Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

A Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent has had misconduct allegations proven against him after forming a personal relationship with a PC he was mentoring that he failed to disclose.

Date - 3rd August 2020
By - Chloe Livadeas

Ch Supt Rob Atkin MBE, commander for the South East, had some of the allegations proven against him at a misconduct hearing on Friday 31 July and will now receive “management advice”.

In October 2015, Ch Supt Atkin was appointed as mentor to a constable who was a candidate for accelerated promotion. Between August 2017 and May 2018 the relationship became “personal”, the force said in a statement.

It was alleged that during their personal relationship, Ch Supt Atkin abused his position to promote her professional development through postings and promotion opportunities and failed to tell management about their relationship.

While assisting in the 2018 fast track promotion assessments, Ch Supt Atkin was sent confidential assessment papers and a list of candidates. It was alleged that he failed to disclose that the constable he was in a personal relationship with was on the list of candidates and failed to declare a conflict of interest.

It was also alleged he showed her the assessment papers with the intention of providing her with an unfair advantage.

The panel concluded that it was proven in part that Ch Supt Atkin breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of authority, respect and courtesy, and this was at the level of misconduct. The panel found he acted within his role as mentor and had not gained anything from promoting the officer’s professional development or “had a bad purpose in mind” by doing so.

He did fail to inform line managers of their relationship. 

The panel concluded that it was proven in part that Ch Supt Atkin breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of confidentiality and this was at the level of misconduct. They found the female officer did see the papers but it was not proven that Ch Supt Atkin allowed that to happen or that he was attempting to provide her with an unfair advantage.

They also did not find it proven that Ch Supt Atkin failed to declare a conflict of interest.

It was accepted Ch Supt Atkin did not notify the College of Policing that the officer had seen the papers.

The panel decided Ch Supt Atkin made “unwise decisions and showed poor judgement” rather than displaying deliberate wrong-doing and therefore the breaches proven were at the level of misconduct and not gross misconduct.

View On Police Oracle

[BlueBob + 692]

and in an alternative imaginary world no one else at work had even the slightest suspicion that there was a relationship going on!!!!!

Its something out of a comedy show where the boss has some confidential papers and just happens to not realise that the "girlfriend" might trip over or stumble upon them  to see them and might gain an advantage. over others.   If the papers were kept at work how did she slip and look in his filing cabinet to see them and if he took them home ...why.

On the bright side, at least his pension remains intact.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

He was her mentor and they personal relationship and he received "Management advice". Are their two standards for different ranks now.

[pcmode 40]

1 hour ago, Fedster said:

had not gained anything from promoting the officer’s professional development or “had a bad purpose in mind” by doing so.
 

I'm quite sure she will have shown her appreciation. I'm also fairly sure if he had ended the realtionship and promoted someone else the girlfriend would have had a few things to say to PSD.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

Your post clearly said

  3 hours ago, Fedster said:

had not gained anything from promoting the officer’s professional development or “had a bad purpose in mind” by doing so.

1 hour ago, pcmode said:

I'm quite sure she will have shown her appreciation. I'm also fairly sure if he had ended the realtionship and promoted someone else the girlfriend would have had a few things to say to PSD.

The problem I have with that is that it is incorrect as Fedster said nothing of the sort.  That was the ending of the 6th paragraph from the article written by Chloe Lividas. I certainly was not what Fedster said. It is a complete misquote.  

Edited August 4, 2020 by Zulu 22

[pcmode 40]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

had not gained anything from promoting the officer’s professional development or “had a bad purpose in mind” by doing so.

The problem I have with that is that it is incorrect as Fedster said nothing of the sort.  That was the ending of the 6th paragraph from the article written by Chloe Lividas. I certainly was not what Fedster said. It is a complete misquote.  

It was not supposed to be attributed to Fedster in that way as i'm sure you were able to work out.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

10 hours ago, pcmode said:

It was not supposed to be attributed to Fedster in that way as i'm sure you were able to work out.

That is not what you said from the Google Constabulary, as we all know.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Zulu 22

[Fedster + 1,307]

Guys can we stop this petty argument it’s pretty obvious PC Mode has quoted the article thus i am not sure what this actual argument between you both is about.

Get back on topic please 👍🏽

[Jacob212 17]

15 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

That is not what you said from the Google Constabulary, as we all know.

I think we all know what he meant.🙄