A South Yorkshire Police inspector has been reprimanded for using discriminatory language involving race, sexual orientation and gender against his colleagues.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an investigation following allegations that the officer 'repeatedly used discriminatory language to his colleagues' dating as far back as 2015.
The investigator gathered statements from 29 police officers covering 19 different allegations and the inspector was handed a final written warning for gross misconduct at a hearing yesterday.
But despite the ruling, the chair at the hearing said the officer's identity should be protected so we are prohibited from naming him. In addition, the IPCC said a full report will not be made public either as they said the officer could be identified from this.
An IPCC spokesman said: "In the investigator’s opinion there was strong evidence to suggest that the inspector had repeatedly engaged in language and behaviour of a discriminatory nature, some of which involved race, sexual orientation and gender.
"The investigator concluded that, if the allegations were proven, dismissal would be justified and that he therefore had a case to answer for gross misconduct.
"At the hearing, the officer accepted 12 of the breaches, which included sexist, offensive and bullying comments."
A South Yorkshire Police spokesperson said: "The decision to anonymise the officer was made by the chair of the hearing, who directed that the officer should not be identified.
"He has the power to do so under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. This was made to protect the welfare of the officer and we respect and will abide by that decision."
IPCC commissioner Derrick Campbell said: “Our investigation found strong evidence that the inspector used discriminatory language on a regular basis, and that he made his colleagues feel at worse bullied, and at the very least uncomfortable working alongside him.
"If an officer displays this kind of disturbing behaviour, it must be dealt with to ensure that the same kind of discriminatory language isn’t extended to the general public.”