Top Cop In B Test Shame Keeps Job!
Discussion
Manchester Evening News (John Scheerhoot) reports that a senior police officer is to be allowed to keep his job despite a drink drive ban......
So much for social stigma then
Peter Roberts was demoted two ranks from Chief Detective Inspector to a Sergeant by disciplinary hearing at GMP's HQ at Chester House.
He was convicted by Trafford Mags who banned him for 21 months - fining £400 plus £55 costs. He failed a breath test showing at more than twice legal limit
when stopped for speeding by uniform patrol on Stockport Road, Altrincham in July. He had been meeting the estranged wife in a wine bar.
The top detective who "excelled in witness protection" in gangstaland cases....
(er the Mr Big who got off because they let slip name of witness...)
..... faced the sack.
Panel of 3 disciplinary senior colleagues decided he could keep his job afteer being told about his job and his "difficult home life" (ahhhhhhhhh!)
He will get another role and a drop of £10k salary to £30k
In 2001 - government gave CCs guidelines about drunken and drugged cops - whereby they should lose jobs if convicted of these offences.
It is understood that Mr Roberts is going to appeal because his sentence is "unduly harsh"
Tell that to a company rep who loses job under tot-up for minor blips by gatso, and did not get drunk either!
The decision has outraged the Campaign Against Drink Driving people: "It is an outrageously bad example! Pathetic! They should sack him!" per their spokesman
( Mild ain't he?)
This follows the case of Tariq Mahmood who keeps his job despite driving without insurance and trying to pervert the course of justice (
Guy who was not even speeding got done for just having a jammer! And harshly punished - remember
And Steve Thomas more than tonned it for no reason on M6 toll - did not get banned - but we still do not know if the 15 pinged with him did!
OK - Wildy Cat is at it again BiB Bashing...
But what do BiBs think about this sort of behaviour?
Honestly ....
So much for social stigma then
Peter Roberts was demoted two ranks from Chief Detective Inspector to a Sergeant by disciplinary hearing at GMP's HQ at Chester House.
He was convicted by Trafford Mags who banned him for 21 months - fining £400 plus £55 costs. He failed a breath test showing at more than twice legal limit
when stopped for speeding by uniform patrol on Stockport Road, Altrincham in July. He had been meeting the estranged wife in a wine bar. The top detective who "excelled in witness protection" in gangstaland cases....
(er
the Mr Big who got off because they let slip name of witness...) ..... faced the sack.
Panel of 3 disciplinary senior colleagues decided he could keep his job afteer being told about his job and his "difficult home life" (ahhhhhhhhh!)
He will get another role and a drop of £10k salary to £30k
In 2001 - government gave CCs guidelines about drunken and drugged cops - whereby they should lose jobs if convicted of these offences.
It is understood that Mr Roberts is going to appeal because his sentence is "unduly harsh"
Tell that to a company rep who loses job under tot-up for minor blips by gatso, and did not get drunk either!
The decision has outraged the Campaign Against Drink Driving people: "It is an outrageously bad example! Pathetic! They should sack him!" per their spokesman
(
Mild ain't he?) This follows the case of Tariq Mahmood who keeps his job despite driving without insurance and trying to pervert the course of justice (
Guy who was not even speeding got done for just having a jammer! And harshly punished - remember
And Steve Thomas more than tonned it for no reason on M6 toll - did not get banned - but we still do not know if the 15 pinged with him did!
OK - Wildy Cat is at it again
BiB Bashing... But what do BiBs think about this sort of behaviour?
Honestly ....
Just saw this on Ceefax as I was getting reading for work (7pm-7am tonight inthe rain and gales!), and was going to post it up, but as usual, WC has beaten me to it.
I think (on the face of it) it's wrong.
Although of course there may be extenuating circumstances, of which we are unaware. I personally can't think what they'd be, though...
I think (on the face of it) it's wrong.
Although of course there may be extenuating circumstances, of which we are unaware. I personally can't think what they'd be, though...
Streetcop said:
A detective drink driving.....
I can't believe it!....What next?...Palestinians throwing stones..
Street
Are you playing good
-bad ? The tone of your posts has changed some what in the last month. Gone from useful and often encouraging posts to sarcastic, unconstructive and condescendingly toned posts. I guess a further promotion is on the cards. Maybe a change of login name to PeeCeePC is in order?
Iain
iaint said:
Are you playing good
Maybe a change of login name to PeeCeePC is in order?
Iain
Sorry....I wasn't clear....
The post was a dig at the CID v Uniform thing...especially CID v Traffic
Street
I am in two minds over this. Firstly, why should someone be dismissed following a conviction for which he has been punished by the courts if he is still capable of doing the job? He is hardly corrupt.
Which brings me to my own counter arguement - how can a detective undertake normal duties if he is unable to drive?
He loses my sympathy if the statement that he is to appeal is correct. cant do the time........etc etc.
Steve
Which brings me to my own counter arguement - how can a detective undertake normal duties if he is unable to drive?
He loses my sympathy if the statement that he is to appeal is correct. cant do the time........etc etc.
Steve
towman said:
I am in two minds over this. Firstly, why should someone be dismissed following a conviction for which he has been punished by the courts if he is still capable of doing the job? He is hardly corrupt.
That is the problem. Not a "criminal" in strictest sense of the word.
But as a cop - he should know better.
Now - probably I would not get the sack as far as my work with lurgies goes (nor would Wildy in her line of work) if either of us were daft enough to drive whilst over legal limit.
But - as the the blood labs also fall under my command to certain extent in my patch - eyebrows would be raised and maybe my professional integrity in general would be questioned.
And that is what another side of this argument is about whether or not he should remain in police employ - given that we do expect them to uphold the laws they are duty bound to enforce whatever their specialism. After all - they do enforce every single rule if they cop us doing something they think we should not!
Oops - now her husband is stirring it up a bit .....
towman said:
Which brings me to my own counter arguement - how can a detective undertake normal duties if he is unable to drive?
He loses my sympathy if the statement that he is to appeal is correct. cant do the time........etc etc.
Steve
Exactly. we will be taking a traf pol or panda patrol cop off normal duties to provide a chauffeur service - paid for by us taxpayers as well.
Apart from the fact he feels hard done to when others lose their jobs for drink driving or ban under a totting up procedure.
But isn't it down to professional responsiblity.
The average scrote would be let off a charge of possential of a CD. But we would be dealt with alot more harshy and our professional body would probably suspend us.
Equally a professional driver upon conviction would probably also lose their job.
In other words surely were a persons professional duty comes into conflict with the law, their job is lost. That is the price of been a professsional person.
The average scrote would be let off a charge of possential of a CD. But we would be dealt with alot more harshy and our professional body would probably suspend us.
Equally a professional driver upon conviction would probably also lose their job.
In other words surely were a persons professional duty comes into conflict with the law, their job is lost. That is the price of been a professsional person.
medicineman said:
But isn't it down to professional responsiblity.
The average scrote would be let off a charge of possential of a CD. But we would be dealt with alot more harshy and our professional body would probably suspend us.
Equally a professional driver upon conviction would probably also lose their job.
In other words surely were a persons professional duty comes into conflict with the law, their job is lost. That is the price of been a professsional person.
True - a lot is expected of us.
Think an accountant lost his job cos of drink driving - firm regarded it as "professional misconduct"
That is why I wrote that we expect someone charged with enforcing the law to uphold the law. I would probably be suspended as you say for being convicted of drink driving etc. My professional integrity would be under review and I would need a darned good lawyer and colleague to argue on my behalf. Very possibly - may not get struck off the register over it -- with aid of a darned good lawyer speaking on my behalf -
And that is why we have a problem accepting the outcomes concerning these three Manchester plods. Other professionals would not be treated so generously - nor would they be treated so leniently by the courts either.
Without making a judgement either way about "job loss" what struck me was that "3 senior colleages" made a descision about him that "might" just apply to themselves in the future? I don't think this is right, they have a vested interest in NOT setting a precedent, and please DON'T tell me that policemen are above that kind of thing.
His ultimate employers are the people of the locality and more properly their representitives. Perhaps they should at least have a say in whether they would want a "drink driving policeman" on their force.
His ultimate employers are the people of the locality and more properly their representitives. Perhaps they should at least have a say in whether they would want a "drink driving policeman" on their force.
If he was a policy making policeman, say a Assistant CC, Deputy CC, the CC himself or some such then he should be sacked as his crime conflicts with the position and authority he holds.
If he was head of a task-force targeting DD then again he should be sacked.
As his job is not linked to his crime, then the punishment given by the court and his demotion is punishment enough.
The police are, even though the BiB on here would deny it, uniformed members of the public and as such are subject to making bad judgements and mistakes as much as the rest of us.
What should be done is that equal treatment is ensured for other members of the public in similar cirumstances.
If he was head of a task-force targeting DD then again he should be sacked.
As his job is not linked to his crime, then the punishment given by the court and his demotion is punishment enough.
The police are, even though the BiB on here would deny it, uniformed members of the public and as such are subject to making bad judgements and mistakes as much as the rest of us.
What should be done is that equal treatment is ensured for other members of the public in similar cirumstances.
One Rule For Them, Another Rule For Us
Milton Crosdale of Littleover was caught doing 37mph in a 30mph zone. He already had 9 points on his licence. He was fined £100 and banned for 6 months.
Jeremy Lowe of Tansley was caught doing 37mph in a 30mph zone. He already had 9 points on his licence. He was fined £60 and let off.
If you can spot the discrepancy here please do not apply to be a magistrate, you'd be no good at the job.
Mr Crosdale is director of Nottingham & District Racial Equality Council, director of Nottinghamshire Learning and Skills Council, and a deacon at a Baptist church.
So what does Mr Lowe do that allowed such preferential treatment? — He is a Detective Inspector with Derbyshire Police.
And they wonder why the public don't support speed cameras.
Mr Crosdale was caught on Osmaston Road in Derby. He stated in court that he belived the road had a 40mph speed limit. From it's appearance this is indeed the assumption that anyone with reasonable judgement would make. The problem of course is that councils no longer impose reasonable speed limits, giving the speed camera partnerships the excuse to mug safe drivers and deprive them of their licences.
Milton Crosdale of Littleover was caught doing 37mph in a 30mph zone. He already had 9 points on his licence. He was fined £100 and banned for 6 months.
Jeremy Lowe of Tansley was caught doing 37mph in a 30mph zone. He already had 9 points on his licence. He was fined £60 and let off.
If you can spot the discrepancy here please do not apply to be a magistrate, you'd be no good at the job.
Mr Crosdale is director of Nottingham & District Racial Equality Council, director of Nottinghamshire Learning and Skills Council, and a deacon at a Baptist church.
So what does Mr Lowe do that allowed such preferential treatment? — He is a Detective Inspector with Derbyshire Police.
And they wonder why the public don't support speed cameras.
Mr Crosdale was caught on Osmaston Road in Derby. He stated in court that he belived the road had a 40mph speed limit. From it's appearance this is indeed the assumption that anyone with reasonable judgement would make. The problem of course is that councils no longer impose reasonable speed limits, giving the speed camera partnerships the excuse to mug safe drivers and deprive them of their licences.
The Wiz said:
One Rule For Them, Another Rule For Us
He was banned from driving and will undoubtedly have been fined as well! Same for you in similar circumstances.
He didn't even keep his job. Demotion from Ch/Insp to Sgt will have a huge impact on his previous role, his status with his peers the public, his salary and his pension.
He was lucky to have survived the discipline hearing with a job as a serving officer. He has been punished very hard.
He made a serious error of judgement. That has been dealt with.
He is very lucky. Many others who were serving officers who have been caught drink driving have not been lucky regardless of their rank.
The wiz said:
So what does Mr Lowe do that allowed such preferential treatment? — He is a Detective Inspector with Derbyshire Police.
And they wonder why the public don't support speed cameras.
Mr Crosdale was caught on Osmaston Road in Derby. He stated in court that he belived the road had a 40mph speed limit. From it's appearance this is indeed the assumption that anyone with reasonable judgement would make......
These sort of decisions are made up and down the country in courts in every town/city if a defendant has a reasonable arguement to keep their licence. This avenue is open to anyone who is persistent enough to pursue it. Some are lucky, some are not. The fact he is a serving Officer has little to do with it! A milkman with the same mitigation would have succeeded in the same circumstances I suspect.
With regard to the Ch/Insp drink driving, the decision I believe, was at odds with the policy that is issued by CC's and the Home Office. Personally I think it was wrong but this man will suffer as a result of his punishment in any case.
Dibble said:
[Darth_Vader]Stay away from the dark side, Luke...[/Darth_Vader]
That ist what we said to all our BiB cousins throughout this family!
But - they are fond of telling us that they are "Ambssadors of the Law!" and as such regard themselves as having to behave accordingly as much off duty as on duty.
But then - we do not even think of getting into car if unfit in any way .... we want to enjoy the drive und "feel" the speed ....
- er whatever speed we actually do und it is usually in 5mph crawl in a rush hour gone said:
The Wiz said:
One Rule For Them, Another Rule For Us
He was banned from driving and will undoubtedly have been fined as well! Same for you in similar circumstances.
True Liebchen - he got 21 month ban and £455 total to pay out. Others have receive higher fines too.... but I agree - he got similar punishment from the Mags as anyone else ... plus the criminal conviction which will be there for life......und never be expunged from his police records und will make it difficult to regain rank again .....
So yes
looking from another angle - hard punishment ...... Wine bar? You know - too many peoples are unaware of the wine mixed with the fizzy mineral waters. You do not know what measure of wine they put in the glass und it is difficult to keep track of quantity drunk - nicht? Und then - the water - especially the carbonated variety - alcohol permeates through stomach wall and into blood stream .....very very quickly und people are unaware of this..... This is why alcopops are such danger too....
Perhaps this is how he ended up in piddles .....
gone said:
He didn't even keep his job. Demotion from Ch/Insp to Sgt will have a huge impact on his previous role, his status with his peers the public, his salary and his pension.
He was lucky to have survived the discipline hearing with a job as a serving officer. He has been punished very hard.
He made a serious error of judgement. That has been dealt with.
He is very lucky. Many others who were serving officers who have been caught drink driving have not been lucky regardless of their rank.
Yes Liebchen - he has been very lucky - but our problem is that he feels "hard done to" and intends to appeal against the hard treatment.
He should really stand back and take stock. Realise others are not as fortunate and count his blessings that he retains a position in Police Force and that he was stopped soon after leaving wine bar (He lived in Tameside which I understand is some 20/25 odd miles distance from Altrincham. But -- he could have killed someone over that distance in that state ...
He should also be advised that an appeals committee may even overturn the generous decision ..... even.... that possible?
gone said:
The wiz said:
So what does Mr Lowe do that allowed such preferential treatment? — He is a Detective Inspector with Derbyshire Police.
And they wonder why the public don't support speed cameras.
Mr Crosdale was caught on Osmaston Road in Derby. He stated in court that he belived the road had a 40mph speed limit. From it's appearance this is indeed the assumption that anyone with reasonable judgement would make......
These sort of decisions are made up and down the country in courts in every town/city if a defendant has a reasonable arguement to keep their licence. This avenue is open to anyone who is persistent enough to pursue it. Some are lucky, some are not. The fact he is a serving Officer has little to do with it! A milkman with the same mitigation would have succeeded in the same circumstances I suspect.
Mr Lowe - that the one with the succession of points on licence from touching dead people? Should be used to it!
He pleaded - if I recall - that loss of licence would mean "unable to do job" - which applies to company reps - only they do not get such leniency! ....
But stories prove just how ridiculous trial, judge and jury by scam prat really is.....
Bet both cases would have been given ticking off in acid voice - but BiB would have used common sense in circumstances .....
gone said:
With regard to the Ch/Insp drink driving, the decision I believe, was at odds with the policy that is issued by CC's and the Home Office. Personally I think it was wrong but this man will suffer as a result of his punishment in any case.
I am sure he already does ...... but he should still count his blessings and remember a good many are less fortunate.
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 7th October 11:14
gone said:
One Rule For Them, Another Rule For Us
He was banned from driving and will undoubtedly have been fined as well! Same for you in similar circumstances.
He didn't even keep his job. Demotion from Ch/Insp to Sgt will have a huge impact on his previous role, his status with his peers the public, his salary and his pension.
He was lucky to have survived the discipline hearing with a job as a serving officer. He has been punished very hard.
He made a serious error of judgement. That has been dealt with.
He is very lucky. Many others who were serving officers who have been caught drink driving have not been lucky regardless of their rank.
The wiz said:
So what does Mr Lowe do that allowed such preferential treatment? — He is a Detective Inspector with Derbyshire Police.
And they wonder why the public don't support speed cameras.
Mr Crosdale was caught on Osmaston Road in Derby. He stated in court that he belived the road had a 40mph speed limit. From it's appearance this is indeed the assumption that anyone with reasonable judgement would make......
These sort of decisions are made up and down the country in courts in every town/city if a defendant has a reasonable arguement to keep their licence. This avenue is open to anyone who is persistent enough to pursue it. Some are lucky, some are not. The fact he is a serving Officer has little to do with it! A milkman with the same mitigation would have succeeded in the same circumstances I suspect.
With regard to the Ch/Insp drink driving, the decision I believe, was at odds with the policy that is issued by CC's and the Home Office. Personally I think it was wrong but this man will suffer as a result of his punishment in any case.
I accept everything you say. However, in bald headline terms it looks as if the Policeman got off lighter than the civvie.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff