...not for going out, getting drunk and making a disgusting spectacle of herself, shocking as that is. But for this:
PC Shearer denied the allegation to her colleagues, but was found by a police disciplinary panel in Middlesbrough to have lied and tried to hide the truth by changing her story about what had happened. Allegations of discreditable conduct and breaches of honesty and integrity were proven.
Yet the officer escaped with a written warning and was allowed to keep her job with Cleveland Police.What sort of absolute idiot made such a decision?
Ogheneruona Iguyovwe, the panel's independent chairman...
Oh!
...said: 'This officer is 24 years old. There is scope for her to be rehabilitated, there is scope for her to set the record straight and to begin on a new path.'
Listen, Ogheneruona, it might be ok for police officers to be liars in your ancestral homeland, but in England, we expect better.
The controversial decision yesterday prompted Cleveland Chief Constable Mark Webster – who said her actions are 'incompatible' with his force's standards – to intervene. He said he was concerned about the outcome and 'legal options' were now being considered.
Good! Because what sort of job could she now do with the police anyway?
Olivia Checa-Dover, representing the force, told the panel its findings that she had been dishonest meant she was now 'undeployable' as an officer. As she lied while being questioned on oath, that would have to be disclosed to defence lawyers in any future investigations she carried out, the barrister said.
You can just imagine it, can't you?
In evidence her boss Inspector Christian Duree said: 'She deals with members of the public exceptionally well.'
Perhaps you should be investigated too, then. Or are shop staff not 'members of the public' to you?
9 comments:
Its just the police looking after their own interests. Can't have police officers being thrown out with no pension just for a little bit of lying now can we? Where might it end??????
Jesus Christ. When these levels of corruption and dishonesty cannot trigger a plod sacking, the entire farce could find itself completely useless in court. A potential recruit for your SAPS then, Mr Iguyovwe?
What sort of PC goes into Urban Outfitters anyway?
Urinating in a dressing cubicle is criminal damage. The acid in urine, even if it has been 'diluted' by the amount of alcohol this lush consumed, will require cleaning, and possible replacement of the floor covering. Why wasn't she arrested and charged for this offence? Can you imagination this tart being sent to deal with a similar offence? Drink and disorderly is also a prosecutable offence. Why wasn't she dealt with for this?
As a, now retired, thank goodness, Police officer, I would have refused to patrol with this creature. Sack her, and perhaps the Police Force (not a Service) can start to try and regain some form of respect from the general public.
Penseivat
Alternatively,
a person not at work, that may not be used to alchohol, drank too much on a possibly empty stomach, was desperate for the toilet, and had no idea what they were doing, had a wee, and was incredibly embarrassed about what they had done when shown. It's not like they drove a car drunk, which is not always a sackable offence for the Police.
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/zoe-cullen-gareth-morgan-tribunal-2672549
https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/officers-drink-driving-158-20/
"police officer was given a final written warning after blowing 88mg"
or drunk in charge
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/police-officer-found-drunk-car-16702912
or got caught speeding 5 times like the Nottingham PCC.
Yes they made a mistake, but unless there is a previous or second incident, this should not ruin someones career.
If you want to get angry with someone, start here.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4177642.pub-bosss-anger-over-closure-of-york-toilets/
"a person not at work, that may not be used to alchohol, drank too much on a possibly empty stomach, was desperate for the toilet, and had no idea what they were doing, had a wee, and was incredibly embarrassed about what they had done when shown. It's not like they drove a car drunk, which is not always a sackable offence for the Police."
So if any of that were true, why did she not admit to the offence and provide the mitigating circumstances you posit, rather than lying about the whole affair, under oath no less? Thats the important bit, being found to have lied under oath. Bit of a problem for a police officer don't you think? How on earth could her word be relied on in court ever again.
'I put it to the jury that the PC who gave evidence against my client is a known liar, and that her evidence of having seen my client commit an offence is just such another lie'
My prediction-she won't be allowed to be front-line in case she gets into the evidence chain. When we do a set of case papers for a court case where the defendant is going not guilty we have to declare if any of the police or witnesses have conviction, cautions or impending disciplinary matters.
She will be put behind a desk answering the phone, she will hate it, then claim discrimination and get paid off in a few years.
Jaded
Sobers, I stand corrected. In a similar vein, re-reading the drunk-in-charge case I quoted, once the Policewoman said she had no intention to drive, she had to be believed or she would have been a liar and any previous evidence she had given could have been questioned. In this case, trying to get away with something that was so easily proved was just arrogant, stupid or both. If she had told a better lie, like "I sneezed and some wee came out", she might have got away with it. Also the "so drunk she didn't know what she was doing" doesn't work either, or you could use that to get away with anything.
"Its just the police looking after their own interests."
And it stinks worse than that changing room...
"What sort of PC goes into Urban Outfitters anyway?"
Well, she was drunk! 😂
"Sack her, and perhaps the Police Force (not a Service) can start to try and regain some form of respect from the general public."
Shooting more rappers would be more useful!
"Yes they made a mistake, but unless there is a previous or second incident, this should not ruin someones career."
It's not 'a mistake', though, is it? It's the calculated - if futile - dishonesty, as Sobers points out. It makes her a total liability.
"My prediction-she won't be allowed to be front-line in case she gets into the evidence chain."
I expect the police dog kennels always needs cleaners...
Post a Comment