internet on the clubs site. These pictures were then printed off and hung up at their station. The Officer was not sacked or disciplined, despite an attempt by the Senior Management, why? Because the Officers Federation Rep pointed out that this was part of the Officers PRIVATE life and because nowhere did it identify the individual as being a police officer and so the issue of 'bringing the Service into disrepute' could not be shown to have occurred. All that happened was that the officer was the subject of some leg pulling and perhaps envy by their work mates until somebody else did something stupid and turned the attention away from them and onto someone else.

Moral of the story here is look at the background to the newspapers story and the motive behind it as well as the content before jumping to conclusions that just are not there.

If you are wondering how I know any of this? Well draw your own conclusion, as I am sure you already have done and if you know either me or the person referred to you will know where I am coming from.

UKRubberguy AKA Mick or Rubber Master

'penis substitute'

Escaped from the parallel universe

Ms_Sodomitrix wrote: blacksheepboy wrote: I can't believe I've been sticking up for a police officer! Down wiv de oppressors, innit! You fash pig! You just want a thrashing, dontcha?

I do too, and you know it! So, here endeth the thread. Peace be upon you, good people of IC.

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence and insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me - Hunter S. Thompson.

The Hunger Site