The sleazeballs at SAPOL have a hard time keeping their grubby hands to themselves. Whether it’s copping a feel of your butt or breasts under the pretense of searching for weapons or drugs, or hitting on their colleagues, the criminals at SAPOL have a long, shameful history of putting their hands where they are not supposed to be.
It was recently revealed that a senior police boss has been fined and reprimanded for subjecting a colleague to “unwanted and physical” harassment while off duty.
After criticism of the manner in which it keeps misconduct complaints against unethical, criminal, thuggish and sleazy cops secret, SAPOL has grudgingly agreed to partially disclose details of such cases.
But no names or details such as the officer’s gender, location or dates of incident will be released that could identify any sanctioned police officer, ruled the grossly overpaid head of SLEAZEPOL, Grant Stevens.
“The police officer displayed unwanted and physical conduct towards another employee, whilst off duty,” a spokesman said.
It was revealed another two senior constables were reprimanded – and one fined $600 – for a series of failures to perform their duties.
“Whilst subject to an internal investigation, the police officer contacted another employee and was verbally abusive to them,” a case summary stated.
Another senior constable was fined $600 and also reprimanded over a failure to properly record reports of crime.
Like all criminal organizations, SAPOL thrives on secrecy and hates to draw public attention to its nefarious activities. Under laws created in 2016, all police complaints are subject of blanket secrecy, meaning all details or reference to such inquiries are banned from publication.
Traditionally, officer misconduct cases were published in the restricted South Australia Police Gazette and the force’s annual report.
In a statement on Wednesday night, a police spokeswoman said Stevens “has now decided it is appropriate that disciplinary outcomes relating to police officers are reported publicly on the. police website”.
“This increased level of transparency will strengthen public trust and confidence in the police disciplinary system and better serve its ultimate aim – the protection of the public,” she said.
It will do no such thing, as the changes are largely window dressing. They still keep the cowardly perpetrators’ details secret from public view.
The only reason even small changes have been made, is not because SAPOL cares about transparency and the public – it has proven time and time again it doesn’t care less about either – but because its anti-transparency approach has come under increasing scrutiny of late.
In a submission to MPs, The Advertiser called for secret police rules around the reporting of internal investigations to be repealed as SA was a national “outlier”.
The Advertiser reported last month how SA’s “police state” secrecy laws face overhaul as MPs consider making changes to draconian restrictions that are not enforced nationally.
Parliament’s Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee will publish a report by year’s end that may include easing restrictions on public information after a 15-month inquiry.