You're Nicked

News reports today confirm that a police officer has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office - following an investigation by the Met Police into how national newspapers came to publish police records into an incident at Downing Street.

The so-called 'Plebgate Row' led to the resignation of the government's chief whip - Andrew Mitchell - and the Police Federation had plenty to say about events at the time - demanding that someone's head should roll so long as it was not the head of a serving police officer, of course.

Apparently a police officer from the Diplomatic Corps was arrested on Saturday and bailed on Sunday to return in January 2013 - having been suspended from his normal duties.

Presumably this means the officer being suspended on full pay while the case trundles through the court system - but you have to ask why the matter is not also being dealt with through his employer's disciplinary procedures. 

Because the courts often take an age to come to a verdict - and the standard of proof required in a criminal court is quite different, much higher - than the evidential standard required of an internal disciplinary hearing.

In other words, why should the police be operate to different standards when their behaviour or conduct is called into question - compared to other workers performing equally vital jobs in the public services?

Seems to me that irrespective of the outcome of the court case - that the employer's disciplinary procedures should kick - since the two issues are not directly linked.

So far, I've not come across any comment from the Police Federation - though I would be greatly interested to hear their views.