Basildon policeman dismissed for misconduct after failing to classify domestic incident proplerly

Basildon policeman dismissed for misconduct

Basildon policeman dismissed for misconduct

First published in News

A police officer who was based in Basildon District, has today been dismissed from Essex Police for misconduct.

A panel, chaired by Assistant Chief Constable Maurice Mason found the officer to have breached the expected standards for duties and responsibilities.

The allegations involved the officer attending a domestic incident and as he was not in possession of a DV1 form deciding to complete the form at his home station upon his return based upon some of the answers the victim had given him.

This resulted in the DV1 being incorrectly graded as ‘medium’ risk when it should have been ‘high’.

The officer had previously received two written warnings and was also on a final written warning at the time of the misconduct.

In dismissing the officer from the force, Mr Mason said: "This matter is a serious breach of professional standards which resulted in a level of service and safeguarding that fell well below the standard demanded of police officers by the public of Essex and had the potential to result in the most tragic of circumstances. It was fortunate that this did not occur.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04pm Wed 13 Aug 14

supermadmax says...

80% of the workforce in all organisations are muppets : The Pareto principle.

& if you disagree with me you in the 80%.

Regarding this story, well done to Essex police. Never be scared to get rid of the passengers and well done for following HR procedure to lower the rick of a tribunal claim.
80% of the workforce in all organisations are muppets : The Pareto principle. & if you disagree with me you in the 80%. Regarding this story, well done to Essex police. Never be scared to get rid of the passengers and well done for following HR procedure to lower the rick of a tribunal claim. supermadmax
  • Score: 5

7:37pm Wed 13 Aug 14

annonnamus says...

Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards.
Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%.
Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super".
Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards. Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%. Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super". annonnamus
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Wed 13 Aug 14

supermadmax says...

annonnamus wrote:
Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards.
Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%.
Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super".
You in the 80% then ?

You know what they say about spelling and grammar nazis ? Don't measure up downstairs.
[quote][p][bold]annonnamus[/bold] wrote: Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards. Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%. Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super".[/p][/quote]You in the 80% then ? You know what they say about spelling and grammar nazis ? Don't measure up downstairs. supermadmax
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Wed 13 Aug 14

TrevorO says...

What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard?
What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard? TrevorO
  • Score: 2

9:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

bazza 1 says...

He must be as thick as a plank. On a final warning, and does something as stupid as this. Obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He must be as thick as a plank. On a final warning, and does something as stupid as this. Obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. bazza 1
  • Score: 7

10:14pm Wed 13 Aug 14

chuckieboy says...

TrevorO wrote:
What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard?
Exactly what I was thinking! Double standards for Joe Bloggs on the street I think!!!
[quote][p][bold]TrevorO[/bold] wrote: What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard?[/p][/quote]Exactly what I was thinking! Double standards for Joe Bloggs on the street I think!!! chuckieboy
  • Score: -4

8:12am Thu 14 Aug 14

Vange Resident says...

I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details?
I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details? Vange Resident
  • Score: 3

10:42am Thu 14 Aug 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Vange Resident wrote:
I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details?
Well it's very simple really, the police officer has been SACKED from his job and not charged with a criminal offence.
I find it laughable that people don't understand this very simple concept.
I don't get why people are insisting on knowing their name. I mean, what are you going to do with that information?

Well done to Essex police for dealing with this matter and taking the opportunity to let the public know they won't stand for this kind of behaviour. They don't have to tell anybody they have sacked an officer justthe same as Tesco don't have to tell you they sacked a shelf stacker!
[quote][p][bold]Vange Resident[/bold] wrote: I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details?[/p][/quote]Well it's very simple really, the police officer has been SACKED from his job and not charged with a criminal offence. I find it laughable that people don't understand this very simple concept. I don't get why people are insisting on knowing their name. I mean, what are you going to do with that information? Well done to Essex police for dealing with this matter and taking the opportunity to let the public know they won't stand for this kind of behaviour. They don't have to tell anybody they have sacked an officer justthe same as Tesco don't have to tell you they sacked a shelf stacker! stopmoaning1
  • Score: 11

12:14pm Thu 14 Aug 14

pembury53 says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Vange Resident wrote:
I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details?
Well it's very simple really, the police officer has been SACKED from his job and not charged with a criminal offence.
I find it laughable that people don't understand this very simple concept.
I don't get why people are insisting on knowing their name. I mean, what are you going to do with that information?

Well done to Essex police for dealing with this matter and taking the opportunity to let the public know they won't stand for this kind of behaviour. They don't have to tell anybody they have sacked an officer justthe same as Tesco don't have to tell you they sacked a shelf stacker!
well put...
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Vange Resident[/bold] wrote: I find it very odd that week in and week out the Echo has listed names and address of those appearing at Basildon courts but when it is a now ex-officer of the law we get no details? why, what kind of reporting is this when you wont give all the details?[/p][/quote]Well it's very simple really, the police officer has been SACKED from his job and not charged with a criminal offence. I find it laughable that people don't understand this very simple concept. I don't get why people are insisting on knowing their name. I mean, what are you going to do with that information? Well done to Essex police for dealing with this matter and taking the opportunity to let the public know they won't stand for this kind of behaviour. They don't have to tell anybody they have sacked an officer justthe same as Tesco don't have to tell you they sacked a shelf stacker![/p][/quote]well put... pembury53
  • Score: 5

2:52pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Interestedofessex says...

TrevorO wrote:
What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard?
Yes I completely agree with you - I want to see this persons face who didn't do his job properly, along with that bloke from Tescos that dropped my eggs and that waiter that got my order wrong - oh yes and that bus driver who pulled out on me - get me a picture of everyone now, I demand it.....
[quote][p][bold]TrevorO[/bold] wrote: What happened to broadcasting images of suspects? Should we see an image of the constable and get his name? Is this just one more double standard?[/p][/quote]Yes I completely agree with you - I want to see this persons face who didn't do his job properly, along with that bloke from Tescos that dropped my eggs and that waiter that got my order wrong - oh yes and that bus driver who pulled out on me - get me a picture of everyone now, I demand it..... Interestedofessex
  • Score: 2

10:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

annonnamus says...

supermadmax wrote:
annonnamus wrote:
Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards.
Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%.
Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super".
You in the 80% then ?

You know what they say about spelling and grammar nazis ? Don't measure up downstairs.
No idea what you are typing about. I'm sure there is no rick connected to it though. Confusion aside it is certain that you in the 80% with the bizarre measuring a downstairs from up.
You clearly have an inferiour intellectual capacity to understand basic logic. Is there someone to blame, really?
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]annonnamus[/bold] wrote: Must always find a way to lower the rick of a tribunal claim, or just lower the rick in anything really, including iron + ironing boards. Have the rick lowered means you in the 80%. Never trust anyone with a name prefix using the word "super".[/p][/quote]You in the 80% then ? You know what they say about spelling and grammar nazis ? Don't measure up downstairs.[/p][/quote]No idea what you are typing about. I'm sure there is no rick connected to it though. Confusion aside it is certain that you in the 80% with the bizarre measuring a downstairs from up. You clearly have an inferiour intellectual capacity to understand basic logic. Is there someone to blame, really? annonnamus
  • Score: -1

1:41am Fri 15 Aug 14

J Arthur Rank says...

"inferiour"?
Is that the new 'Inferior'?
"inferiour"? Is that the new 'Inferior'? J Arthur Rank
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree