top WPC gets her breast out
Discussion
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Like I say, the overarching principle is to ensure police misconduct is investigated to the nth degree - that's the will of the government given the way they've legislated. If that means cases which are a little more 'open and shut' are over-egged then that's a price worth paying when there is less overt and more serious misconduct that needs investigating. Eric Mc said:
chow pan toon said:
Yup. I'm only surprised that nobody has been accused of "White Knighting" yet
The one thing Ginetta most definitely DOES NOT need is a White Knight on his charger coming to the rescue. She can look after herself.THAT, is irony. None of the bulls
t with wedding days and planes she harps on about. That right there. It's so perfect, it's beautiful!it seems that the main difference between the public sector and private is that our processes are time bound, irrelevant of how difficult or thorough the investigation needs to be, but in the public sector it can take as long as they like and cost as much as it needs to, but in the private sector we can get the same penalties if we don't follow our procedures to the letter.
Its because its not their bloody money, its a bottomless pit, they would rather spend money on this rubbish that putting proper policeman on the street.
Its because its not their bloody money, its a bottomless pit, they would rather spend money on this rubbish that putting proper policeman on the street.
Adrian W said:
it seems that the main difference between the public sector and private is that our processes are time bound, irrelevant of how difficult or thorough the investigation needs to be, but in the public sector it can take as long as they like and cost as much as it needs to, but in the private sector we can get the same penalties if we don't follow our procedures to the letter.
They can't spend as much as they want. It can't be time bound in the police as complaints / misconduct matters can't be resolved until all criminal matters have been resolved e.g. X is arrested and complains about his arrest. He spends two years going to trial and appealing before the criminal aspect is finally resolved. Only then can the complaint / misconduct matter be resolved.
Adrian W said:
Its because its not their bloody money, its a bottomless pit, they would rather spend money on this rubbish that putting proper policeman on the street.
How's it a bottomless pit when they have allocated and finite budgets? The staff are already a 'sunk cost' and already paid for. I somewhat doubt a Chief Constable (or whoever 'they' are) would rather allocate resources to investigating misconduct rather than spending it on the front line.
La Liga said:
I somewhat doubt a Chief Constable (or whoever 'they' are) would rather allocate resources to investigating misconduct rather than spending it on the front line.
Jinx said:
Yet the main issue is should this incident have been reported as misconduct in the first place?
The outcome answers that question. Jinx said:
Waste of time/money and resources for an isolated drunken misdemeanour.
Holding a senior officer to account and demonstrating her behaviour is not acceptable is important. DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Ignoring the ad hominem attack, which is really out of order, I would suggest that you do not understand. It has been explained, but you ignore the explanations. You guess that people suggest the processes and systems are nonsense. So, who is arguing? However, much of the accusations against it being public sector is as a result of prejudice I think and not evidenced.
If someone of upper executive level in private sector business as big as this woman's force would not be sacked out of hand, rapidly or without costing money. It doesn't happen in the main. Powerful people are powerful. They have resources. These procedures are there to ensure that when the person is dealt with there is no expensive comeback to the force. I've seen reports of private sector leaders who have performed dreadfully getting bonuses and golden handshakes. The reasons for these are the same as the reasons processes are complex.
It's been pointed out that the system does not take this long in normal circumstances, but you ask the question. Read the posts of those with some experience. You might, just might, learn something.
I take your last point 100%: the reasons can be pointed out until the cows come home, but basically there is no way of convincing those who are prejudiced and have made their minds up on little evidence.
You seem to know all about the processes based solely on the reports of this case. You are guessing.
You do not understand, and nor will you until you listen.
Derek Smith said:
Read the posts of those with some experience. You might, just might, learn something.
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'. I've also had my opinions of the public sector confirmed, yet again, by the blathering about procedures in defence of the inept. Lastly I've learned that apparently really fvcking stupid people can earn over a tonne in the police 'service'.fblm said:
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'.
Applying the law as intended by a democratically elected parliament isn't an 'epic waste of time'. fblm said:
I've also had my opinions of the public sector confirmed, yet again, by the blathering about procedures in defence of the inept.
