top WPC gets her breast out
Discussion
La Liga said:
re you providing him as supporting evidence given he sacked for gross misconduct after being cleared in a criminal court.
More as an example of massive attempts at cover-up despite overwhelming evidence. We can also add rejoining the police despite leaving to prevent disciplinary action. Gross misconduct? Killing someone in a display of temper might be considered more than that but still no stone was unturned to try to avoid any form of punishment.I'm sure denial or excuses will be forthcoming.
There is a perception of closing ranks whenever wrongdoing occurs. This latest incident is one in a long line of such events. It could have been investigated in a much shorter space of time, thereby saving having an expensive employee sat on her arse for 8 months.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
re you providing him as supporting evidence given he sacked for gross misconduct after being cleared in a criminal court.
More as an example of massive attempts at cover-up despite overwhelming evidence. We can also add rejoining the police despite leaving to prevent disciplinary action. Gross misconduct? Killing someone in a display of temper might be considered more than that but still no stone was unturned to try to avoid any form of punishment.I'm sure denial or excuses will be forthcoming.
There is a perception of closing ranks whenever wrongdoing occurs. This latest incident is one in a long line of such events. It could have been investigated in a much shorter space of time, thereby saving having an expensive employee sat on her arse for 8 months.
and the little scene that led to it is perfectly understandable at a gathering for the top guns in the modern police service 
TheBear said:
The thing about police investigations into police officers is that they never leave any stone unturned for fear of being accused of covering it up.
IMO and experience (which I readily accept counts for nothing on the internet) the investigator would've been taking statements from as many people there as possible to achieve the fullest picture possible.
This officer spent an hour abusing her colleague and I'm guessing an awful lot of people heard it at various points. That would mean a lot of evidence gathering and from officers all over the country. This is going to take a lot of time for obvious reasons. Add in that any witnesses shouldn't really be writing their own statements (for transparency) and that means even more time. Once that had been done then arranging an interview (possibly if criminal charges were being considered) and then possibly off to cps to consider it (further delay) then arranging a misconduct hearing. 6 months easy.
Of course you could just take a couple of witness accounts and hope the other 30+ won't be contacted by the "defence" to muddy it or place doubt just to appease a baying mob.
I'd rather leave nothing to chance if I was investigating it with a view to gross misconduct or criminal charges.
On the result, I think she is incredibly lucky not to be sacked for spending an hour abusing a colleague in front of others, in fact I'm fairly disgusted but not surprised
I thought this needed repeating as Rovingtroll missed the bit with information in it.IMO and experience (which I readily accept counts for nothing on the internet) the investigator would've been taking statements from as many people there as possible to achieve the fullest picture possible.
This officer spent an hour abusing her colleague and I'm guessing an awful lot of people heard it at various points. That would mean a lot of evidence gathering and from officers all over the country. This is going to take a lot of time for obvious reasons. Add in that any witnesses shouldn't really be writing their own statements (for transparency) and that means even more time. Once that had been done then arranging an interview (possibly if criminal charges were being considered) and then possibly off to cps to consider it (further delay) then arranging a misconduct hearing. 6 months easy.
Of course you could just take a couple of witness accounts and hope the other 30+ won't be contacted by the "defence" to muddy it or place doubt just to appease a baying mob.
I'd rather leave nothing to chance if I was investigating it with a view to gross misconduct or criminal charges.
On the result, I think she is incredibly lucky not to be sacked for spending an hour abusing a colleague in front of others, in fact I'm fairly disgusted but not surprised
Bear, your post sums it up rather accurately given my experience as well.
It is rather ironic that the likes of those on this thread who always criticise the police no matter what they do, is the reason these enquiries take so much time. It is the expectation, the knowledge in fact, that people will use such cases for their own ends, regardless of the outcome. If it is concluded quickly, then it is a cover up. If it is completely quickly and there is a legal challenge, the police are incompetent. If it is concluded and then handed to the CPS and returned NFA, the police have got it wrong. If the police take their time, have a case they feel will be successful, go to a panel which finds against the person then they come up with the criticism that the police have been too thorough.
It is not the fault of the police that it is a public service. It is not a fault of the police that it is paid for by the public. However, this, it seems, is its biggest failing.
