Another two officers are gone
Two more officers have been dismissed from the Metropolitan Police. They are gone. The total now stands at thirteen. Thirteen officers have now lost their jobs over conduct at Charing Cross station, the latest in a long and very slow procession of disciplinary hearings stemming from a single watchdog investigation. That investigation was itself triggered by a BBC Panorama documentary, an exposé which sent shockwaves through the public and political spheres when it first aired.
Two more. The number is thirteen. The conduct in question was linked to a team based at the Charing Cross police station, a busy hub located in the centre of the capital. These latest dismissals, confirmed on 15 September 2026, show that the disciplinary process which began after the television programme is still running. It is still producing results. The number of sackings has reached thirteen since the Independent Office for Police Conduct began its work following the broadcast. That is the number confirmed.
This is not a new story. It is an old one. The original BBC exposé broadcast shocking details of inappropriate behaviour, forcing the Metropolitan Police into a response. These two dismissals are a direct consequence of that programme and the subsequent inquiry. The total number of officers who have lost their jobs in the wake of the documentary now stands at thirteen, with each case having proceeded through a formal gross misconduct hearing before a final decision was reached. The force is still dealing with the fallout. Thirteen officers have been sacked. The process continues.
The scandal that started it all
It all began with a television broadcast. A BBC Panorama exposé. This was in early 2022. The programme made public the contents of private communications between a team of officers based at Charing Cross police station, a highly visible and busy central London location, exposing an internal culture that horrified viewers across the country. The messages were shocking. They were vile. The content was described as misogynistic, racist and homophobic. It reportedly included jokes about rape. There were also explicit threats of violence against women. Officers made derogatory comments about crime victims. The language was appalling. The exposure of this material on national television created an immediate and severe public scandal for Britain's largest police force.
The public reaction was furious. Political condemnation was swift. Widespread outrage followed the revelations, which for many people seemed to confirm their worst suspicions about the internal culture of parts of the Metropolitan Police. Trust was broken. That trust, the bedrock of policing by consent, was badly damaged by the evidence presented in the documentary. The programme did not just show a few isolated remarks, it painted a clear picture of a group of officers who felt comfortable, even emboldened, sharing deeply offensive and hateful material with their colleagues. The force's leadership was put under enormous pressure. It had to act.
This scandal became a national talking point. It dominated the news. The content of the messages was discussed everywhere, from radio phone in shows to the floor of the House of Commons, forcing a wider and uncomfortable conversation about standards within policing. This was not a matter of poor taste. The material uncovered by the journalists was evidence of a pattern of behaviour fundamentally incompatible with the duties and powers of a police officer serving the public. It raised very serious questions about recruitment and vetting. It was about the culture. The Metropolitan Police, already facing intense scrutiny over other high profile cases, was plunged into one of its most serious crises in decades, with its then commissioner promising fundamental reform in response to the overwhelming pressure from politicians and the public alike.
How an officer is dismissed
Dismissal is not a quick process. It is a formal procedure. It begins with the police watchdog. The Independent Office for Police Conduct, or IOPC, is the body that investigates the most serious allegations made against police officers in England and Wales. The Charing Cross investigation was one such case. The IOPC gathered evidence. It collected the messages. It took statements. This work forms the foundation of any disciplinary action that follows, ensuring that the initial examination of conduct is carried out by an organisation entirely separate from the police force that employs the officer in question. The process is designed to be independent. It must be seen to be fair.
Once the IOPC completes its work, it produces a formal report. That report is a detailed document. It contains the evidence gathered and the watchdog's own findings on whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. This report is then sent to the relevant police force, in this case the Metropolitan Police. The force does not conduct the initial investigation itself. It acts on the findings of the independent body, a crucial separation of powers intended to maintain public confidence in the system for holding officers accountable. The IOPC can recommend a hearing. The force must then act.
The Metropolitan Police convenes a gross misconduct hearing. This is a formal, evidence based event. It is not a summary decision made by a line manager. The hearing is usually held in public and is overseen by a panel, which is led by a legally qualified chair who is independent of the police. The officer facing the allegations has the right to legal representation and can present evidence in their own defence, cross examine witnesses, and challenge the case brought against them by the force. The panel hears all the evidence from both sides before making a decision on the facts. It is a serious proceeding. It follows strict rules.
Only after weighing all the evidence does the panel determine whether the officer's behaviour amounts to gross misconduct, which is defined as a breach of standards so serious that dismissal would be justified. If gross misconduct is proven, the panel then decides on the appropriate sanction. This could be a final written warning. It could be dismissal without notice. The decision is based on a structured assessment of the severity of the conduct and the officer's record. This entire legalistic framework, from the initial independent investigation to the final panel hearing, is the reason why these dismissals are happening years after the Panorama documentary first aired. The process is methodical. It is slow.
A four year process
The BBC Panorama documentary aired in early 2022. These latest dismissals are happening in late 2026. Four years have passed. The gap between the exposure of the scandal and the final dismissals of officers involved exposes a fundamental tension in police reform. Public anger was immediate. Institutional response is slow. The demand for rapid action runs directly into a disciplinary system that is, by its very design, deliberate and methodical. It is built for legal certainty. It is not built for speed.
This four year timeline is the result of that process. It is a multi stage procedure. The Independent Office for Police Conduct first had to launch its own investigation, separate from the BBC's journalism, to gather evidence to a standard that could be used in a formal hearing. That takes time. Investigators must secure digital messages, interview witnesses, and formally question the officers under investigation before compiling a detailed report with recommendations. This is not work that can be completed in weeks. It often takes many months.
Once the IOPC concludes its work, the Metropolitan Police must then act on the findings. That triggers another sequence of events. The force has to arrange gross misconduct hearings for each officer facing the most serious allegations. These are not internal HR meetings. They are formal legal proceedings, presided over by an independent, legally qualified chair to ensure fairness and impartiality for all parties. Finding and scheduling a suitable chair adds another delay. The officer has the right to legal representation. They have the right to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Lawyers for the force and for the accused officer require time to prepare their cases, a process which involves exchanging evidence and legal arguments long before the hearing itself begins. Witnesses must be made available. Their testimony must be prepared. The hearings themselves, once scheduled, can last for several days as evidence is presented and cross examined in detail. This entire legalistic framework, built to protect the rights of officers and ensure decisions are robust enough to withstand appeal, creates an unavoidable time lag. Nothing about it is fast. The system is the reason for the wait. The process grinds on.
Thirteen down, what about the rest?
Thirteen officers have been dismissed. That is the number reported. It is not the whole story. The headline figure, while accurate, does not account for every officer from the Charing Cross team who has since left the Metropolitan Police or faced other disciplinary action following the BBC Panorama documentary. The clean up is more complex. It is not a simple count of sackings. The total of thirteen dismissals represents only the most severe outcome available to a misconduct panel. These are the officers whose conduct was deemed so egregious that gross misconduct was proven and they were formally removed from their posts.
Others saw it coming. They chose to leave. Several officers connected to the original Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation resigned before their scheduled gross misconduct hearings could even take place. A few others opted to retire. This means they avoided the final sanction of dismissal, a technicality that still resulted in their departure from the force but without a formal sacking on their record. Their careers with the Met were over. An officer under investigation can choose to resign at any point until a gross misconduct hearing makes its final determination, effectively pre empting the panel’s ruling. This is a known feature of the system. It is a route that avoids the public stigma of a formal dismissal.
There were other outcomes too. Not every officer investigated faced allegations that met the very high threshold for gross misconduct, which is defined as a breach of professional standards so serious that dismissal would be justified. Some officers faced the lesser charge of misconduct. The behaviour was still wrong. It was still a breach of standards. But it did not justify losing their job. These officers might have received final written warnings or other formal reprimands while remaining in post, an outcome dictated by the rigid rules of police discipline. They are still serving. The final tally of consequences is therefore a mixed picture of dismissals, resignations, retirements, and lesser sanctions. The process is not a clean sweep. It is a messy accounting.
This is not the end
This is not the end. The process continues. More hearings related to the original Charing Cross investigation are still pending, which means the final count of dismissals will almost certainly rise above thirteen. The Metropolitan Police has not provided a precise number of outstanding cases or a definitive timeline for their completion, citing the confidential nature of ongoing disciplinary proceedings. Each case must run its course. The saga is not over. This slow churn of accountability is a central feature of the force’s current reality under Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, who inherited the scandal and the immense challenge of restoring public confidence.
His mission is clear. Purge the Met of corrupt officers. Since his appointment in September 2022, Rowley has repeatedly stated his goal is to remove hundreds of officers who are unfit to serve, using new powers and a renewed focus on professional standards. The Charing Cross dismissals are the most visible element of this wider campaign. They act as a public signal. They show that historical misconduct will be addressed, even if the wheels of police discipline turn with infuriating slowness four years after the original BBC Panorama documentary aired. This methodical pace, while frustrating for campaigners and the public, is presented by the Met as a necessity for ensuring that every decision is legally sound and capable of withstanding appeal. It is a slow and grinding war of attrition against a culture that allowed such behaviour to fester.
The ultimate test is what happens next. These dismissals are a reaction. They deal with a problem that began years ago, long before the officers were exposed, highlighting a catastrophic failure in the Met’s old vetting and supervision systems. Sir Mark Rowley’s reforms are designed to be proactive, to build a culture where such individuals are never hired or are identified and removed much faster. The force is now re-vetting officers and staff who have been subject to previous complaints, a monumental task involving thousands of personnel records. What these ongoing dismissals from 2026 really mean for the future of Britain's largest police force is whether the institution can truly change its own internal culture, or if it is destined to simply keep cleaning up the failures of its past. The hearings will continue. The questions remain.
Sources. Sky News UK: Two more police officers dismissed over Charing Cross conduct. Evening Standard: Two more disgraced Charing Cross police officers sacked in wake of Panorama documentary.
Analysis. Drafted with AI assistance from the sources listed above and reviewed by an editor before publication. Jnews links to the organisations it writes about.
