The old bill who murdered Sarah Everard has just been fired by the MET Police. The scum has been inside since February ... therefore, unable to fulfill the terms of his employment contract for around 5 months, yet he has been getting paid all this time. Seriously? Anyone else would have been sacked the minute they were denied bail ffs
Awkward situation TBH mate, if they had sacked/suspended him at the time that would have implied guilt and could have compromised the trial.
Happens in most (if not all) other jobs if people are refused bail. Legally he voted have been sacked simply for not being available to work and therefore not fulfilling the terms of his contract. As he clearly lied regarding his guilt (he could have confessed immediately) the police should reclaim his wages as he got them through lying.
Re-claiming his wage i agree with, anything prior to the trial would have been seen as prejudicial and could have caused a miss-trial.
So how come it happens in so many other cases? People arrested for murder, rape, manslaughter ed and denied bail are regularly sacked? Not meaning this argumentatively but I genuinely do not get it. I simply assumed he'd been sacked but it hadn't been announced for the reasons you said.
Police officers, along with the armed services, aren't legally employees. They are termed 'office holders'. They don't have the right to strike and numerous other employment rights that just about everybody else does. Removing them from office is a bit more process driven than sacking an employee. It's nothing sinister, just more hoops to jump through.
It went really well.. after a 7.5 hour wait. The surgeon recognised me and the fact that I moaned like buggery about the elevator music last time. So he played Punk throughout for me. Mrs B took some pictures of the wound yesterday when the dressing was changed. I can post them if you like?
The BBC's coverage of this highlighted something interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57860969 Permission to use that photo has been withdrawn by the copyright holder. I wonder what lead to that decision?
