Former Scotland Yard assistant commissioner, John Yates, has been cleared of misconduct, after it was claimed that he had helped the daughter of a News of the World journalist get a job at the Met. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said in a brief statement that, following a probe into Yates' affairs, no evidence had …
He resigned in time and it was not in the public interest or would cost to much to drag through the legal system. While it was probably a misjudgement he is able to keep his pension.
Lucky he has friends in high places, but wouldn't we all try and help family or friend?
...of course there's no corruption in the police force!
Was it actually corruption...
...or simply a case of nepotism?
... AKA the Independent Police Cover-up Commission...
I thought the whole purpose of the PCC was to clear all coppers accused of any wrong doing. TBH [they appear to] exonerate so many blatantly guilty officers they couldn't possibly be doing anything else.
I hope this comment will pass censorship central now?
Or is El Reg scared of allowing criticism of the PCC?
Feel free to criticise who you like and when you like. But make a defamatory comment on The Register - and it is us who pay the price.
I see you didn't want to risk posting mine, despite that it was mostly a quote from a Guardian article reporting public domain FoI-released information. (It's your call of course but I think that might have been over-cautious of you. It must have been the adjectives I used to describe the depth and sincerity of Yate's "reinvestigation".) I guess this is one of the disadvantages of moderation since it leaves you responsible for everything published; without moderation I think you could claim innocent dissemination, Godfrey vs. Demon notwithstanding, and only need to promptly take down comments when notified about them to be protected. But as you moderate the posts, you'd probably not qualify for that defense. Ironic that the only way not to be sued over defamatory comments is to *not* try and prevent users posting them!
To be fair
'no evidence had been found to "justify disciplinary proceedings".' Is not exactly the same as 'not guilty of all charges'.
I interpret that as 'yes, he did it but the strongest punishment is less than he has done already'. Expedient but hypercritical in view if the way the police/government went after the 'rioters' and as has been mentioned before an HMRC filing clerk isn't allowed to accept a cup of tea.
There's more to the Wallis case...
Why did Wallis start invoicing the Met a month before his contract started?
What was was the purpose of the purchase order referenced on his first invoice?
Why did Wallis go on invoicing the Met for months after his contract ended?
Why won't the Met disclose the full terms of Wallis contract & schedules?
Where are the competitive tenders that were supposedly sought by Dick Fedorcio?
Why did the supposed 'due diligence' fail to discover that Chamy Media had only been established days before the contract started, and never filed accounts or annual returns? How did that compare to other bidders.
The IPCC have more work to do yet.