gives a bad impression..
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4095289.stm
Police inspector gets off drink drive under a technicality.
Im FOR a decent police force, but headlines like this only go to ruin the opinion that the public will form.
2 things: how can not giving a caution get you off? your still guilty, and provably guilty right? Stupid law.
If your an inspector, don't squirm like an eel and take it.
Police inspector gets off drink drive under a technicality.
Im FOR a decent police force, but headlines like this only go to ruin the opinion that the public will form.
2 things: how can not giving a caution get you off? your still guilty, and provably guilty right? Stupid law.
If your an inspector, don't squirm like an eel and take it.
I've no time at all for Police who drink and drive.
However, there are plenty of threads on here giving PHers advice on how to "get off"* on technicalities.
If you were being prosecuted for an offence, and there was a procedural error, wouldn't you use that, and every other legal means available to you, to fight it?
I can understand how this might get people's backs up, but if people are getting done for stuff, we (BiB) need to get it right from start to finish.
*"get off" used for ease of reading.
However, there are plenty of threads on here giving PHers advice on how to "get off"* on technicalities.
If you were being prosecuted for an offence, and there was a procedural error, wouldn't you use that, and every other legal means available to you, to fight it?
I can understand how this might get people's backs up, but if people are getting done for stuff, we (BiB) need to get it right from start to finish.
*"get off" used for ease of reading.
Dibble said:
I've no time at all for Police who drink and drive.
However, there are plenty of threads on here giving PHers advice on how to "get off"* on technicalities.
If you were being prosecuted for an offence, and there was a procedural error, wouldn't you use that, and every other legal means available to you, to fight it?
I can understand how this might get people's backs up, but if people are getting done for stuff, we (BiB) need to get it right from start to finish.
*"get off" used for ease of reading.
Exactly.
The law is there to be followed. It frankly doesn't matter if it is Officer Dibble, me, Lord Lucan or anyone else. No point in having rules in the first place if they are going to be ignored. What proof is/isn't there that no caution was given. Is it a verbal caution, followed up with written confirmation? or just verbal only?
If verbal only, what's to stop them insisting they did provide a caution? Or will this have been a taped conversation?
>> Edited by anniesdad on Tuesday 14th December 15:47
If verbal only, what's to stop them insisting they did provide a caution? Or will this have been a taped conversation?
>> Edited by anniesdad on Tuesday 14th December 15:47
anniesdad said:
What proof is/isn't there that no caution was given. Is it a verbal caution, followed up with written confirmation? or just verbal only?
If verbal only, what's to stop them insisting they did provide a caution? Or will this have been a taped conversation?
>> Edited by anniesdad on Tuesday 14th December 15:47
He would have had to be interviewed on tape as he was no longer driving when they suspected the offence....
I presume that is where the caution was omitted...
Very strange though...like I said...there'll really be more to it than is in the article..
Dibble said:
I've no time at all for Police who drink and drive.
However, there are plenty of threads on here giving PHers advice on how to "get off"* on technicalities.
If you were being prosecuted for an offence, and there was a procedural error, wouldn't you use that, and every other legal means available to you, to fight it?
I can understand how this might get people's backs up, but if people are getting done for stuff, we (BiB) need to get it right from start to finish.
*"get off" used for ease of reading.
Well posted Dibble.
A procedural error was used to get him off, exactly what is sought by some posters to this site.
Two things stick in my craw. That he was so stupid as a Police officer to drive after drinking and secondly slack Police procedure to allow the loophole. Don't they use the flow sheet proforma anymore so mistakes don't occur.
Hope GMP invoke Police Discipline Regs but their track record on this isn't good.
DVD
Is this possibly one of these "morning after the night before" offences. If so, I believe that GMP are cracking down on this, this year, seems a shame that correct procedures weren't followed, I'm sure 99.9% of the time they are. Can't blame the Lawyer for getting his client off though.
off_again said:
Hope GMP invoke Police Discipline Regs but their track record on this isn't good.
However, lets face it - with a blot like that on your record, you can kiss any form of career goodbye! You might keep your job, but thats about it - pariah anyone?
You'd be surprised.
I can thin of 2 or 3 people in my force who can seem to "do no wrong", and who I would describe as "bent" - not necessarily in a financial/illegal way, but sail very close to the wind, and play the system unfairly to their advantage.
Dibble said:
there are plenty of threads on here giving PHers advice on how to "get off"* on technicalities.
If you were being prosecuted for an offence, and there was a procedural error, wouldn't you use that, and every other legal means available to you, to fight it?
*"get off" used for ease of reading.
Are these threads from acting officers? and what "impression" would it give if they were?
Yes, I would try, but its not my job to enforce the law, in this case - it was. Thats the difference, and thats what the public will see.
Some other examples of Job misuse...
My dad owned a pub - I didn't drink under age. If I had, every customer with a child would be banging on the door..
Imagine a speed camera operator, pointing the camera away when he saw his wife driving..
blue lighters jumping red lights - to get home for coronation street..
police doing car checks without proper reason..
a traffic warden not ticketing friends cars..
People with jobs of responsibility should know better! In fact They DO know better - its their JOB to know better!
A member of the public might say "I wasn't aware of the limits", a police officer knows the law, and can even get their hands on test equipment.
It might not be law, but in my eyes, if your in a position to know better, the punishment should be less lenient.
- I still don't agree with technicalities. Proven guilty is proven guilty. sure the technicality may reduce the fine/term, but shouldn't allow complete collapse!
(Im not ranting here, just interested in the debate about the image this creates within society, my writing style may not show that)
>> Edited by stooz on Tuesday 14th December 16:28
stooz said:
I still don't agree with technicalities. Proven guilty is proven guilty.
How do you prove someone guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT if the correct procedures haven't been followed?
"Well Sarge, the blood's come back from the lab. It was unuseable because it was contaminated, but we know he was pissed, so let's charge him anyway..."
It has to be right from start to finish. I's dotted, t's crossed, boxes ticked, rule off, finish.
Morally, it p155es me off no end when "colleagues" drink drive. Unfortunately, we are supposed to apply the law "without fear or favour, malice or ill will".
Procedural inconsistencies lose cases.
on another thread about speeding spicy said:
We were allegedly measured at just over 100mph on a motorway with a police pilot (fancy stopwatch). Our solicitor (think Alex Ferguson, David Beckham, Daily Express today) argued that as no ID was shown at the time it could not be proven that we had been driving. We were found not guilty. This was just the first of a string of defences he had planned.
Isn't this just another example of people doing the same thing? Procedures not followed = not guilty/case not proved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff