Cop in gay porn film advised to put his helmet away A Met copper received "management advice" after it emerged he had "participated in a pornographic film aimed at the gay market for which he had been paid money," a Freedom of Information response to El Reg has revealed. It is not clear from the response whether the officer in question was in uniform at the time or whether any …
This post has been deleted by its author
Seriously, if he's doing it on his own time, how's it any business of his employers?
I don't know if it is still the case, but historically a police officer had to adhere to certain moral, ethical, and legal standards in their private lives - for instance they would face disciplinary action if they defaulted on a debt, and were prohibited from taking part in certain activities.
The offence committed would be "bringing the force (service) into disrepute".
"I don't know if it is still the case, but historically a police officer had to adhere to certain moral, ethical, and legal standards in their private lives - for instance they would face disciplinary action if they defaulted on a debt, and were prohibited from taking part in certain activities.
The offence committed would be "bringing the force (service) into disrepute"."
I find it sad that some places do honestly think making a porn film is disreputable. Defaulting on a debt on the other hand.
Do we know that this happened because it was gay porn, or are we just assuming? Perhaps it's all porn or, say, like many contracts outside work is not allowed without authorisation? Did he declare the earnings for the video to HMRC?
If it is due to it being porn and not another, legal, paid job and all else was above board then I agree it's appalling in today's society and even more so if it's because it was gay porn.
But I know that I have signed a declaration not to do any work apart from that for my main employer without informing certain parties. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has signed something like it.
<anonymous for obvious reasons>
This post has been deleted by its author
@Alister Indeed, and for a long time, for instance, policemen (and I think the services too) weren't allowed to march in a Pride parade in their uniform, for exactly that reason.
Now, of course, things are somewhat different and many of the diverse tentacles of the state don their uniform and take part in the London Pride parade in organised groups.
These are the ones that really concern me. The police are given special privileges to find things out about us - ANY abuse MUST be met by a high profile dismissal and loss of pension.
I could not see how many of these were caught, but I suspect that the numbers reflect no more than the top of an iceberg.
The headline should be about this gross abuse of power, not some poor bloke doing a porno, that's his business.
Meanwhile there are police officers, selling information to criminals and carrying out unauthorised searches for who knows what, this is frightening and this is exactly why government surveillance needs to be curtailed. As you say this is probably just the tip.
AC just to share: for last night's election I found it hard to really know who to vote for, I'm in a safe seat so not really an issue but even so, I found myself unable to vote for Labour because of their previous form on snooping and ID cards, meanwhile the Conservatives will no doubt be more sneaky about it while further reducing legal aid and getting us out of the EU, insulating us from Germany's slightly less totalitarian stance.
"I could not see how many of these were caught"
One would hope that there was an audit trail of who looks at what, and hopefully also a requirement to fill out a 'reason for looking' field in the database. One would further hope that an impartial information guardian would review a random selection of the PNC checks. Whilst this might be a needle in the haystack of needles job, it might put some off with the possibility of being caught.
One would hope that there was an audit trail of who looks at what, and hopefully also a requirement to fill out a 'reason for looking' field in the database.
That carries an implied assumption that such metrics cannot be "adjusted" by/for those who a little bit more intelligent. I think that ought to be verified.
> These are the ones that really concern me. The police are given special privileges to find things out about us - ANY abuse MUST be met by a high profile dismissal and loss of pension.
173 allegations, 60 dismissals. I wonder if they can still avoid disciplinary action by changing force?
More than they would admit to, and if they have 'got to go' how many get the option to resign, thus don't have 'dismissed' on their records, enabling them to keep their pension and apply to another force for a PCSO job, knowing that after a probationary period THEY CAN APPLY TO BECOME A CONSTABLE AGAIN.
That's what this "news article" is. Juicy and totally misleading headline ("management advice" does not mean disciplinary action, much less a sacking as the headline suggests) about a non-issue.
Meanwhile, you could have bothered to report on the causes of the sudden apparent raise of reported misuse cases, e.g., whether it is due to stricter policing, officers suddenly becoming corrupt all at once, methodology changes, ... but you didn't make any effort to explain any of that.
Probably because it was a gay porn film...
I can tell all this is beneath you, but on many porn sites the type is crucial to selection. At least you know what category to look under if you want to see it. And trust me on this, all porn is not created equal, no matter how much one might parade the flag of "Holier than thou, all is equal" small mind.
BTW, I'm pretty sure the author intentionally used the word "gay", to highlight one thing you might be missing. and to play happy on the other.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
