Met police criticised for deleting discrimination records
blueblade
Posts: 88,859 Forum Member
✭✭✭
link
Met Police bosses instructed staff to delete records relating to sex and race discrimination cases against an employee. This was determined by an employment tribunal.
Carol Howard aged 35 was "singled out and targeted" for about a year, the tribunal decided.
The Met ordered one of their officers to delete references to race and sex in a report on her.
Well of course they are, but should they hold their hands up, show some humility and apologise for their shortcomings ?
Met Police bosses instructed staff to delete records relating to sex and race discrimination cases against an employee. This was determined by an employment tribunal.
Carol Howard aged 35 was "singled out and targeted" for about a year, the tribunal decided.
The Met ordered one of their officers to delete references to race and sex in a report on her.
A number of Ms Howard's complaints of "victimisation" were "well-founded", the tribunal added.
The force concluded there was no evidence "without having conducted a proper investigation", it added.
It also found that a detective sergeant tasked with looking at Ms Howard's fairness at work (FAW) complaint was asked to delete references to discrimination and harassment relating to sex or race in a report.
The judgement concluded this was done "not because they were not supported by evidence in the report, but because the claimant had brought a complaint of race and sex discrimination in the tribunal".
The tribunal recorded that it was "very concerned that the [Metropolitan Police's] policy of not allowing Fairness at Work Advisers to make assessments of discrimination and of instructing to delete them when they do so might mislead complainants and tribunals into believing that the [investigating officer] has not found any discrimination when in fact he or she has done so".
"This case shows that there needs to be a complete rewrite of the Metropolitan Police's equality procedures and an independent investigation into existing measures purporting to deal with discrimination complaints. That's the only way to protect officers facing similar discrimination in the future."
And Daphne Romney QC added: "What is particularly shocking is the deliberate attempt to cover up internal findings of discrimination.
"The outcome of the internal grievance investigation led PC Howard to believe that the investigating officer did not accept that there had been either race or sex discrimination, when clearly this was not the case."
In a statement, the Met Police said: "We are disappointed at the tribunal's finding in favour of PC Howard.
Well of course they are, but should they hold their hands up, show some humility and apologise for their shortcomings ?
0
Comments
I mean, if somebody's complaining about discrimination (even if those complaints only take the form of, say, personal comments in reports on other subjects) and those complaints are being erased from the files then that's obviously a bad thing.
If, OTOH, it's a case of somebody making reference to gender or religion as part of a complaint but then those comments were removed for fear of "political incorrectness", my main feeling is one of disappointment that such actions are considered necessary but I don't think it's particularly important (or surprising) that they were removed.
For example, if somebody levelled criticism at an employee, saying that "She's always disappearing without permission and when she returns she always blames it on having to do some muslim mumbo-jumbo or other" I think it's actually a fairly reasonable (if poorly-worded) accusation so I'd be disappointed that it might be erased but I can understand why it might be.
Shocking!
Indeed.
No way to defend the indefensible on this one :kitty:
Still. at least this one looks as though criticism of the Met is actually justified so maybe we're making some kind of progress. ;-)
Is it wrong to find that photograph of her tooled up totally hot?
If you look through the threads I make, and there are quite a lot down the years, you'll find that actually very few are about the police. This is one of those very few.
Only this one ?
Now there we are 100% agreed. She's gorgeous
lol - lectures on bollox are a tad ironic from you, matey
Apparently, it's the norm to delete in this manner in the Met.
Truly bizarre!
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media/4371304/2200184-13-judgment-and-reasons.pdf
From how I read it, the claimants supervisor, an acting Inspector, had a personal vendetta against her.
Some of the things he did was
Accuse her of having sex with colleagues, made an attempt to prevent her from posing in the "Olympic Policing" photo shoot, asked other officers to read her facebook timeline, prevent her from getting assistance via a welfare officer, ask a neighboring police force to check up on her at home during a sick day, instigate a disciplinary hearing following a problem with bailiffs towing her car, blocking a promotion, raising his voice in a confrontational manner causing her to burst into tears.
PC Howard went through a formal grievance, this was pretty much dismissed even with numerous other officers backing her claims.
A question I have is how could the MET let this go to a tribunal when they had the chance to deal with this internally?
You are more than satisfied with the current practices of the police? Are you ok with the police deleting records of discrimination?
Dear me. In this particular case, I am not happy with the conduct of the police.
Perhaps if you'd bothered to actually read my post, that would have been apparent to you.:p
No doubt they'll still try though. A lot of companies and organisations etc will refuse to acknowledge that bad apples were present in their companies etc.
Also wasn't she charged with assault on her ex Hubby----I think--- but those charges have been dropped but the MET are still investigating the other charge/s?
It does appear to me the MET are prepared once again to use any appropriate sized sledge hammer against what they perceive to be the appropriate sized hook they find them selves on.
Thanks for that - very interesting. Further evidence that not only has the Met deliberately deleted extracts relating to discrimination. but also, possible evidence of racism/sexism.
That said, I'm more inclined to think that Acting Inspector Dave Kelly had extremely bad chemistry with PC Carol Howard. Clearly the two of them just didn't get on at all. It seems that Kelly had a reputation for a robust management style, and that this was amplified towards Carol Howard.
Very pleased she won her case. In saying that, the evidence does show that she did have some shortcomings herself, and lied about her vehicle having been stolen, when it had in fact been impounded by bailiffs over an unpaid fine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2746290/How-Met-shot-poster-woman-Bullied-demeaned-smeared-trailblazing-PC-tells-horror-Scotland-Yard-campaign-destroyed-life.html
Oh i'm sure the usual suspects will try.
Just thought I'd name drop.
As to the case, terrible way to carry on.
But because it sounds so bad it does come across more as a personal vendetta.
The Kelly bloke has issues.
I know one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, by I just saw the photo of him in that DM article, and.....well, let's say I can believe that he's perhaps not the most tolerant of people.
Considering the thread is two months old, and it hasn't happened, I'm not so sure that it will. ;-)