Not in the Public interest to prosecute Chief Inspector...

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Airfix, Nov 27, 2008.

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. Doesn't mean she's not in the sh!t with work.
    From the article she might have been trying to prove a point on a subject that she had taken up with M&S.

    Unorthodox to be sure.
  2. having read the article, looks more like her and her DCI were trying to educate M&S on how easy it was to walk out with alcohol. would be a bit silly for 2 very senior police officers to jeopardise their careers over a bottle of wine. M&S manager responding badly to a bit of constructive criticism, perhaps?
  3. She might just be an alcoholic in denial. Who amongst us can honestly say we've not tried the old 'testing security' number when caught walking out the door with a bottle of dinner under our coats?
  4. Might just be that the Court considered her dead mate (only possible defence witness as well) and her possible loss of job as punishment enough.
  5. You nearly had me there but you're joking right? :wink: (I ferkin' hope so!)

    In fairness had she been on her own in this then I might have agreed with you, at least as far as the closet alky chancing her arm bit goes. But TWO senior coppers conspiring to steal one bottle of wine and willing to jeopardise careers, pensions, families etc and with a certain Prison sentence thrown in? Ridiculous.
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    When would that stop it ordinarily? If there is evidence, she should be tried. Simple.
  7. A strange case indeed
  8. You should just drink it on the premises - why take the risk? :D
  9. My reading is that any punishment would be outweighed by the circumstances she already finds herself in. Her partner appears to have comitted suicide (or have I misread that?) and she will face disciplinary action which may well result in the loss of her job. What would be served by having an expensive trial where, if found guilty, she could well end up with a conditional discharge or community sentence for a first time relative minor offence. Even factoring in her being plod I can't see a judge handing down a custodial sentence.
    So basically they are saying it is not in the public's interest to have an expensive trial, I agree.
  10. expensive trial? what's up with going before a magistrate and being weighed off?
  11. It costs money and time.
  12. Indictable Offence, the accused has a right to jury trial if he/she chooses.

    You can bet that "not in the public interest" means that "although we believe her to be guilty, some smart barrister will drag-up lots of shit about work-pressure etc. and play for the sympathy of the jury. There's a better than even chance that she'll get the jury sympathy and we'll have spent loads of money for no reason. Plus an acquittal would queer the pitch for the much easier to prove discipline offences so let's take that route."
  13. I wonder what her view would be if it was a constable or sergeant who had been caught 'testing the system' of whatever they were doing.
  14. If they were "testing" the system then their should have to be some sort of evidence. Ie. A pre written letter. I wouldn´t underestimate the success of such initives.

    On the flip side, if they are closet alcholics...

    Try her. She is a copper and this just stinks of a cover up the way it has been left. Their should be NO "not in the public interests" let offs. By default letting a scrote off is not in the publics interests.

    For punishment see my post on moving a few tons of sand acros a football pitch :twisted: