the national 'disapproved list' – which could be published

Post a reply

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
:slwo: :slsa: :slbl: :slarr: :slcup: :slluv: :slroll: :sltee: :slcud: :sltgu: :slhat: :slex: :slhi: :slra: :slcool: :slusa: :slwot: :slsic: :slww: :slgg: :slwoot: :sldv: :sldu2: :slrnt: :slbx: :slna: :slluvv: :slhuh: :slead: :sloop: :sljo: :slsp: :slby: :slzz2: :slsm: :slch2: :slbell: :slrog: :slgw: :slchee: :slred: :slzip: :D :) :( :o :? 8) :x :P :wink: :|
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: the national 'disapproved list' – which could be published

Re: the national 'disapproved list' – which could be published

by JimmyRiddle » Sat Dec 06, 2014 6:20 am

Quite right too. Even without this list as someone above said - you can't say "Yeah Mr. Smith was sacked for being dishonest" when that wasn't officially the case but you can state the facts e.g. he did have a disciplinary hearing pending and resigned a day before the case.

Re: the national 'disapproved list' – which could be publish

by powdermonkey » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:20 pm

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in the existing systems but, when you apply for a job, don't you have to state where you previously worked and, quite often, your reasons for leaving? A reference check would soon reveal if someone had been sacked for misconduct or jumped before getting sacked, surely?

As for making a list and then making it available to the public, isn't the media attention surrounding officers sacked for misconduct sufficient publicity? If an officer resigns before misconduct proceedings are either instigated or reach a decision then that officer hasn't been sacked. I agree that being able to apply to another force should be blocked but do the public need or have a right to know? Will this list be expanded to include all public servants and if not why not? I include MPs in my definition of public servants, by the way.

If the test of an organisation is how it deals with misconduct, then look at the disciplinary methods in place and that will tell you. Bearing in mind the scandals over lobbying, expenses, switching "second homes", covering up paedophilia, losing files and how many MPs were allowed to just repay some money and how few went to prison (and the leniency of the sentences), then the Houses of Parliament failed that test spectacularly. How many so called Honourable Members tried to use "parliamentary privilege" to prevent details of their expenses thefts coming to light (yes, Harriet Harman, I'm talking about you). People in glass houses, Home Secretary!!!

the national 'disapproved list' – which could be published

by falkor » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:48 pm

YELLOW AD Seven police officers who resigned or were sacked were placed on the national 'disapproved list' – which prevents them from becoming police officers in other areas.
Mr Alston said: “In the past, some of these cases would never have become known to the public and I am aware that there may be shock and disappointment at some of the details. The test of an organisation is how it deals with misconduct. Both Chief Constable Kavanagh and I are committed to ensuring that the culture of Essex Police is one where everyone understands the critical importance of high professional standards, and constantly strives to deliver the best possible service to the people of Essex.”

According to THE TIMES today the Home Secretary is now considering making the national 'disapproved list' – public by "publishing it" to anybody interested :slhuh: