|
I had dinner once with the father of a friend of my daughter. I ordered a pint, he ordered a juce. I then discovered he was a met police traffic officer. (We both had a long drive home). Made me feel very humble and guilty and was a real lesson.
|
|
|
|
He wont lose his pension..and why should he, having paid 11% of his salary into it for 20 years...
|
|
He might lose his pension but he might lose his employers
|
|
.... chances are he will be sacked....I dont think a chief constable alive would keep him..although that wasnt always the case....pension will be deferred until 60
|
...I dont think a chief constable alive would keep him...
I don't think that's correct on the drink driving conviction alone - this is the first related article that came up in a quick Google:
thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=561452006
In fact you can still apply to join the Police if you have a drink driving conviction - the only specific offence mentioned as causing exclusion is Causing Death by Reckless Driving.
|
|
|
|
He wont lose his pension..and why should he having paid 11% of his salary into it for 20 years...
Then they should just refund his contributions + interest at the appropriate rates and lose the employers contributions!!!
Yes I now that sounds harsh but what if..........................
|
|
If he's sacked (rather than resigns), he will lose a significant portion of it.
|
This thread is really rather like being transported back in time.
Wrinkled old hags, knitting, cackling, joking and proding each other as a member of the aristocracy looses its head in to the basket. What a pathetic holier than though attitude.
A human being made a mistake. He is not the first and he wont be the last. Oh and by the way
coppers are human beings. Remember that.
(oh except Thames Valley police)
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
most police forces have their own private clubs for drinking its like salesmen you need a drink at the end of the day to unwind,he was wrong and has been caught but nobodies perfect
|
|
I think you'll find most Police clubs have been closed now. They certainly have in my force (sorry...service).
|
|
|
|
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
TVM, with respect without getting into a slanging match, would you be writing the same post had he killed some innocent child, there is a very thin line between what actually happened and what could have happened.
Oh, and I do not accept your accusation that I and a few others have a "pathetic holier than though attitude" as you put it.
|
there is a very thin line between what actually happened and what could have happened.
Narrow perhaps but crucial.
The punitives among us often come up with this. 'Perhaps nothing did happen, but how would you have felt if... etc etc.'
The answer surely is: 'I don't know, because that didn't happen.' Are the courts and police to pursue us all on a permanent basis because some of the things we have done might under different circumstances have resulted in injury or inconvenience to innocent third parties?
The plod in the case at issue here wasn't seen driving dangerously, and I would bet that he hadn't been. He was seen parking untidily.
Ever done that mal? And did someone rush up and breathalyse you?
On the whole I agree with TVM although I have myself avoided the polemical tone he adopts here. It's an age thing.
|
|
|
Mal, with equal respect, and equally without malice, the "murdered child syndrome" compliments and matches the cackling hags reference perfectly. Similar references were used to deamonise pink fluffy dice stormtroopers, with equally little basis in truth or probability.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Er, steady on TVM. Invading armies are always demonised. It's in the nature of things.
And the one you choose to mention was demonised, shall we say, less unfairly than some.
|
Lud, as a reference its just as extreme as suggesting that the errant police man was sure to murder a child had he not been caught.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Yeah... but I don't think it was claimed that he was certain to kill a child if not stopped. It's less positive than that, more like 'what if?'. No need to muddy the waters with ott stuff... sorry. We are in agreement on the basic point here I feel.
|
TVM, I can see where you and Lud are coming from considering what I believe are your backgrounds ( police and law?) and can agree in part but at the same time can not change my views given the thought of what might have happened in this case and a lot of other "what if" cases.
What really got my hackles up was your line "What a pathetic holier than though attitude". I'm not really like that, just got my own views like any one else, I'm sure you would really like me :-)).
Speaking of thin lines, wonder how many perpetrators of violence have escaped a murder conviction had it not been for advances in technology and medicine.
|
Don't know about TVM mal, but you flatter me whichever you think I am!
Of course one has to take your point that some forms of behaviour are so blatantly irresponsible as to deserve sanction. If, in other words, the probability of one of these child massacre episodes is significantly increased by the behaviour concerned.
Again, I can't speak for anyone else but I am convinced that cases of borderline drink driving with drivers mature in years and experience are not usually anything like that. There is no significant increase in the risk of crashes. So I myself do not feel censorious about the mere fact of being over the limit.
If the person drives like a lunatic and causes mayhem it's another matter of course.
|
Mal,
if you are completely without sin in any way, then I humbly applaud you and apologise, but i doubt we will ever meet.
