Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Special allegedly tried to steal a pair of headphones in the middle of a busy shopping centre.

 

Date - 13th November 2018
By - JJ Hutber- Police Oracle

1 Comment

 

A special sergeant is accused of trying to steal a set of headphones, slapping his alleged victim and showing his warrant card to frighten the man out of calling the police.

Metropolitan Special PS Moynul Alom, based at NE BCU, was off duty of May 21, 2017 when he was visiting Westfield Shopping Centre in Stratford.

It is alleged he tried to snatch a bag containing headphones from Anthony Whymark, a member of the public, and slapping him.

When Mr Whymark said he was going to call the police, Sgt Alom pulled out his warrant card and said “I am the police,” it is alleged.

Counsel for the Metropolitan Police Dan Hobbs said, at a misconduct hearing at the Empress State Building today, CCTV shows Sgt Alom trying to grab Mr Whymark’s bag three times.

“He doesn’t just casually walk away, he turns on his heel and moves at pace,” he said.  

“Mr Whymark initially appears shocked. He moves from his position, follows the officer up the steps and then remonstrates and is joined by other members of the public - it was because he’d just been slapped in the face.

“He is assaulting a member of the public.

“Not only was there no proper policing purpose. This was a matter of self interest. You produced it [the warrant card] because you’ve just done wrong.

“You want to use your position of authority to make the problem go away.”

Sgt Alom did not attend the hearing today as he was on holiday and federation representative PS Kamran Qureshi presented his case on his behalf.

Misconduct chairman Siobhan Goodrich decided to proceed with the case in his absence because Sgt Amon had booked his holiday after he was notified of the date of his hearing.

Mr Qureshi said Sgt Alom negotiated a sale with Mr Whymark and grabbed the bag as a sign they had “closed the deal”.

He also said Sgt Alom showed his warrant card to reassure Mr Whymark that he was a police officer and would stay in the shopping centre until the issue was resolved.

Sgt Alom admits he did take the headphones and that he produced a warrant card without a policing purpose but denies he struck Mr Whymark or that he was dishonest in his account of the incident.

Mr Qureshi said: “It should be noted Mr Alom was the one approached, followed by verbal commands.

“He [Mr Whymark] accepted he was selling the headphones.

“We accept a lengthy negotiation did take place, it was almost for 20 minutes. This led to frustration. Mr Alom was going to use a handshake agreement and didn't understand the severity of the action he was taking at the time.

“It is suggested Mr Whymark tried to scare Mr Alom. Mr Alon tried to provide reassurance by showing his warrant card and would stay on the scene if indeed the police had been called.”

Mr Hobbs said Sgt Alom’s version of events did not add up because it was untrue and he was trying to “deflect the seriousness of a criminal assault on a member of the public”.

View On Police Oracle

[Hyphen + 693]

Yet another utterly bizarre case. How do people get themselves in to these ridiculous situations? 

The only thing I would say in regards to the  ‘slap’. It either is shown on the CCTV or it isn’t. Fairly straightforward.

I just don’t get the whole thing, sounds a bit strange from the outset. Meeting up to buy headphones from someone, then 20 minutes of arguing. Why not just walk away? It then turns in to a potential attempt robbery. Why would he try and snatch the item? Unless money had actually been exchanged. 

Im sure if there is more to it it’ll come out during the process.

[Mac7 808]

It reads to me that he’s bang to rights and come up with a feeble excuse for his actions. Coupled with the fact that he’s booked a holiday to coincide with his hearing says it all.

Thankfully this kind of behaviour is rare but does the majority of dedicated, hard working officers no favours. Good riddance.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

And he arranged his holiday after the notification of the hearing. That shows a complete disrespect, for that alone he deserves to be shown the door. 

The whole incident is bizarre and if it did not happen then why would other members of the public get involved.

 

[Hyphen + 693]

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

And he arranged his holiday after the notification of the hearing. That shows a complete disrespect, for that alone he deserves to be shown the door. 

The whole incident is bizarre and if it did not happen then why would other members of the public get involved.

 

Completely agree

[Radman + 2,163]

Bizarre...

[a-bothan-spy 81]

Dismissed without notice. Jus read it on the Met’s twitter.

[Hyphen + 693]

8 minutes ago, a-bothan-spy said:

Dismissed without notice. Jus read it on the Met’s twitter.

I think on this occasion it sounds the best result all around. Sounds like a very strange individual.

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

The whole thing sounds very odd indeed and I don't understand the logic of it at all. I'm not sure how individuals like this end up in supervisory roles, these things are rarely one offs.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Neither the witness nor the accused attended the hearing, which seemingly had no other choice other than to undertake a ‘desktop review’ of the evidence.

Perhaps he should have attended and mounted a defence? Unless, of course, he thought that this outcome was better than one of self-incrimination?

[Hyphen + 693]

13 hours ago, ParochialYokal said:

Neither the witness nor the accused attended the hearing, which seemingly had no other choice other than to undertake a ‘desktop review’ of the evidence.

Perhaps he should have attended and mounted a defence? Unless, of course, he thought that this outcome was better than one of self-incrimination?
 

I find it outrageous that the accused couldn’t be bothered to attend BUT it does shine a different light potentially if the other party couldn’t be bothered to turn up and give evidence and be questioned.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

1 hour ago, Hyphen said:

I find it outrageous that the accused couldn’t be bothered to attend BUT it does shine a different light potentially if the other party couldn’t be bothered to turn up and give evidence and be questioned.

Acting as devils advocate, what would happen if a supposed Police Officer rang the complainant to tell him he was not required to attend as the officer had pleaded guilty. It could also explain why the defendant, could think, it was safe to go on holiday and ignore the hearing.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

This was an internal misconduct hearing, not a criminal trial. I'd probably not turn up either if I was the victim, just for the sake of an organisation's own internal procedures.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Upon reflection, I am not sure whether as part of a disciplinary process the accused is given the option to contest the evidence?

 

That is, do they have to respond by a certain date to say whether they want the witness to attend so that they can question them? If so, the witness is then invited to attend (not that this guarantees that they will).

 

If the accused doesn’t respond within the timeframe, then does the evidence just get taken as uncontested?