One up for the BiB :)

[autismuk]

Don't like injustice anywhere. Which sometimes makes me sound anti-Police.

So here's one for the Plod. Well actually two.

A local Sarge in Suffolk (dunno if he is trafpol or not) has been done for drunk driving, and given a heavy fine and driving ban. It appears to be a first offense.

The local numpties are demanding he be sacked from the Police entirely. It appears to be a campaign.

I think it stinks.

At *worst* (i.e. if he was absolutely smashed and endangering people) he should be demoted.

I do not understand how this works. IMO, he should be given the bollocking to end all bollockings, and told if he stuffs up again his career will be in danger.

But I do *not* like the demands for him to be sacked.

He has been punished by the courts and that should be it (unless he is trafpol in which case he should probably be moved !). Otherwise he's being punished twice for the same crime.

There's another equally bemusing case here which makes even less sense.

A local Plod's brother had a major stash of nicked money, for which he was convicted a year or two back.

A few months later, a chunk of it (£75k I think) was found buried in said Plod's garden. He was cautioned but not charged - for the offence of having it in his garden.

And then sacked - and it has seriously damaged his pension (he didn't complete the 30 years - I think he'd done 28 or something !).

Now this makes no sense to me. Either he knew it was there or he didn't.

If there is a good case he did know, then he should surely have been prosecuted. If he didn't, then how can they justify sacking him ? (There is no suggestion he was involved in the original crime and he has a good record)

The local Senior Plod described him as "corrupt" (it's in todays paper) *but* he's not been charged with anything. This is probably a PR response to his appeal against his dismissal.

Now, I'm a big fan of innocent till proven guilty. So is he innocent or not ?

As far as I can see if he hasn't been convicted and there's no evidence to suggest he did know about it, *what* was he sacked for ?

[bobbins]

I think Police officers (and everyone in a position of authority, MP's, Teachers, Doctors etc) should be sacked if they commit ANY motoring offence, even speeding (after all, speed kills).

When the country grinds to a halt after about 2 wks, the authorities will realise how stupid these laws are.


The reason BiB got disciplined but not prosecuted is that the burden of proof is different.

[catso]

I don't like injustice, I also don't like Hypocrisy.

Some questions to consider;

Is it acceptable for a Cop in Drugs squad to be dealing drugs?

Is it acceptable for a Cop in Murder squad to murder people?

Is it acceptable for a Cop in Child protection squad to be a Paedo?

Is it acceptable for a Cop in anti Burglary squad to be a Burglar?

Is it acceptable for a Cop on 'Anti Speeding squad' to speed?

Is it acceptable for a magistrate who speeds to pass judgement on a speeder?

Is it acceptable for a pratt to be a Prime Minister?

etc.

[CoopR]

catso said:

I don't like injustice, I also don't like Hypocrisy.

Me either. I do agree that being in a position of authority should mean you have to take more responsibility for you actions but in reality everyone is only human and we can all do stupid things.

catso said:

Is it acceptable for a pratt to be a Prime Minister?

It's not acceptable but is it actually possible to be any other way?

>> Edited by CoopR on Saturday 12th February 22:04

[autismuk]

catso said:

I don't like injustice, I also don't like Hypocrisy. Some questions to consider; Is it acceptable for a Cop in Drugs squad to be dealing drugs? Is it acceptable for a Cop in Murder squad to murder people? Is it acceptable for a Cop in Child protection squad to be a Paedo? Is it acceptable for a Cop in anti Burglary squad to be a Burglar? Is it acceptable for a Cop on 'Anti Speeding squad' to speed? Is it acceptable for a magistrate who speeds to pass judgement on a speeder? Is it acceptable for a pratt to be a Prime Minister? etc.

The answer to most of those questions is "no" (except the last three), as - probably - is should a serious drunk driver be a traffic policeman.

However a *complete* sacking seems to be unacceptable.

There is too much of this ; some people in my line of work are unemployable because someone has complained about them. The complaint may be unsubstantiated, but it is still there.

[Dwight VanDriver]

re Drink/Drive Autismuk...

There is an ongoing committment by Police and Home Office to cut down incidents of drunk driving by Police.

Whatever the Court deals out he will still face formal disciplinary proceedings usually with the result that he will be required to resign or dismissed.

But, the Presiding Officers have to judge the facts of the case. If they find that the offence was committed On Duty,
attempt to avoid arrest,
interference with the process by leaving scene or using his Office,
accident involving member of the public or
reading particularly high,

then it is bye bye. If none of these involved then they MAY consider a lesser sanction which will be clearly set out and recorded.

Police Drink driving does nothing to enhance the standing of Police in the community which is why they treat it seriously and punish hard. Many Bibs agree with this.

DVD

[autismuk]

Dwight VanDriver said:

re Drink/Drive Autismuk... There is an ongoing committment by Police and Home Office to cut down incidents of drunk driving by Police. Whatever the Court deals out he will still face formal disciplinary proceedings usually with the result that he will be required to resign or dismissed. But, the Presiding Officers have to judge the facts of the case. If they find that the offence was committed On Duty, attempt to avoid arrest, interference with the process by leaving scene or using his Office, accident involving member of the public or reading particularly high, then it is bye bye. If none of these involved then they MAY consider a lesser sanction which will be clearly set out and recorded. Police Drink driving does nothing to enhance the standing of Police in the community which is why they treat it seriously and punish hard. Many Bibs agree with this. DVD

Yes and no. I would agree if this was Police-related that it would be more serious (i.e. he was driving a CopCar) but it appears not.

Maybe I'm too reasonable, but my POV is that if he was done "outside his job" then the punishment should be limited to such.

I also don't think justice should be driven by what the "community" think ; which I think is a euphemism for press coverage anyway.

Far too much of the justice system is driven by Media and PR, and some of the worst errors have been caused by pressure from the "media" to solve a crime ; which is passed down by the Seniors to the cops doing the case.

[parrot of doom]

I think we ask a lot of people in positions of authority. Fair enough, I don't have a problem with 'setting an example', but often people are more interested in looking at the solution rather than the cause.

For instance, what if the drunk seargant had been having family problems? What if he is an excellent officer and has saved more lives than he could possibly have damaged if he had been in an accident as a result of the drink?

A public apology should suffice, and perhaps demotion, but often those voices that shout the loudest have the least to contribute.


As for the guy with 75k in his garden, well I'm sorry but that does sound like corruption. In the past perhaps this would have been dealt with by 'early retirement', but to sack a guy 2 years from his mandatory retirement date, thats harsh in anyone's book. Mind you, there may be other money that we don't know about

[silverback mike]

As a member of the police service I think we uphold the law so therefore should abide by it.

I also think that being sacked for driving whilst over the prescribed limit is too harsh. I haven't always thought that way, but do now. Most professions do not sack their employees as a result of being found guilty of the offence, so don't think we should.
He should face harsh judicial punishment for being in the position he was/is in, but not sacked. I would think differently if he was in a police vehicle, in work time though.

Onto the second case.... It does stink a bit to me, but as autismuk says, it's all about evidence. We can only work within the constraints of the law, so should do just that.
Don't get me wrong, there is no place for corruption in my book, and those that know me well will agree, I will not tolerate it.....It isn't up to us to find him guilty, the court/judge/jury etc do that, and if there is insufficient evidence then that should be the case.

All a bit difficult, but I do think as police officers we are expected to set an example, and rightly so.


Good points though autismuk - I never thought you were anti police well, not all the time.

>> Edited by silverback mike on Sunday 13th February 15:54

[bobbins]

silverback mike said:

I also think that being sacked for driving whilst over the prescribed limit is too harsh. I haven't always thought that way, but do now. Most professions do not sack their employees as a result of being found guilty of the offence, so don't think we should.

A lot of people, who need to drive as part of their job, would be sacked though. Police Officers have the 'benefit' that they can transfer to a non-driving job.

The point I made originally (OK, somewhat TIC) is that if the public is to really believe that driving offences are serious then people in positions of authority have to be sacrificed to demonstrate that fact.

silverback mike said:

Onto the second case.... It does stink a bit to me, but as autismuk says, it's all about evidence. We can only work within the constraints of the law, so should do just that.

I don't know any of the details of this case, but if I had a pile of money to hide it would be very easy for me to bury it in either of my brothers houses without them knowing. I'd also be able to keep an eye on it as I'd know if they were planning to do major work or move house.