Ex-cops dumped on never-hire blacklist for data misdeeds The College of Policing has proudly informed the world that 59 former police officers, who were either sacked or resigned, have been placed on a blacklist barring them from re-entering the police service due to “data misuse”. Within a mere year of existing the “Disapproved Register” has already been graced with the names of …
What they said:
“Confidence remains high in policing with a recent poll showing 66 per cent of the public who were asked said they generally trusted police to tell the truth, which is the highest figure since 1983.”
What they meant:
“Confidence remains high in policing with a recent poll showing 66 per cent of the public who were asked said they generally trusted police to tell the truth, which we achieved by rephrased the questions and making sure we limited our survey population to a suitable demographic.”
Why would an employment blacklist be illegal?
The employer chooses who they hire and in this case they have employed these people, had their trust breached, and then refused to ever hire them again.
Schools, police force, army, hospital, politician, law, you name it, there are "blacklists" all over the shop and all legal.
What you can't do is discriminate on certain grounds (colour, age, ethnicity, gender, etc.) but if you've employed someone, found them inadequate, and then refuse to employ them again in any of your branches, that's up to you. And the police force, as a whole, are one of the places where you WANT a blacklist because you don't want them going to another police force and doing exactly the same thing.
I think it's SHARING a blacklist among multiple organisations that's an offence; it's one thing to keep a track of people you've kicked out of your organisation, it's another thing entirely if there's a culture of fear because stepping out of line could get your name in "the black book" whereupon you will be lucky if you can get a job stacking shelves.
Why illegal? Ask the construction industry; they maintained a secret blacklist for years - a blacklist of union members and activists, and workers who had 'form' for objecting to safety violations. They got in a huge amount of hot water for it, and it's not over yet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulting_Association
In normal organisations, resigning has no impact on whether they can be prosecuted for wrong doings. Only in the police can you resign and no longer be responsible for crimes commited whilst in employment.
Generally, resignation "while under suspicion" tends to be seen as implying guilt. In the Police, it guarantees it, but gets you off any punishment.
Sorry to be rude, but bollocks.
A cop who resigns can *of course* still be prosecuted for any offences they may have committed, as can anyone else.
If it's a *disciplinary* matter, rather than a criminal matter, anyone can resign from any job at any time rather than go through the internal disciplinary procedure.
If it's a *disciplinary* matter, rather than a criminal matter, anyone can resign from any job at any time rather than go through the internal disciplinary procedure.
True. But you can still carry out the investigation during their notice period, and take any action deemed necessary.
The employer would also be well within their rights when asked for a reference to disclose that the person resigned pending (or during) a disciplinary investigation.
"But you can still carry out the investigation during their notice period, and take any action deemed necessary"
Well if they disregard their notice period and quit on the spot, you can't even do that - although that's obvious a breach of contract and would leave them legally on the hook for that breach.
As for reference, I don't know if there's any case or statute law in this area; IANAL. But I would imagine that anything goes WRT the reference, so long as it's factually accurate - which it would be in this case. But I think the most common approach is simply to decline to provide a reference; says it all, without exposure to legal risk.
(But then that raises other dangers; an unscrupulous employer could raise a fatuous and fake disciplinary issue, for the sole purpose of having half a legal leg to stand on when giving an unjustified and spiteful bad reference...)
Seen any of the arrest footage of 'struggling perps'?
Time and again you hear the officers shouting, 'Stop resisting us, stop fighting us, give me your arm!'
While the suspect pinned to the floor under 4-5 officers is screaming in pain.
I wonder if thats the new falling down the stairs. "The video proves it your honour, he kept fighting back, you can hear us keep telling him to stop resisting, so he MUST have been resisting or we wouldn't have kept telling him to stop."
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
So they are proudly saying being fired by a company for gross misconduct is now a bar to being re-hired by the same said company ?
Civil service, welcome to the real world; the rest of us are subject to CRB checks.
As far as I'm concerned the police force should be considered a single employer so if you get fired from one force you are barred from all forces. JimTomlinson would not have died if that thug Simon Harwood was barred from being re-hired by another force..
……the plod is attractive to those who wish to get away with activities that, had they NOT signed up, would see 'em spending considerable periods of time inside. GMP are the worst; if I could take a pic of the back of me swede, I've a 3" scar caused by some fucker thinking my skull would be improved if his size 12 was embedded in it. I've had both arms dislocated at the shoulders, had fingers broken, black eyes, chunks of hair yanked out, property stolen, and everything they've ever written/said about me has been fabricated.
I've even been arrested myself for falsifying a crime report and wasting plod time - I now won't go anywhere NEAR a rozzer. Evil, sadistic cunts the fucking lot of 'em!
routinely don't tell the truth. Otherwise the really bad guys who genuinely need the jail, wouldn't get the jail in a lot of circumstances.
"And so you stopped and subsequently searched my client because you believed you could smell cannabis?"
"That is correct."
"I put it to you he didn't have any cannabis on his person."
"He did not. He did however have 400 Diazepam and 100 Tramadol. I have no idea where the smell must have come from."
etc, etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
