>Detective Constable Zainab Hussain failed to fully disclose her association with the man, a misconduct panel ruled.
>But she was allowed to keep her job after the “honest” mistake and has learned a “salutary lesson”.
>But DC Hussain told the hearing she had “nothing to gain from the removal of his name” as suspects do not know they are being monitored.
>She had only met him once briefly in her boyfriend’s kitchen and, as a practising Muslim, DC Hussain was not allowed to speak to male members of his family.
>Akbar Khan, who chaired the panel, found discreditable conduct at a misconduct level only.
For fuck sake.
And people wonder why trust in such important institutions is plummeting. The optics alone on this scream corruption, and when you are enforcing our laws, the perception of honesty is just as important as being honest.
It’s alright though, Detective Constable Zainab Hussain was issued a written warning.
>DC Hussain join*(sic)* Scotland Yard’s Predatory Offender Unit focused on London’s highest risk domestic abusers in November 2020.
>
>She was responsible for developing a list of 20 nominals to be pursued for violence against women and girls.
>
>On December 17, Hussain became aware her partner’s nephew was a “low risk” target.
>
>She suggested he was removed and replaced by another name **as the list had reached its maximum number.**
(Emphasis mine)
>However, he concluded last month: “The officer let herself down and the public when she failed to fully disclose her association with [the man].
>
>…
>
>DC Hussain had told Superintendent Daniel O’Sullivan – a mentor supporting her fast-track promotion – about the association.
>
>He gave evidence that she was an articulate and professional person of whom he had no honesty and integrity concerns.
>
>Line manager Detective Inspector Paul Oulson-Jenkins said an alleged conversation with him about her link to the suspect never happened.
>
>But two other detectives in their small office recalled her mentioning the nephew.
>
>Mr Khan said DC Hussain’s account of a chat with DI Oulson-Jenkins “is the more plausible one” and he is “mistaken”, however, she should have reminded him it needed to be declared on a form.
Sounds more like she **did** tell the people she thought she was supposed to about the relationship, and some paperwork got missed.
At that point, it really does sound like a nothing burger – when you actually read the article.
For those who won’t bother: it appears that the listed suspect was on the threshold of removal from the list already, and her inspector wanted someone else to be added to that list. There could only be 20 offenders on the list at any given time, so the officer suggested removal to her supervisor as she felt it would be a ‘win win’ to a) replace them with a higher-risk offender while also b) removing the conflict of interest for herself in continuing to manage him. He was **not** taken off the list (totally contrary to the current headline – even the first paragraph of the article says ‘tried’!) and she couldn’t make that decision unilaterally anyway, but the panel determined that she should’ve explicitly reminded her supervisor of the (apparently already declared, at least from her perspective) conflict of interest when suggesting his removal.
That is why dishonesty was not found, but discreditable conduct was: her overall course of conduct risked losing the trust and confidence of the public, even if it was done for arguably pragmatic reasons. The full outcome explains why a written warning was given.
“Practising muslim”
“Boyfriend’s kitchen”
“Not allowed to speak to him”
But yet somehow…
What the actual fuck?!? All police truly are scum.
Ohhhhh she’s a fast track DC also!!?? They are complete fucking idiots also.
Why has she not been fired, she knew full well that she knew this person, and knowingly failed to declare a conflict of intrest , this could have cost someone’s life,
Domestic violence on average is the cause of the deaths of two women a week in England and Wales, femicide of 45,000 women and girl world wide each year.
This human has not the skill set required for the role , keeping her sends out the message that the police force is perfectly comfortable to have dishonest dangerous officers openly working in law enforcement.
Why does the list have a limit on how many people are on it, just deranged and very reckless, wonder how many people who dropped off the list continued to be violent .
Half of all women murdered , are killed by their partner, so once someone is prepared to do harm, they are a real risk to life.
.
How are ordinary police officers allowed to alter police records?? You would think that once the information is recorded, it is indelible until deemed so, by authorities much further up the chain of command.
8 comments
>Detective Constable Zainab Hussain failed to fully disclose her association with the man, a misconduct panel ruled.
>But she was allowed to keep her job after the “honest” mistake and has learned a “salutary lesson”.
>But DC Hussain told the hearing she had “nothing to gain from the removal of his name” as suspects do not know they are being monitored.
