Police officer sacked after lending uniform and cuffs for kink
7 replies, posted
A Sydney police officer was fired after he loaned his uniform and handcuffs to a friend, believing they would be used in a fetish fantasy.
The Industrial Relations Commission was told the handcuffs and uniform were discovered in a police raid on the home of the friend, who was suspected of using a government laboratory to manufacture illicit drugs.
The officer "M" — who was a police prosecutor — later admitted providing advice to the suspect about the evidence authorities had gathered.
The officer's superiors believed his actions put him in "outright conflict" with his police duties.
He was sacked by Police Commissioner Mick Fuller in 2017 — a decision that was upheld by the Commission in September.
The saga began in 2013, when drug squad officers raided an Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facility in Sydney.
They were acting on suspicions an ANSTO employee, known as "A" and who was friends with the police prosecutor, had been using the lab to produce methamphetamine, or "ice".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-21/nsw-police-officer-fired-after-loaning-uniform-to-friend/10514898
Kind of socked they'd sack and officer over that. Police officers commit actual crimes and get a slap on the wrist.
A fellow man of culture and the arts
The officer was bullshitting. He first claimed that he loaned the uniform and handcuffs to his mate because his mate ‘was thinking of becoming a cop and wanted to try it on’, then he changed his story to claim that it was for a sexual fantasy shit.
Maybe he wouldn’t have been fired if it were just the uniform, but handcuffs are considered to be a prohibited weapon in NSW. And not just that, but the mate of the officer put in some freedom of information requests to see to what extent the police were investigating him, and the information that the police compiled was reviewed by that particular officer who he was friends with. That’s quite a clear conflict of interest there.
Wow is bondage just illegal there?
That's... baffling? I understand wanting to generally restrict their availability but making them classed as a "weapon"??? Huh??? What??? They're aware that most crooks would use zipties or flexicuffs, right?
killjoys
It might be another one of those bits of legislation meant to pile on charges. Instead of just impersonating an officer, it's impersonating an officer while in possession of a prohibited weapon. Even if you get off the one charge, the other one looms over you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.