Morally bankrupt - or just self-serving?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by pombsen-armchair-warrior, Aug 20, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting article in the Mail today concerning a police superintendent caught speeding and who was given a verbal caution by the officer who caught her. This decision was (rightly) subsequently reviewed by a senior police officer who sought advice from the CPS over whether she should face prosecution, and she ended up in court.

    Her defence is that her own Force's speed cameras are not accurate. Strikes me that she is typical of the self-serving, self-obsessed creature that is becoming more and more prevalent in the public services. Superintendent my ass.

    'Speed guns don't work,' says police superintendent clocked driving at 79mph | Mail Online
  2. Does that mean that they're inaccurate for other drivers too?
  3. I'm not sure her Chief Constable would be too happy if this results in a load of appeals against past convictions. Shows very poor judgement but she's probably banking on her gender to keep her career safe.
  4. Very morally bankrupt. Willing to question the legality of a crime for her own interests but feels free to let others be convicted by it although she believes it's wrong.

    Also, her insistance that they're inaccurate shouldn't negate the argument that she was (allegedly) 29mph over the legal speed limit anyway.
    So she might win an argument that they're, say, 10% inaccurate, which will in her case have an impact of +/- 7.9mph. So she'll still have to argue that she should be aquitted although by her own admission she'd been doing 71.1mph.

    PS. I would too. :policecap: Yum Yum!
  5. Bloody Sickening.

    Espicially considering one of our lads at work has just been done for 9 points by the fuzz for jumping a red light in a fire engine on the way to a fire!
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Nothing new, I'm afraid. This from leafy Surrey recently:

    The Thinking Policeman: A Police Officer's Blog: Are These Senior Officers Corrupt?

    "Two Surrey Police senior officers have stood trial recently for misconduct in public office. The trials were held separately at Winchester Crown Court and there was a ban on reporting. Both officers have been found not guilty and so there has been very little subsequent press coverage. A little bit here.

    Superintendent Johnny Johncox was caught by a speed camera and put a report in suggesting that he was attending an important meeting at HQ. His line manager, Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper, exempted him from any fine and points. It turns out, he was actually going to see his girlfriend.

    Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper was also caught going through a speed camera. He claimed he was attending an important meeting at Epsom and was late. The person he was supposedly meeting at Epsom had no record of any such meeting and the meeting was put in Mr Harper's electronic diary after the date. Assistant Chief Constable Ian Dyson exempted Mr Harper from any fine and points on the basis that he was attending this important meeting.

    A Court has decided that these officers have not committed any criminal offences. They remain suspended from duty and will undoubtedly face internal discipline proceedings. They are likely to be sacked.

    Dismissal is a severe punishment, but I find it very intriguing that if we assumed their original excuses for speeding were correct, why were they ever given exemptions? I can assure you that junior officers would not be given an exemption for attending a meeting. It appears that the rules are different when you reach the dizzy heights of the senior officer's dining club. Next time you get done for speeding tell the police you were attending an important meeting. I am sure they will let you off too. "
  7. Are these speed guns not calibrated and certified, to avoid the motorist being able to use this arguement. Another example of people in public office feeling that they should not be held responsible for there actions
  8. Nothing new here. Senior officers have always thought that they were above the rules that ordinary mortals and lower ranks have to obey. The trouble is that street duty plod is getting the same attitude.
  9. The job is hard enough with ever decreasing public support without complete knobs dragging it through the mire. Even if convicted seriously unlikely to lose her job but maybe the next rank although ticks boxes. this attitude does creep down to the newer officers and takes ages to kick out of them. Another massive boost to the job image.............well done that plonk.
  10. ,
    What were the circumstances FF9? I can't believe that the plod would be able to secure a conviction for this, I thought you guys were allowed to jump lights when responding. I'm intrigued, do tell!
  11. This is outrageous, as are all the examples (if true) posted by OldSnowy. I've given verbal warnings many times for speeding offences, but if anyone tried to use their rank or status to escape prosecution, they'd be reported, end of. Senior officers using spurious excuses like fictitious meetings just makes it harder for front line officers to do their job.

    Firefighter9, the fixed penalty for speeding is 3 points, not 9, although a magistrate can award whatever they see fit. I can't think of a circumstance where a fire appliance would be pulled over whilst on a blue light call, maybe there was more to this incident than you've posted, such as an RTC caused by reckless speed?
  12. Incredible. Obviously she was too busy navigating her rise to power when the leadership training was being given. This is unfortunately more and more common here in America as well. I call it the "blame game" as fewer and fewer people, much less those in positions of authority, have the moral courage to "man" or "woman" up and accept responsibility for their own poor decisions. My personal view is this is but another evidence of the overall moral decline in our respective nations and to me (I know others will go into their usual apoplexy at my mention of it) it is a spiritual problem.
  13. Is this one of those "religion is the answer to everything" posts?
  14. The gatso "guns" are a little inaccurate. It is to do with the Doppler shift either a moving object coming towards you or going away from you. Saying that, whilst a Professor of being really clever combined with Physics might convince a court ( and has in the 1970's...sorry no link), it is only a little inaccurate. Effectively, she is banged to rights given the excess over the speed limit. So, is she morally bankrupt..YES. I am rather miffed with the plod who let her off. Smacks a bit too much of rank consciousness and thinking with his crotch. So, would I? Well, no. I'd be too frightened of her.
  15. Erm...I don't think so but if you see it that way I do humbly apologiz(s)e.

    In like fashion, I suppose I could ask if yours is one of those "there is no God, Christians are weak sisters, oh those "God botherers again" etc. etc" posts?