Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

Those told to leave service will have their names put on website.

Jackie Alexander

 

A public database of the names of officers dismissed from service will be published by the College of Policing.

All officers and staff who have been found to have committed misconduct serious enough to make them lose their jobs will be placed on a list to prevent them gaining further employment in policing.

The measures were included in the Police and Crime Act, drawn up by the government earlier this year.

Officers dismissed for gross misconduct matters will appear on a list which can be searched by the public including potential future employers in other sectors.

A larger, non-public list, will include those whose names cannot be made public for legal or other reasons ruled by misconduct panel chairmen, for use by policing organisations for vetting purposes.

Sacked police staff will also be placed on that list.

The public version is to be online from the end of January, with names of those being dismissed from today added to it.

Detective Superintendent Jackie Alexander, from the College, said: “The vast majority of officers and police staff come into the service to protect the public and they act with integrity and respect.

“It is encouraging to see that trust and confidence in policing has been steadily rising to its highest rating in recent years, but those who do fall short of the standards expected of them will now not find a way back into the police once dismissed.

“The new lists introduced today are intended to ensure the public are served only by those suitable to hold policing posts. It will prevent those dismissed from policing from re-entering the service.”

Names will stay on the public list for five years and the private list permanently.

Phill Matthews from the Police Federation of England and Wales said the staff association had made representations against the move.

He said: “The public-facing bit of it is a concern. Any future employer will use this forum where anyone can search your name, you may be lucky to get a job again.

“Is the intention to continue punishing the person after they’ve left the service. In other walks of life that would not happen.”

The College says as well as having names, the public list will also say whether the ex-officer was a regular, special or member of police staff, the date of their dismissal and the circumstances of it.

There is no intention to include further information to distinguish the identity of individuals on the list.

Asked by Police Oracle how former officers with the same name would be distinguished from each other - given one who left without having carried out misconduct could have the same name as someone who had – a College spokesman said it believed the details included will suffice.

View On Police Oracle

[Fedster + 1,307]

No, it isn't. Police officers are public servants, paid with public money, to uphold the law. We should - and need to - know their backgrounds. Should happen in other public sectors, but sadly the public has to rely on the internet + @WaybackMachine for information. #Transparency

— GrayanOne (@GrayanOne) December 15, 2017

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

Sounds ripe for a challenge under Article 8.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

1 hour ago, Fedster said:

Asked by Police Oracle how former officers with the same name would be distinguished from each other - given one who left without having carried out misconduct could have the same name as someone who had – a College spokesman said it believed the details included will suffice.

A college spokesmen looked a bit baffled and admitted they hadn't thought of that...

The Disapproved Register has existed since 2013 privately - how will it function more effectively by being public?

[Mac7 808]

I’m struggling to understand the need for this. Officers that have been dismissed would have been through investigations, misconduct panels, court and even custody. Are they not allowed move on and re build their lives? Why do they then have to be placed on a list for all to see? Perhaps we should have a searchable public list of all persons who have committed a crime and received a custodial sentence so they can’t be employed.

Do the COP really think this increases confidence and is what the public want/need.

I cannot see the need.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

And if we consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a prison sentence of two and a half years or less becomes spent four years after the end of the sentence. Yet it's proportionate to retain details of dismissed officers on a public register for five years regardless of the reason for dismissal? Someone who is dismissed over data protection matters or eventually gets caught drink driving after a long steady slide into alcoholism the job has done nothing to prevent or support them over is treated exactly the same as someone who abuses their position to rape vulnerable people or colludes with organised criminals to enrich themselves?

Did they come up with this idea in the pub?

[m_Cooper 8]

I’d be interested to see the price tag with this idea. Unfortunately it won’t be as simple as flipping a switch, with public sector there is always a stupid bill to pay.

I think it’s a waste of money and more importantly time that could no doubt go into something useful. Not to mention the effect it will have on the individuals that get put on there for all to see.

[David + 4,981]

I don't see the need at all. Sounds like one of these self-appointed sanctimonious steering groups trying to exact more revenge and humiliation for officers already having been through due process to be dismissed. Ultimately what's it going to achieve? The officer has gone, so why punish him further?

[Hyphen + 693]

It’s like many of the sound bites and schemes that these people come up with. All it does is make the lefty do gooders feel all warm and fuzzy inside and give each other a pat on the back because they have ‘achieved’ something.

In reality it doesn’t really serve any purpose. Maybe we should go a step further and have a national dismissal database? Every employer in the country would be required to sign up and update it once a month. This would mean anyone dismissed from any job in the country for any reason would be searchable. Why don’t we also put on their home address and telephone number so concerned members of the public can discuss this with them? It would also make sure that they could never be employed again.

Theres that warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with transparency....

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

The fact that it comes from the COP just about says it all. If they have ever faced an angry man then I would be surprised. I remember terms of Ivory towers, well those in the COP in glass houses should not throw stones. The comment regarding Article 8 is also very salient.