If however you have sinned, then welcome to the holier than tho club, and when we meet down below in the hot place i shall buy you a pint. Lud and I will have the Leffe (blonde) on ice ready for you.
As for the rest of you, I do not withdraw the Madame guillotine reference.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
well put tvm... let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone, i bet there aint one person on this forum who hasnt had a shandy too many and drove home... i will put my hand up to that one but i dont drink now any way (cholestrol high advised to quit and smoking too)
|
" I bet there ain't one person on this forum "
Plenty of other sins, but not that one - I can guarantee you.
|
Whilst I post rarely I do read the forum and there is unfortunately a faction that is, if not holier than thou, prone to making stuff up.
We or rather you were all talking about a cop who drove drink and got caught.
The 'ah yeah but what if he had run over a child what then eh eh' crowd pitched in but let me give you another version. Whilst driving home drunk he spots a child being abducted by sex slave trade murders and saves her. So what is his drunk driving now somehow better or even justified?
Just an idea but it might be easier to stick to what actually happened.
|
|
had he killed some innocent child
Oh no! Not the "think of the children" argument.
Unfortunately more get killed by people who aren't over the limit.
|
>i bet there aint one person on this forum who hasnt had a shandy too many and drove home
Er... I'd take that bet on and win!
|
>i bet there aint one person on this forum who hasnt had a shandy too many and drove home Er... I'd take that bet on and win!
polo girl i will pass your details on to the Vatican and insist that you are canonised forth with
|
...and I'll pass yours on to Crimestoppers and ensure that you're stopped next time you come out of your local ;)
|
...and I'll pass yours on to Crimestoppers and ensure that you're stopped next time you come out of your local ;)
I don't drink, read the previous
|
Dare I say it.........I never have done and never will drink and drive, why, because I do not drink alcohol, why, because I do not like the taste of alcohol in any form.
Yes I know......... I have been told many times I will never know what I am missing!!.
|
Oh dear - its looking bad for you mal, unless you can suggest you have broken the speed limit, then Lud and I will have to give your space in Hells Bar to someone else.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Mmmmmm TVM you got me there, I may have slipped over the speed limit just a teeny number of times so there is hope yet.
|
Hmm St Pologirl of basingstoke,,,,,
It does not quite sing.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
looking to lock this if it wanders into the realms of fantasy - PU
|
C'mon don't lock the thread...
I don't much like the holier than thou attitude myself (not saying anyone here has taken it either tho). Which was why in my OP I refrained from saying exactly what it meant (or what I thought it meant).
If anything a case like this is worth looking at as it shows the whole DD thing in a more rational way. Might even inspire a little sympathy for those who have made a genuine miscalculation. You can imagine this cop before he was busted for this offence responding to people's excuses for DD-perhaps caught the morning afer, or maybe a little over. 'But I only had a couple' - No Excuse. 'I haven't had a drink since 11pm last night!' - No Excuse.
Of course there's no excuse, but we're only human. Any news story like this is always going to provoke discussion as it wasn't just the man on the street that got caught.
|
There shouldn't be any genuine miscalculations though, CP. The concept of "I'm driving, so I wont have a drink" seems to still not be getting through to many people, regardless of whether they're a police officer or not.
|
That "concept" is not law tho PG. There is no zero alchohol law. Nor should there be.
Drink driving is no longer a sufficient problem for there to be any concern on the part of our population or law enforcement community. It is also no longer a sufficient problem for there to be such vehement outbursts that it seems to spark off.
And anyway - there is now such a lack of police enforcement on our roads, due to the lack of resources, that soon only offences that can be monitored by camera will be illegal.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
there has to be a balance between:
1-criminality (out and out crime),
2-breaking the law (minor offences),
3-doing something that some think is unwise and
4-being totally without fault
e.g.
1-stealing a car & driving like a complete clown whilst ripped as a parrot,
2-minor speeding
3- driving with half a shandy in you
4- driving totally sober at the speed limit
obviously no. 4 is fine....... but my concern is if the others get muddied together, then laws can come into disrepute, because those that would only ever do 2 or 3...... (and yes no, 2 is wrong) are increasingly in danger of being treated like the committer of no. 1, which in my opinion is wrong........
lock no.1 away as long as you like, we should all be trying to persecute THEM
give no.2 a suitable realistic penalty, but totally unlike 1 and not very harsh
and leave no.3 alone
increasingly nowadays the seriousness of the offence is being pushed ever higher, so people committing minor speeding offences are castigated and there is an ever increasing aim to ensure no one drinks anything alcoholic at all and drives, despite it not being an offence if in moderation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