>She had only met him once briefly in her boyfriend’s kitchen and, as a practising Muslim, DC Hussain was not allowed to speak to male members of his family.
>Akbar Khan, who chaired the panel, found discreditable conduct at a misconduct level only.
For fuck sake.
And people wonder why trust in such important institutions is plummeting. The optics alone on this scream corruption, and when you are enforcing our laws, the perception of honesty is just as important as being honest.
It’s alright though, Detective Constable Zainab Hussain was issued a written warning.
>DC Hussain join*(sic)* Scotland Yard’s Predatory Offender Unit focused on London’s highest risk domestic abusers in November 2020.
>
>She was responsible for developing a list of 20 nominals to be pursued for violence against women and girls.
>
>On December 17, Hussain became aware her partner’s nephew was a “low risk” target.
>
>She suggested he was removed and replaced by another name **as the list had reached its maximum number.**
(Emphasis mine)
>However, he concluded last month: “The officer let herself down and the public when she failed to fully disclose her association with [the man].
>
>…
>
>DC Hussain had told Superintendent Daniel O’Sullivan – a mentor supporting her fast-track promotion – about the association.
>
>He gave evidence that she was an articulate and professional person of whom he had no honesty and integrity concerns.
>
>Line manager Detective Inspector Paul Oulson-Jenkins said an alleged conversation with him about her link to the suspect never happened.
>
>But two other detectives in their small office recalled her mentioning the nephew.
>
>Mr Khan said DC Hussain’s account of a chat with DI Oulson-Jenkins “is the more plausible one” and he is “mistaken”, however, she should have reminded him it needed to be declared on a form.
Sounds more like she **did** tell the people she thought she was supposed to about the relationship, and some paperwork got missed.
At that point, it really does sound like a nothing burger – when you actually read the article.
As with all ‘controversial’ examples of police conduct, I would strongly suggest reading the [actual misconduct outcome summary](https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/public-misconduct-hearings/outcomes/2023/november/notice-of-outcome-of-police-misconduct-hearing-dc-hussain-redacted-v2) instead of relying on the press interpretation, as that fully explains the rationale and evidence for this finding.
For those who won’t bother: it appears that the listed suspect was on the threshold of removal from the list already, and her inspector wanted someone else to be added to that list. There could only be 20 offenders on the list at any given time, so the officer suggested removal to her supervisor as she felt it would be a ‘win win’ to a) replace them with a higher-risk offender while also b) removing the conflict of interest for herself in continuing to manage him. He was **not** taken off the list (totally contrary to the current headline – even the first paragraph of the article says ‘tried’!) and she couldn’t make that decision unilaterally anyway, but the panel determined that she should’ve explicitly reminded her supervisor of the (apparently already declared, at least from her perspective) conflict of interest when suggesting his removal.
That is why dishonesty was not found, but discreditable conduct was: her overall course of conduct risked losing the trust and confidence of the public, even if it was done for arguably pragmatic reasons. The full outcome explains why a written warning was given.
“Practising muslim”
“Boyfriend’s kitchen”
“Not allowed to speak to him”
But yet somehow…
What the actual fuck?!? All police truly are scum.
Ohhhhh she’s a fast track DC also!!?? They are complete fucking idiots also.
Why has she not been fired, she knew full well that she knew this person, and knowingly failed to declare a conflict of intrest , this could have cost someone’s life,
Domestic violence on average is the cause of the deaths of two women a week in England and Wales, femicide of 45,000 women and girl world wide each year.
This human has not the skill set required for the role , keeping her sends out the message that the police force is perfectly comfortable to have dishonest dangerous officers openly working in law enforcement.
Why does the list have a limit on how many people are on it, just deranged and very reckless, wonder how many people who dropped off the list continued to be violent .
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/23/un-femicide-report-women-girls-data#:~:text=More%20than%20five%20women%20and,husband%2C%20partner%20or%20other%20relative.
https://refuge.org.uk/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-facts/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%20feels%20incredibly%20isolating,call%20999%20in%20an%20emergency.
Half of all women murdered , are killed by their partner, so once someone is prepared to do harm, they are a real risk to life.
.
How are ordinary police officers allowed to alter police records?? You would think that once the information is recorded, it is indelible until deemed so, by authorities much further up the chain of command.