They Tolerate A Lot Worse In Cleveland…

PC Christian D’Andrea, 30, called police to report he had been assaulted by his partner in Wootton, Bedfordshire, on 27 May which led to her arrest.

He later admitted that his pet dog had caused his injuries.

No doubt dental forensics played a part in uncovering the deception!

Deputy Chief Constable Mike Colbourne from Bedfordshire Police said: “We expect our officers to act with integrity at all times but clearly PC D’Andrea’s actions fell well below the standards we demand as a police force.

“His actions led to an innocent woman being arrested and interviewed about the fabricated claims.

“This case shows how we will not tolerate such behaviour.”

Really? Strange, then, what other forces clearly will tolerate…

Cleveland Police say there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ for why she has been allowed to slip quietly away before a disciplinary hearing, so safeguarding her pension rights.

Fiona is understandably furious and claims she was told by police that the reason for this was cost, as it is cheaper for her just to step down than to carry on paying her while an investigation drags on.

New legislation was brought in last year to prevent police officers resigning or retiring while facing gross misconduct proceedings except in certain circumstances, which include ill health and compromising a covert investigation.

As to why Kelly Jarvis has been allowed to resign, a Cleveland Police spokesman said: ‘In some cases officers are allowed to resign prior to a misconduct hearing where there are exceptional circumstances.’ However, they would not elaborate on what these circumstances were.

One can only speculate…

Was it the fact that PC D’Andrea confessed, while PC Kelly appears to believe she’s the real victim? Is it the ‘pussy pass’ in action? Or something else?

7 comments for “They Tolerate A Lot Worse In Cleveland…

  1. November 20, 2016 at 10:43 am

    “safeguarding her pension rights” ???

    Best not to get started on that.

    • November 27, 2016 at 8:16 am

      Quite!

  2. Penseivat
    November 20, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    There is no reason why, if the situation warranted it, the officer could be ‘Dismissed the force’, in which case paid pension contributions, less a sum for administrative purposes, would be returned as a lump sum.
    An alternative is ‘Required to resign’ which means that pension entitlements remain, but are not paid until the (now ex) officer reaches retirement age.
    The Police Act requires a thorough investigation before either of these decisions are made and the officer will remain on full pay, with pension entitlements for that period.
    Allowing an officer to resign before a disciplinary hearing is heard is considered an admission of guilt and, unfortunately in my opinion, is allowed to happen too many times. Recent legislation is supposed to stop this but has been allowed to happen, especially when the officer involved is of a high rank.
    Don’t forget, though, that Police officers now pay 13% of their salary towards their pension, which is many times more than local authority employees and 100% more than MPs and look how many of them aren’t even required to resign when found to have committed offences which would have ordinary people in the dock.

    • Mudplugger
      November 20, 2016 at 4:42 pm

      A comparison with MPs is unfair – they have to ‘re-apply’ for their job every five years at most and may be ‘dismissed’ through no personal fault of their own, without recourse to any tribunal etc. On that scale, Plod have it easy.

      As regards their levels of criminality, I have no reason to believe one group is less criminally-inclined than the other. Both should face the full legal process without favour.

    • November 27, 2016 at 8:18 am

      This one isn’t of a particularly high rank, though. So I wonder what she knows. Or whom.

  3. November 21, 2016 at 12:49 am

    And still there remains a reluctance to charge those, mainly woman, who make false allegations against men. It is quite unusual for a man to make such falsities against their ‘partner’. There is no mention of any investigation into the background ‘domestic violence’ in this case.

    • November 27, 2016 at 8:17 am

      And it seems it is mostly women – I had to search quite hard for a male example!

Comments are closed.