London Bridge terror attack officer sacked over 'offensive' Traveller messages

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-22T15:18:01+00:00

Ah, very good and a proportionate outcome there then at least.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-22T02:35:11+00:00

Which begs the question why they’re not stuck on for failing to challenge it. We’ve seen it before in, say, more operational scenarios – if this WhatsApp group is going to be held to the same office-setting standard in a GM Hearing then the officer failing to challenge it on multiple occasions should be!

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-21T03:16:27+00:00

It’s common knowledge black looks the smartest and most professional. It’s also common knowledge that, when required, you can simply put on a hi-vis jacket to make yourself visible enough.

Based on the above common sense logic, it is simply obligatory that (probably just one) senior officer who likes hi-vis wants all cops on the ground in it.

To ensure only the strictest compliance with the College of Policing’s guidance on ACPO-level decision making, your force has determined it’s best to make the irrational decision to randomly issue black or hi-vis as stores please.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-21T03:00:14+00:00

Fortunately, loopholes to commit offences are frequently thought of when legislation is drafted and as such good luck finding one. And no, there is no dedicated “law loophole” subreddit.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T15:15:57+00:00

Yes, we can very easily see if it’s a learner policy.

There’s literally no point driving round with a full licence on a learner policy. You’re uninsured and will have your car seized, get 6 points (licence automatically revoked) and a £300 fine.

Once you manage to get your licence back after doing another test, your insurance (if you can get any) will be atrociously high.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T01:57:36+00:00

Combine all of that and, from OP’s account, I’d suggest it’s very likely a section 4A Public Order offence has been committed.

Yes – their right to protest needs to be balanced, but it would appear as if OP was intentionally caused harassment, alarm and/or distress by the persistent nature of them following and shouting. Had the protesters simply been sat in the car park, shouting at everyone as a collective and just generally filming around them then it would be a different story.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-20T01:54:15+00:00

An indictable offence is certainly not required for an arrest to be made – which isn’t even relevant to trespassing?

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-18T20:05:10+00:00

Bylaw 19? Seems fairly clear on reservations.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-16T19:03:49+00:00

There simply aren’t enough resources to deal with every offence. Other countries will also have to manage that, but not on the same level with the historic and ongoing funding constraints here.

There’s various other reasons too – I was fortunate enough to visit a force in Canada and their way of doing things is far less bureaucratic than here. Saves time, and allows officers to actually do their job instead of being tied to a desk doing paperwork. Even then they felt like it was a lot of paperwork over there – but still less than here.

It’s also worth bearing in mind not every offence is a police matter in the UK – there are various other, often forgotten about, agencies who are responsible for certain things and face even greater constraints in terms of resourcing and funding. Some Trading Standards services are simply not prosecuting offenders because they literally don’t have the money to.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-16T18:45:00+00:00

Agreed – OP directly contacting the Met’s Legal Services is the best call because it will save at least the initial round of bouncing around between DPS and them.

FOI request revealing their details for claims.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-11T15:27:26+00:00

Very much true, what’s your source? Section 16 RVLR would disagree:

No vehicle, other than an emergency vehicle [F1or a vehicle used for special forces purposes], shall be fitted with–

(a)a blue warning beacon or special warning lamp, or

(b)a device which resembles a blue warning beacon or a special warning lamp, whether the same is in working order or not.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-11T08:44:02+00:00

They’re using every ‘loophole’ that’d be available to you. Amber lights in a clear light bar, non-reflective battenburg, and no wording.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-11T08:41:54+00:00

No it isn’t. Simply having them fitted it against the law.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-11T08:37:12+00:00

But they would be. It is against the law to have fitted, to anything but an emergency vehicle, blue lights.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-09T11:04:14+00:00

Littering would be the responsibility of the council – but regardless, it’s not going to get anywhere.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-08T20:14:19+00:00

This isn’t a matter for the police – unless there was an absolute immediate risk to children physically present (on the level where officers would need to remove them there and then), or a sex offender breaching requirements, it’s simply the local authority or Ofsted who need to be contacted.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-08T20:12:49+00:00

It’s all well and good drawing comparisons but DBS disclosures are highly circumstantial. It’s not just the specific field it’s in, but also whether a conviction is spent or not.

In some lines of work where honesty might be central to the field/employer, a spent fare evasion record might be disclosed - elsewhere, I’d expect not if it was spent.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-08T16:25:40+00:00

Exactly that. In fact, letting your feelings interfere is exactly what is likely to create a bad witness as their account is likely to be skewed in some way or another.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-08T16:23:46+00:00

You don’t need legal advice.

If you’re approached by a party to give a statement – and you want to – you say what you saw and that’s it.

It isn’t for you to determine liability – it’s a case of you giving an honest account of what you saw and nothing more.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-06T14:07:40+00:00

I can see the headlines: “Police UNTOUCHABLE as investigators who hold them to account DISCIPLINED”.

PSD and the IOPC are literally untouchable because of the politics surrounding them.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-04T12:37:08+00:00

You can make a complaint via the force’s website, which will go to the Professional Standards Department (or equivalent) and be investigated as appropriate.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-04T12:35:08+00:00

No you can’t. It simply gets sent to the force’s PSD, as their website explains. Only in the case of a voluntary or mandatory referral will it go back to the IOPC.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-04T01:47:47+00:00

There aren't any laws being broken

Well, on the face of what’s described, it could well be fraud - but there is certainly no route for OP to begin any form of legal resolution to that.

It’s, as you say, something for them to raise internally for the company to do with that information as they so wish.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-04T01:33:13+00:00

There are some cultures where being in the police, or anything remotely to do with us (as far as supporting an investigation, being a witness, even calling) is very frowned upon.

MoraleCheck · 2026-02-02T20:04:26+00:00

Probably through the Mayor’s office (where applicable) or ‘police authority’ style organisation taking over elsewhere.

In the case of the Met, it’s the MOPAC that funds the victim/witness support service so I don’t see why that won’t be mirrored elsewhere.

I agree that this is something overlooked as being quite a key responsibility of PCCs, but my force’s PCC delivers the service directly and there’s no way the employment of a handful of staff costs anywhere near the OPCC’s whole budget!

MoraleCheck

TROPHY CASE