police with criminal records

Currently reading:
police with criminal records

Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
48,609
Points
10,657
Location
Edinburgh
this surprised me as i was under the assumption that a criminal conviction meant the end of the career or no entry if your applying.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=561452006
158 Scots officers have criminal record
MICHAEL HOWIE
Police dismay as figures show 1 in every 100 officers convicted of a crime
Two inspectors and nine sergeants of Strathclyde police have records
Chief police officers vow to establish national vetting procedure

Key quote "You cannot have someone who has been convicted of drink-driving arresting a member of the public for the same thing" - senior police source

Story in full AT LEAST 158 serving police officers in Scotland have convictions for offences ranging from assault and drink-driving to attempting to pervert the course of justice, The Scotsman can reveal.


The figures - obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - reveal six of Scotland's eight forces employ officers convicted of criminal offences, including inspectors and sergeants.

Politicians and police board members yesterday expressed their surprise at the high figure and pledged to ask questions of chief constables. And senior officers told The Scotsman of their concerns that some forces were being too lenient on some crimes committed by their staff.

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) is so concerned by the issue it is now drawing up a set of national vetting rules which is likely to list convictions that will automatically bar someone from joining the service.

The issue was thrown into the spotlight by Fabian Wright, a former constable with Grampian, who was jailed last month for dangerous driving for his part in an off-duty accident that killed 16-year-old Lisa Marie Wyllie in Aberdeen last year.

Following his trial, the force admitted the 28-year-old had a previous conviction for theft before he joined the police.

Deputy Chief Constable Pat Shearer revealed another 24 serving officers in Grampian have convictions for offences committed before and during their police career, but insisted the force had introduced stringent new vetting procedures to weed out unsuitable candidates.

But the figures obtained by The Scotsman show the issue goes far further than one force. In Strathclyde, 82 police officers have records - 24 of whom had convictions before joining the force. Of the 82, two are inspectors, nine are sergeants and 71 constables, including six "specials".

Lothian and Borders would only give details about officers who had gained convictions since 2000, of which there are nine - three of whom were guilty of assault and six of breach of the peace.

Scotland has about 16,000 police officers, which means about one in every 100 has at least one criminal conviction. In at least 38 of the 158 known cases, the convictions were gained prior to the officer joining the service. At the moment, while every police officer is obliged to declare a criminal conviction, each of Scotland's eight police forces takes its own decisions on recruiting officers and for discipline if an offence is committed while serving.

A senior source within one force said: "We take pretty much a zero-tolerance attitude towards officers who are guilty of drink-driving. You cannot have someone who has been convicted of drink-driving arresting a member of the public for the same thing. Other forces may not take quite such a clear approach."

Jean McFadden, the convener of the Strathclyde Joint Police Board, said she was alarmed that police officers convicted of assault were still serving, and pledged to raise the matter with Chief Constable Willie Rae. She said: "I'd be very surprised if someone convicted of assault isn't dismissed from the force. What I say to new recruits when they are sworn into the service is that a higher standard of conduct is expected of them than in other jobs, both on and off duty."

Kenny MacAskill, the SNP's justice spokesman, said: "It does seem a very high number. There are some offences where it would be very surprising if officers were able to serve, but a degree of discretion for more minor offences should be shown."

Deputy Chief Constable Garry Sutherland, chairman of the ACPOS professional standards business area, said that when considering applicants, forces must "take a balanced view and consider each individual on their merits".
 
IMO the police and all the people that work for them whatever the rank should be 100% clean and there should be no deviation from that at all even my wife has to under go stringent police checks in her job and she has to do the same to the staff she employes so the police force should as Iv said should be 100%.
 
PNL said:
IMO the police and all the people that work for them whatever the rank should be 100% clean and there should be no deviation from that at all even my wife has to under go stringent police checks in her job and she has to do the same to the staff she employes so the police force should as Iv said should be 100%.

I aint so sure Phil, to deal with the hardened criminals of this world you need to have the same mentality as them. If a couple of bast**d coppers with records get the job done then I am happy to have them on the blue line. If ever order comes back to Iraq you will find that its been restored by the hardliners who have just been removed. Putting the "rat in charge of the cheese" if you like.
 
Similar story: but the Met

BBC NEWS


Scores of serving Metropolitan Police officers have drink-driving convictions, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act confirm.
Sixty one had drink-driving records and another 13 had convictions or cautions for minor assault or criminal damage.

The figures cover offences between 2000 and 2005 and also show 100 officers with convictions had left the force.

The force says it takes any instance where staff conduct brings the force into disrepute "extremely seriously".

The Metropolitan Police expects its staff to behave professionally, ethically and with the utmost of integrity at all times

Police statement

In a statement, it said: "Police officers are required to inform the MPS if they are convicted of a criminal offence, misconduct matters are then considered by the Directorate of Professional Standards."

It added: "The Metropolitan Police expects its staff to behave professionally, ethically and with the utmost of integrity at all times."

Any officer or police employee with a criminal conviction is subject to misconduct proceedings. They can face anything from being fined a few days' pay to being dismissed.

'Clarification needed'

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said the force should publicly state that no police officers are serving after being convicted of serious offences like dishonesty or violence.

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association, was surprised the number of serving officers with convictions was "that high".

But he said "Every judgement has got to be made by the appropriate officer, probably a chief constable, to address the issue of public confidence.

"These figures collectively might cause some concern, but individually the facts of each case might not do that."

The Metropolitan Police, Britain's biggest police force, employs about 31,000 officers.

The figures were revealed following a request made under the Freedom of Information Act by the Independent newspaper

However, this is no way as bad as it makes out!

This is what the figures will mean:

0.2% of the met officers have drink-driving convictions and 0.04% have minor assault/criminal damage.

and over a five year period, a total of 164 officers were convicted of offences, or approx. 0.1% of officers per year

Is it really as high as its made out to be? No
 
bozzy said:
I aint so sure Phil, to deal with the hardened criminals of this world you need to have the same mentality as them. If a couple of bast**d coppers with records get the job done then I am happy to have them on the blue line. If ever order comes back to Iraq you will find that its been restored by the hardliners who have just been removed. Putting the "rat in charge of the cheese" if you like.

I will link this to something that happen to YOU if I recollect correctly what happened to the police officer that did damage to your hearing etc wasn't that in Brumm Central wasn't this an assault upon your person and didn't you feel at the time he should have been expelled from the force ?
 
I think yet again the Media is playing up to the readers and causing a mountain out of a mole hill.

What the hell is drink driving, it is something everyone of us 'could' get caught and done for so why a police officer should lose his job for that is beyond me anything else such as violence/dishonesty is different and their job forfeited.

Steve
 
PNL said:
I will link this to something that happen to YOU if I recollect correctly what happened to the police officer that did damage to your hearing etc wasn't that in Brumm Central wasn't this an assault upon your person and didn't you feel at the time he should have been expelled from the force ?

Yes, he left me with a ruptured ear-drum and tinitus for the rest of my life. I wanted him kicked off the force or even sent down because of what he did to me. He identified me incorrectly and acted before asking questions and it later transpired he had previous for assault. This was in 1984 when West Midlands police were a law unto them-selves.


You always get one or two bad apples in the cart but this bloke was a real piece of work as his boss pointed out. Then again I have seen some coppers get stuck in when things are getting nasty and sometimes the situation really calls for it.
 
i dont drink and drive, so it doesnt apply to us all as "everyone of us 'could' get caught".

i think the police should be whiter than white, any stains should be taken VERY seriously, loss of rank/job should be enough to deter them from making the same mistakes they see every day. at the end of the day if they can get away with it they will, and then next time its something else a bit more serious instead of drink driving, then next time ... what would eventually be considered too much child porn?
 
Some interesting reading there.

I know when I became an Air Traffic Controller I had to get some full government anti terrorism checks where they check out your family as well, was pretty weird sitting on first day and having some security guy telling you he knew the last credit card transaction you did etc

One guy from N.I. got 2 men over at his house for two days reviewing his family background etc before he was allowed to become a controller.
 
brava007 said:
Before someone says that the police wont prosecute their own you are wrong!

Police Face Sack for Pondlife Jube
Police Officer has Sex On Duty

loads more but cant be bothered to look


You have got to be sh.tting me... That's a joke ( I mean we'd all want to take a trip home to give the missus a good boning on the works payroll - not too bothered with that) but the "criminal might have been offended". Was the victim offended when she got bludgeoned for her mobile phone, or her windows smashed.. i'd say probably...
 
brava007 said:
errr, how?
comment about the "insult" to the crim... because of the PC crowd, you would have to call a known paedo sir, incase it offends him
 
Seraph said:
comment about the "insult" to the crim... because of the PC crowd, you would have to call a known paedo sir, incase it offends him

ohh I thought it meant paedo's becoming inspectors and above! lol
 
Back
Top