I’ll tell the anti-police trolls the comparative costs of policing Germany and France - but what’s they point? They will ignore it and proceed to criticise regardless of what such sensible points show.
Harwood is used as an example, when he was found NG at court and was still dismissed by the police.
Rovinghawk said:
More as an example of massive attempts at cover-up despite overwhelming evidence.
Cover-up of what? He was tried at Crown Court where a jury decided the matter wasn't proven, and once that was concluded he received the highest sanction available internally. Rovinghawk said:
We can also add rejoining the police despite leaving to prevent disciplinary action.
Which has nothing to do with the point you addressed which was written by TheBear. Rovinghawk said:
Gross misconduct? Killing someone in a display of temper might be considered more than that but still no stone was unturned to try to avoid any form of punishment.
It might be, but it might not be as the jury concluded. Rovinghawk said:
There is a perception of closing ranks whenever wrongdoing occurs. This latest incident is one in a long line of such events.
The investigation that was heard in public after the Chief Constable over-rode the decision to deal with informally is an incident that fuels the perception of closing ranks? I like the logic. Even if you had any actual accuracy with your point, he didn't say it was a flawless process. He was talking in a generalised manner which reflects the reality I see and have experienced.
Rovinghawk said:
She's totally out of order to a level most would consider sackable. She gets 7 months' paid leave & a nasty note.
That's hardly savage disciplinary process. Do you think the taxpayers/general public are impressed?
Here's one who isn't. That's hardly savage disciplinary process. Do you think the taxpayers/general public are impressed?
This woman is unfit for her role and I can't see how she can return to it, having lost the respect of any reasonable person who is her colleague, superior or subordinate.
It beggars belief that we are expected to foot the bill for a very expensive job that cannot perform its function.
La Liga said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Could she have been arrested for what she did?
Only if a crime were suspected and it was necessary to. In these circumstances almost certainly not. Could I walk in my local McDonalds and get my cock out and berate a member of staff with it?
It's one element of this that's puzzled me from the outset, how you can get your boobs out in a roomful of coppers whilst threatening someone but nobody seems to think anything of it so at what point does it become an offence?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: In what circumstances then? Is it that they knew one another?
Could I walk in my local McDonalds and get my cock out and berate a member of staff with it?
It's one element of this that's puzzled me from the outset, how you can get your boobs out in a roomful of coppers whilst threatening someone but nobody seems to think anything of it so at what point does it become an offence?
You're not the first person to equate boobs and penis. Are they equivalent? The Sun used to have a page 3 with boobs but no genitalia, topless sunbathing is not the same thing as nude sunbathing. They are surely not the same? This country is a bit Victorian at times.Could I walk in my local McDonalds and get my cock out and berate a member of staff with it?
It's one element of this that's puzzled me from the outset, how you can get your boobs out in a roomful of coppers whilst threatening someone but nobody seems to think anything of it so at what point does it become an offence?
Randy Winkman said:
You're not the first person to equate boobs and penis. Are they equivalent? The Sun used to have a page 3 with boobs but no genitalia, topless sunbathing is not the same thing as nude sunbathing. They are surely not the same? This country is a bit Victorian at times.
I'm not equating them it's simply I don't have boobs so don't know what else to use as an example.I'm not suggesting she should have been arrested, but I struggle a little with thinking that in the example I gave the Police wouldn't do anything.
Elements of this incident make sense, other elements just smack of one rule for the senior ranks and another for the rank and file.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Could it be reasonably expected that an officer of that rank had sufficient judgement to think that was not a good idea, or possibly bad for her career and that of then boyfriend Detective Chief Supt. Rumney?
Surely such a connection, declared or not, could look slightly not 'professional standards'?
Could ACC Rebekah Sutcliffe be a 'Future Leader' who is Leading Beyond Authority or is it just common or garden arrogance, something not completely unknown for some police officers to have?
Could it be reasonably expected that an officer of that rank had sufficient judgement to think that was not a good idea, or possibly bad for her career and that of then boyfriend Detective Chief Supt. Rumney?
Surely such a connection, declared or not, could look slightly not 'professional standards'?
Could ACC Rebekah Sutcliffe be a 'Future Leader' who is Leading Beyond Authority or is it just common or garden arrogance, something not completely unknown for some police officers to have?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff