Julian Bennet the bent copper.

And now this. Yet another Met officer who thinks himself above the law. Suspended on full pay for 3 1/4 years before finally being dismissed for gross misconduct. I hope he’s made to repay his wage.

to be fair, he did offer to resign on the spot. Keeping paying him for 3 years was the met's choice. how does this impact his pension? I'd assume that's the reason why he was keen to resign and they weren't?

edit: ah pension remains as he's not proven to have broken the law.

the whole "someone on £160k having a flatmate" thing is a little odd though, especially when his relationship with said flatmate appears to be sour

I’d assume that’s the reason why he was keen to resign and they weren’t?

I suspect its more to do with due process and him not taking them to tribunal for constructive/unfair dismissal.

Pesky worker's rights and all.

ah pension remains as he’s not proven to have broken the law.

I wondered if that would be the case – surely he can't be allowed to get away with that stunt?

the whole “someone on £160k having a flatmate” thing is a little odd though, especially when his relationship with said flatmate appears to be sour

I was thinking along the same lines.

Have you considered a career as a detective?

surely he can’t be allowed to get away with that stunt?

well there's not many jobs where you can work for 30 years with a reasonable record, mess up near the end and be punsihed by losing £2mm worth of pension which you've built up over the years. I'm fairly comfortable with revoking pensions only being used in extremely serious crimes.

Have you considered a career as a detective?

WhatsApp messages that Gomes sent to a friend showed “vitriol” towards Bennett after their relationship deteriorated, as well as a “propensity to lie”, the panel found.

well there’s not many jobs where you can work for 30 years with a reasonable record, mess up near the end and be punsihed by losing £2mm worth of pension which you’ve built up over the years. I’m fairly comfortable with revoking pensions only being used in extremely serious crimes.

I dunno - gross misconduct for a senior officer seems a fair reason to take his pension away IMO.

I thought I'd read that he took CBD (legal) but was unsure whether it would show up in drug testing, so refused the test. Tbf, I haven't really read more than that (speed-read BBC news), but if he was taking some medication for facial palsy and it cost him his job that seems quite extreme/unfair.

Regarding police pensions, I think the officers who have resigned/been sacked for serious offences such as rape or similar should have their pensions revoked as part of the punishment.

I thought I’d read that he took CBD (legal) but was unsure whether it would show up in drug testing

Well that's what his lawyer said.

The issue isn't so much that he was maybe toking before work (not ideal, but he could have been in a bad way mentally), but that he tried to weasel out of it by offering to resign and it be brushed under the carpet.

gross misconduct for a senior officer seems a fair reason to take his pension away IMO.

Not really. I could get sacked for gross misconduct tomorrow if I went nuts on the company's social media. They couldn't take my pension. It's my money not theirs.

Doesn’t seem as clear cut as straight gross misconduct though - I guess that’s why it took so long! The apparent reason for refusing the blood test was that he was taking CBD for facial palsy and if it showed up on the drug test it wouldn’t look good.

He was the guy who wrote a lot of the drug policy for the police - what an irony…

gross misconduct for a senior officer seems a fair reason to take his pension away IMO.

Not really. I could get sacked for gross misconduct tomorrow if I went nuts on the company’s social media. They couldn’t take my pension. It’s my money not theirs.

There's quite a litany of knee jerk changes been brought in to sort out "wrong uns" that have really unpleasant consequences for ordinary folk in tne same circumstances. The Secret Barrister books are interesting on the subject.

I dunno – gross misconduct for a senior officer seems a fair reason to take his pension away IMO.

So you'd be happy to lose yours too?

So you’d be happy to lose yours too?

If I was sacked for gross misconduct when I knew that it would mean I could lose my pension (as is the case in the police), then I would accept that may be the outcome. I wouldn't be happy obviously, but it would be entirely my own fault.

I have just found this Police Pension Forfeiture guidance...

where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his or her service as a member of a police force, which is certified by the Home Secretary either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the State, or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/617188348fa8f5298406230a/Pension_Forfeiture_guidance.pd f">From here

And, as he was responsible for drawing up the Force's Anti-drug policy, then refused to take a lawfully requested drugs test, I'd say he was 'liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service'.

where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence

But he hasn't

I work on the railway. We are subject to drug and alcohol tests. Planned, random and following an incident.

You can take some medication that would flag asxa positive result. Providing someone knows it can be cleared. Failure to disclose is frowned on.
Refusing a test is deemed to be a positive test . Following a positive you get a 5 year ban from the sentinel scheme. (Sentinel is the system to track railway competence) .

Obviously there is a degree of nuance to this case

But he hasn’t

He refused to take a lawfully requested drug test. It even says so much in the opening sentence of the BBC report linked to by the OP...

A senior Met Police officer who drew up the force's anti-drugs strategy has been sacked for refusing to provide a urine sample for cannabis testing.

He refused to take a lawfully requested drug test. It even says so much in the opening sentence of the BBC report linked to by the OP…<br /><br />

Is that a criminal offence then? He hasn’t been convicted of anything as far as I can see. The fact that you can be legally asked to undertake a drugs test as conditions of your employment doesn’t mean refusal to do so is a criminal offence.

Was he bent? This thread title reads a lot like libel to me.

He refused to take a lawfully requested drug test

where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence

And I'll reiterate, he hasn't.

It is not an offence to refuse to supply a sample except for drink driving. (it's not even an offence to refuse to supply a sample for drug driving).

The GMC dismissal reflects that it isn't acceptable under the policies of his [ex]workplace.
He has not been dismissed for committing a criminal offence* because he hasn't been convicted - nor I suspect even arrested on suspicion of then released without charge.
Had he submitted a sample and tested positive for cannabis it is also unlikely he would have faced criminal proceedings though he would have been dismissed much quicker.

That his workplace is the police doesn't mean they have any more legal standing in requesting things than your employer does. So far as his employment is concerned they may as well be the Met opera as the Met police. He's an employee and their his employer and it's the same legal relationship.

*which I think isn't sackable but mandatory to serve in the Met these days.

Right - I get what you are saying, but arguing semantics with me isn't helping – he was sacked for gross misconduct for not providing a drug test when he was the senior officer in charge of the Met's Anti-drug policy.

Anyway, apparently he's keeping his £80,000 a year pension.

Anyway, apparently he’s keeping his £80,000 a year pension.

Which if he worked for anyone else he wouldn't lose either.

Crikey I could stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and Co-workers and still keep my pension because it's not theirs, it's mine and I've worked for that £80.03p/a.

I get that it might seem a bit distasteful but what you're suggesting is they basically fine him about £2million.

What sort of criminal offence do you think would attract a fine of that sort of magnitude?

Getting sacked and getting convicted of an offence are massively different though. He's been found guilty of misconduct under his terms of employment. It's not semantics.

It's unlikely that personal use of cannabis (he still denies using the drug, BTW) would end up in court anyway, so we're not really approaching the level of offence where seizing a pension pot he has been contributing to for decades is justified.

Yes, it's a bad look, and he shouldn't be a policeman any more. That seems to be enough.

Does anyone believe his story?

Cops smoke weed same as many of the rest of the population,  Drug testing without any hint of poor performance is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  Drug test every copper and you will find some who take drugs

without any hint of poor performance

He did work for the Met, I think it's a given.

*s****s*

(it’s not even an offence to refuse to supply a sample for drug driving).<br /><br />

you might want to go and read sections 6 and 6C of the road traffic act again!

OP here. When I used the word 'bent' I mean that he felt that he does not need to follow the rules that the rest of us do. He's definitely not followed the 'straight and narrow'.

you might want to go and read sections 6 and 6C of the road traffic act again!

Thought it was only drink driving for which it's actually an offence to refuse a sample.? Very happy to be wrong (actually pleased if that's the case)

Edit:

Section 7(6) Road Traffic Act 1988 - Failing to provide a specimen of blood, urine or breath for analysis..

Quite right you are.

Ambrose - are you forced to take drug tests under threat of disciplinary and gross misconduct if you refuse?  No.  Very few folk are so he was sacked for not following the rules for the police but these rules apply to very few others

Yeah, there's not that many where it is commonplace across the sector/industry:

Cops.
Military.
Train Drivers.

Any others?

Seems to me he wasn't bent, but posssibly a bit wobbly on occasions.

I stand corrected. I'm still seething though.

Why?

Lets look at a hypothetical gross misconduct for a teacher.  Say slapping a pupil.  Quite rightly they should be in disciplinary and probably sacked for it but do you think they should lose their pension?

I stand corrected inasmuch as I called the bloke a bent copper. However, it remains that he knew the rules, broke them and did so knowingly.

His pension is his money, taken from his wages and invested on his behalf by the pension provider. It should remain his.

Ambrose – are you forced to take drug tests under threat of disciplinary and gross misconduct if you refuse?  No.  Very few folk are so he was sacked for not following the rules for the police but these rules apply to very few others

Last year a work colleague got stopped and busted on a drug-driving charge which meant a driving ban. That meant instant dismissal from work. We never operated a drug testing program at work, although a clean driving license was required.

He was a bit of a dick, though, so nobody grieved too much to see the back of him.

Not just pension, they should take back all the rest of his salary too! He should think himself lucky he didn’t get hanged!

Yeah, there’s not that many where it is commonplace across the sector/industry:

Cops.
Military.
Train Drivers.

Any others?

London fire brigade, although not random, on 3 yearly medicals and following safety events (accidents and near misses).

He should think himself lucky he didn’t get hanged!

Or maybe just stoned.

No, hang on.

are you forced to take drug tests under threat of disciplinary and gross misconduct if you refuse? No

I am (oil and gas industry). In fact the nurse conducted a random 10 point substance test on all office staff a few weeks ago. Failure to take the test would be seen as gross misconduct. I'm also subject to a three yearly test as part of medical.

@relapsed_mandalorian Not just drivers but any rail employee can be tested and sacked/removed from the system. ISTR several office workers in the 90's losing out at retirement because they went for lunch-time drinks on their last day in the office.

Yeah, there’s not that many where it is commonplace across the sector/industry:

Cops.
Military.
Train Drivers.

Any others?

Nuclear
Shipping (more so on the oil & gas side of things)

Rail came in after a number of incidents in the 90s e.g. local to me at the time Maidstone crash

One of my friends worked on railway signalling in the 80s. Work was generally done after the last train of the night (daytime work needed someone on lookout and people to jump out of the way quickly), normal thing was to leave one person in the office to answer the phone and for everyone else to go to the pub first. If someone was needed urgentyly, the person manning the phone had the pub phone number. Come closing, off to work.

Making drug and alcohol testing compulsory for everyone made the system safer and took out the pressure to conform to the drinking culture.

Perhaps we should have a similar rule in government?

Re shipping - my father-in-law helped set up the random testing for oil tankers. It's expensive to helicopter out a testing kit but much cheaper than another Exxon Valdez.

Perhaps we should have a similar rule in government?

It would be fun as a lot of them would fail drug testing I am certain

Re shipping – my father-in-law helped set up the random testing for oil tankers. It’s expensive to helicopter out a testing kit but much cheaper than another Exxon Valdez.

1) The kits are kept on board, I'm pretty sure helicopters don't fly into the middle of the ocean.

2) Alcohol had no part to play in the Exxon Valdez, that's a myth that was started to scapegoat the captain (who never crashed it in the first place).

I think for safety critical folk like some of those mentioned random drug testing is acceptable - tho one issue is cannabis is detectable long after its ceased to have an effect.  This is a tricky issue to deal with but I think and hope as the law matures on this that the limits will reflect this.  Even passive cannabis smoking can show up in testing.

As for other folk in non safety critical areas - what they do in their own time so long as it does not effect performance at work is non of their employers business

If we drug tested every worker in the UK 10% of them would fail would be my guess quite possibly more given that drug use particularly cannabis is so widespread