It's not inept when you follow the law. Generalisations about the public or private sector are for the lazy who don't like to think critically about things. fblm said:
Lastly I've learned that apparently really fvcking stupid people can earn over a tonne in the police 'service'.
I'm tempted to make an obvious suggestion about stupidity because you're judging a career by taking one snapshot and irrationally extrapolating it. Gross misconduct = final written warning !
That's a new one on me - officers of a junior rank have been sacked for much, much less than this ACC.
At the end of the day Sutcliffe was at a police function and was representing GMP. She behaved appallingly - getting pissed, bullying a junior officer and getting her tits out.
For those that say this was a minor indiscretion, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - or at least it doesn't for those who are not part of the hierarchy.
It would appear the discipline panel bottled it and let Sutcliffe keep her job and protect her pension.
All things considered, and knowing some of this woman's history/ past indiscretions, I think that is the wrong decision. She should have been given the boot.
The matter now gets referred to the Deputy Chief. Let's see if Ian Pilling is prepared to rubber stamp the panels recommendation. If he does, he does GMP no favours.
That's a new one on me - officers of a junior rank have been sacked for much, much less than this ACC.
At the end of the day Sutcliffe was at a police function and was representing GMP. She behaved appallingly - getting pissed, bullying a junior officer and getting her tits out.
For those that say this was a minor indiscretion, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - or at least it doesn't for those who are not part of the hierarchy.
It would appear the discipline panel bottled it and let Sutcliffe keep her job and protect her pension.
All things considered, and knowing some of this woman's history/ past indiscretions, I think that is the wrong decision. She should have been given the boot.
The matter now gets referred to the Deputy Chief. Let's see if Ian Pilling is prepared to rubber stamp the panels recommendation. If he does, he does GMP no favours.
Red 4 said:
Gross misconduct = final written warning !
That's a new one on me - officers of a junior rank have been sacked for much, much less than this ACC.
At the end of the day Sutcliffe was at a police function and was representing GMP. She behaved appallingly - getting pissed, bullying a junior officer and getting her tits out.
For those that say this was a minor indiscretion, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - or at least it doesn't for those who are not part of the hierarchy.
It would appear the discipline panel bottled it and let Sutcliffe keep her job and protect her pension.
All things considered, and knowing some of this woman's history/ past indiscretions, I think that is the wrong decision. She should have been given the boot.
The matter now gets referred to the Deputy Chief. Let's see if Ian Pilling is prepared to rubber stamp the panels recommendation. If he does, he does GMP no favours.
True. How can she command respect after this? That's a new one on me - officers of a junior rank have been sacked for much, much less than this ACC.
At the end of the day Sutcliffe was at a police function and was representing GMP. She behaved appallingly - getting pissed, bullying a junior officer and getting her tits out.
For those that say this was a minor indiscretion, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - or at least it doesn't for those who are not part of the hierarchy.
It would appear the discipline panel bottled it and let Sutcliffe keep her job and protect her pension.
All things considered, and knowing some of this woman's history/ past indiscretions, I think that is the wrong decision. She should have been given the boot.
The matter now gets referred to the Deputy Chief. Let's see if Ian Pilling is prepared to rubber stamp the panels recommendation. If he does, he does GMP no favours.
Surely she wouldn't be able to continue in the GMP, would she?
Her reputation would follow her wherever she went. Absolute disaster.
Welcoming parade, as previously mentioned...
La Liga said:
fblm said:
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'.
Applying the law as intended by a democratically elected parliament isn't an 'epic waste of time'. A friend of mine was required to resign on the spot following a disciplinary hearing at which I was a witness. This had taken several months to reach the hearing stage due to court cases, and a file being submitted to the CPS.
He appealed and was reinstated 14 MONTHS later. The force had to reimburse him 14 months salary and rent allowance.
Which proves 2 things.
1. Best to get it right first time
2. It can be a very very drawn out process.
He appealed and was reinstated 14 MONTHS later. The force had to reimburse him 14 months salary and rent allowance.
Which proves 2 things.
1. Best to get it right first time
2. It can be a very very drawn out process.
mybrainhurts said:
True. How can she command respect after this?
Surely she wouldn't be able to continue in the GMP, would she?
Her reputation would follow her wherever she went. Absolute disaster.
Welcoming parade, as previously mentioned...
Ms Sutcliffe may not care what others think of her. Surely she wouldn't be able to continue in the GMP, would she?
Her reputation would follow her wherever she went. Absolute disaster.
Welcoming parade, as previously mentioned...
She has shown herself to be a bully.
She'll probably be farmed out to work on some obscure project with HMIC or The College of Policing - in order to keep her out of the limelight.
7 years to go until full pension although I wouldn't be surprised if she went on grounds of "ill health" before that.
PS - Don't confuse respect and rank. Quite often, they don't go together.
La Liga said:
fblm said:
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'.
Applying the law as intended by a democratically elected parliament isn't an 'epic waste of time'.La Liga said:
fblm said:
I've also had my opinions of the public sector confirmed, yet again, by the blathering about procedures in defence of the inept.
It's not inept when you follow the law. Generalisations about the public or private sector are for the lazy who don't like to think critically about things. Bless
La Liga said:
fblm said:
Lastly I've learned that apparently really fvcking stupid people can earn over a tonne in the police 'service'.
I'm tempted to make an obvious suggestion about stupidity because you're judging a career by taking one snapshot and irrationally extrapolating it. La Liga said:
Other than complete speculation, what are you working from to suggest she'll resign and 'claim compo'?
"Supt Jackson said Ms Sutcliffe called her a “laughing stock”... “I was shocked, really shocked and struggling to process at first what she said to me. I was mortified, embarrassed and ashamed to think that is how I was perceived. At this time I had no reason to disbelieve what she had said and began to cry.”. She said she was “acutely aware” of Ms Sutcliffe’s superior rank and said she felt obliged to listen to her. Ms Jackson, who is now a Superintendent with Cumbria Constabulary, said she suffered “great anxiety from the night itself and since” and added: “It has been the most distressing and hurtful experience of my life”.Complete speculation based on the legal checklist for harassment, bullying and constructive dismissal she just ran through.
Einion Yrth said:
La Liga said:
fblm said:
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'.
Applying the law as intended by a democratically elected parliament isn't an 'epic waste of time'.fblm said:
Really, more passive aggression? Come on say what you think. Oh and someone who would risk a 100k job and 500k of pension by getting their tits out at police bash is a fvcking idiot. No extrapolation, irrational or otherwise needed. I can certainly see why that would annoy all those who will never make ACC.
She was stupid here, no doubt. However, your sentence suggested you thought her stupid in the general sense or that somehow the organisation was at fault for promoting someone who it was foreseeable was stupid. I may have a different interpretation to what you intended. fblm said:
Complete speculation based on the legal checklist for harassment, bullying and constructive dismissal she just ran through.
So total speculation upon her character that she'll 'resign and sue'. La Liga said:
Einion Yrth said:
La Liga said:
fblm said:
I have learned that this epic waste of time and money is apparently normal and considered acceptable by 'those with some experience'.
Applying the law as intended by a democratically elected parliament isn't an 'epic waste of time'.fblm said:
Really, more passive aggression? Come on say what you think. Oh and someone who would risk a 100k job and 500k of pension by getting their tits out at police bash is a fvcking idiot. No extrapolation, irrational or otherwise needed. I can certainly see why that would annoy all those who will never make ACC.
She was stupid here, no doubt. However, your sentence suggested you thought her stupid in the general sense or that somehow the organisation was at fault for promoting someone who it was foreseeable was stupid. I may have a different interpretation to what you intended. fblm said:
Complete speculation based on the legal checklist for harassment, bullying and constructive dismissal she just ran through.
So total speculation upon her character that she'll 'resign and sue'. And he’s only got to be right once.
Tick-tock.
La Liga said:
o total speculation upon her character that she'll 'resign and sue'.
Er no, total speculation upon her choice of words to describe the ongoing pain and suffering. To be fair to her despite the relative innocuousness of the original 'offence' the front page publicity surrounding her 'fake tits' and this 'investigation' must be humiliating and compromised her professional and private life. I certainly wouldn't blame her for resigning! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff