In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
On the contrary, the last part of section b covers it:

(b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts
himself.

Err, what proof have you got he neglected his duty?

There is a prima facie case. A police investigation would then uncover
any proof if there was any. That's how it works, normally.

In this particular case, it seems the police are following the wishes of
their political masters and turning a blind eye to behaviour that would
land other public officers in court.

He could have been
shagging in his tea break for all you know.

As above

As for misconduct, it would depend on the interpretation of a court.

As above.

And there is also ample case history where numerous police officers have
been found guilty of misconduct in a public office for having sex while
on duty.

In addition there is ample case history from employment tribunals to
hold that sex in employer's time and on employer's premises is "gross
misconduct" and that instant dismissal is an appropriate penalty.

The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.
--
Mr X