Police Officers Who Posted Pornography And Pestered Women Among Those Allowed To Stay On Duty

By Jack Hardy

Police offi­cers who preyed upon women and post­ed home­made pornog­ra­phy to social media are among hun­dreds allowed to keep their jobs in recent years.

An inves­ti­ga­tion by the Telegraph found that the country’s rank-and-file con­tin­ues to be plagued by offi­cers whose wrong­do­ing online ranges from sex­u­al harass­ment to racism.

Most received lit­tle more than a slap on the wrist after their behav­ior came to light, with some fac­ing no reper­cus­sions from inter­nal dis­ci­pli­nary probes.

The rev­e­la­tions, which come amid an unprece­dent­ed cri­sis of con­fi­dence in British polic­ing, are said by one for­mer chief con­sta­ble to be “the tip of the iceberg.

Just 6pc of investigated officers were dismissed.

The Telegraph can dis­close that at least 921 offi­cers have been inves­ti­gat­ed for their con­duct in WhatsApp mes­sages, texts, social media mes­sages, or posts since the start of 2017.

Yet only six per­cent of the inves­ti­ga­tions led to the offi­cers being dis­missed, accord­ing to the data obtained from 29 police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Many forces were found to have giv­en out writ­ten warn­ings for behav­ior that many would con­sid­er wor­thy of imme­di­ate dis­missal, includ­ing the abuse of police pow­ers for sex­u­al gain and send­ing inde­cent images to col­leagues via social media.

Reprimanded offi­cers also rou­tine­ly escaped with light pun­ish­ments such as “reflec­tive prac­tice” — think­ing about what they have done — or “man­age­ment action”, which amounts to a ver­bal dress­ing down by a superior.

A Metropolitan Police offi­cer who sent a racist WhatsApp mes­sage, a Cleveland Police offi­cer who demand­ed “nude pics” from a female pro­ba­tion­er, and a Durham Constabulary offi­cer who sent sex­u­al videos to col­leagues are all among those giv­en “reflec­tive practice.”

Similarly, a scold­ing was deemed suf­fi­cient for a Durham Constabulary offi­cer who used his work phone to try to “get close” to a mem­ber of the public’s wife and a Metropolitan Police offi­cer who bom­bard­ed an indi­vid­ual with “unwant­ed” texts, calls, and emails.

In one par­tic­u­lar­ly bizarre case, an offi­cer in London found to have “cre­at­ed, uploaded and dis­trib­uted pornog­ra­phy on social media” received noth­ing more than a ver­bal rebuke.

The Telegraph uncov­ered many cas­es where offi­cers faced “no action” at all for preda­to­ry or inap­pro­pri­ate behavior.

They include a Cleveland Police offi­cer who con­tact­ed a female mem­ber of the pub­lic he met dur­ing the course of his duties, to whom he made a com­ment over text about “the size of her breasts” before try­ing to pur­sue “an improp­er relationship”.

Even in cas­es where it was unclear what dis­ci­pline the offi­cers faced, a grim pic­ture is still paint­ed of the cul­ture in polic­ing’s dark recess­es.

In such inves­ti­ga­tions, offi­cers were found to have dis­trib­uted extreme pornog­ra­phy, tar­get­ed vul­ner­a­ble women for sex­u­al pur­pos­es, and stalked others.

Highly sexualized culture

Campaigners and polic­ing insid­ers say The Telegraph’s find­ings add to a grow­ing body of evi­dence that police mis­con­duct pro­ceed­ings are not fit for pur­pose.

Sue Fish, the for­mer chief con­sta­ble of Nottinghamshire Police, who has been out­spo­ken about sex­ism with­in the pro­fes­sion, said she was “unsur­prised but deeply angry.”

That is the tip of the ice­berg — actu­al­ly get­ting to a mis­con­duct hear­ing — the num­ber of things that don’t get past any thresh­old, get any inves­ti­ga­tion, nev­er get report­ed,” she said.

It paints a wor­ry­ing, mild­ly ter­ri­fy­ing picture.”

She sug­gest­ed the prob­lem was root­ed in polic­ing being “a macho pro­fes­sion” with a “high­ly sex­u­al­ized cul­ture”, where mis­con­duct pan­els were too ready to lis­ten to an accused offi­cers’ col­leagues singing their prais­es while vic­tims were marginalized.

It fails and con­tin­ues to fail,” she said of the police dis­ci­pli­nary régime.

Harriet Wistrich, founder of the Centre for Women’s Justice, said: “The police lead­er­ship real­ly needs to get a grip on this and cre­ate a zero-tol­er­ance cul­ture for such misog­y­ny, or we will have yet more high-pro­file cas­es where serv­ing offi­cers are found to have car­ried out the most appalling crimes of sex­u­al vio­lence against women.”

Deniz Uğur, deputy direc­tor of End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: “The out­comes of these mis­con­duct inves­ti­ga­tions shed a light on an insti­tu­tion­al cul­ture which enables offi­cers to evade account­abil­i­ty for abuse.

It is clear that core process­es around the han­dling of mis­con­duct inves­ti­ga­tions are incon­sis­tent and need root-and-branch reform. The insti­tu­tion of polic­ing is bad­ly fail­ing women.”

Nobody is above the law.’

Chief Constable Craig Guildford, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for mis­con­duct, said: “The vast major­i­ty of police offi­cers and staff ful­fill their duties in serv­ing the pub­lic to the high­est stan­dard, but we rec­og­nize that there is a tiny minor­i­ty who con­duct them­selves in a way which gross­ly under­mines pub­lic trust and con­fi­dence in policing.

We will inves­ti­gate inci­dences of mis­con­duct and take robust action where necessary.

It is down to every­one in polic­ing to main­tain the high­est stan­dards of integri­ty and pro­fes­sion­al­ism and to report any col­leagues who fall short of those standards.

We rec­og­nize that if an offend­er is in a posi­tion of pow­er, it can be a bar­ri­er to a vic­tim report­ing. We need to make sure that strong process­es are in place so that vic­tims have the con­fi­dence to come forward.

All forces have a ded­i­cat­ed team that inves­ti­gates com­plaints against offi­cers. These depart­ments work to strict guide­lines, run con­fi­den­tial report­ing phone lines for both the pub­lic and col­leagues to raise con­cerns, and are reg­u­lar­ly inde­pen­dent­ly inspected.

Additionally, offences which are espe­cial­ly seri­ous must be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, who will make a deci­sion as to whether to inde­pen­dent­ly inves­ti­gate. Where an offi­cer faces alle­ga­tions of gross mis­con­duct, the case is heard by a pan­el led by an inde­pen­dent, legal­ly qual­i­fied chair.

Officers will face crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion and will be dealt with direct­ly based upon the evi­dence pre­sent­ed, as nobody is above the law.”