The Metropolitan police officer being investigated for an assault on Ian Tomlinson before he died had a chequered history which should have barred him from the force, it has emerged.
Investigations have revealed that the officer, who was in the Tactical Support Group during the G20 protests, had previously been accused of using unnecessary force while serving with the Met.
Vetting blunders meant that this was never identified and he managed to leave the force and rejoin.
Details of the past of the officer at the centre of the IPCC inquiry into Tomlinson’s death emerged yesterday. He had been on a disciplinary charge and facing a misconduct hearing earlier in his Met career.
The charge related to an incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury when the officer became involved in a road rage incident. It is understood he tried to arrest the other driver involved in the incident, who later complained that the officer had used unnecessary force.
Before the discipline board convened, however, the officer took early retirement from the Met on medical grounds, and was awarded a medical pension.
Some years later he rejoined the Met as a civilian. He then applied to join Surrey police as an officer. When he was vetted the unresolved disciplinary matter should have shown up but does not appear to have done so. The officer was recruited to Surrey police with no blot on his disciplinary record. He later applied for a transfer to the Met, which again did not reveal the unresolved disciplinary charge.
In his career at the Met he was moved to the TSG, the elite public order unit within the force. It seems that at no point was his history flagged up during interview and vetting for this role.
6 July, 2009 at 11:34 am
Now that’s clever, leaving the police force BEFORE the disciplinary. Interesting as well that when he was vetted the complaint didn’t re-surface. It probably ‘disappeared’ from his record due to the fact the disciplinary didn’t take place. But it also showed their vetting procedure is inadequate to say the least.
And anyway, I assumed the person spec for the TSG would include something like ‘Experience of dishing out excessive/disproportionate force/violence is essential’…
6 July, 2009 at 10:40 pm
A very apt title. And consider the meaning behind the title of this blog.
There is a percentage of the population considered psychopaths. Have a read of these. Just the start of this from a psychologist, a guest writer on my blog.
Or for a little light reading
In looking at a psychopathic personality we are looking at a lack of empathy, acting without conscience, lack of guilt for actions, being able to lie, manipulative, inflict pain and suffering on others.
Now it is considered that 1% of the population are psychopathic. But they are attracted to positions of power over others where they can inflict their dominance. So in organisations that have power over people, it figures that that % will increase. Again I refer to the title of this blog.
Can you think of an organisation that would attract such a personality? Can you think of other associated organisations that also attract that personality. Also protecting the like minded.
10 July, 2009 at 2:43 am
Perhaps he had an abusive mother.
11 July, 2009 at 6:08 am
To me the weirdest thing was reading in the British papers prior to the summit about how the bankers were being urged not to dress like bankers in case they get attacked by the protesters.
When of course, it was the police that were the danger to public safety. There was at least one murderous psychopath among them. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, any bankers would have been safer dressed like a banker. Because police generally don’t beat up people who are dressed as bankers.