When does having a criminal record have any merit

Discussion in 'Jobs (Discussion)' started by very-old-git, Mar 11, 2009.

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. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said officers convicted of crimes would not automatically lose their jobs.

    Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, told the newspaper: "Where an officer has committed misconduct, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken including a reprimand, fine and reduction in rank or dismissal. Each case is judged on its merits."


    When the Gobment own up to allowing the police forces to employ 'ex crims' inc burglars etc what chance do we have as a nation to respect the force of law?
     
  2. Whilst I don't think that any officer convicted of an offence (other than a minor traffic one) should keep his job. The whole thing smacks of sensationalism.

    I'm assuming that by convictions the BBC also includes cautions. If these convictions are minor in nature from a period before the officer is appointed and are spent then I can't see the problem. I can't imagine that anyone with an adult conviction for a serious offence would be appointed but it's not outside the realms of possibility that one or two may slip the net in a workforce of over 140,000.

    For example a bloke I've worked with has a caution for Drunk and Disorderly, I assume that he's included in the figures, but he's a good copper and a hard worker.

    The BBC mentions dishonesty offences, this could mean a juvenile caution for shoplifting of a bag of crisps.

    edited to add.

    after a bit of digging I've just found out it doesn't include cautions. Tough my comments still stand. Anyone found guilty of a criminal offence, particularly dishonesty, should be expected to lose their job. But I think a previous conviction of a minor nature shouldn't be a bar to joining but should be looked at.
     
  3. Emigrating to Australia.


    Hat, coat - TAXI!
     
  4. Set a thief to catch a thief?
     
  5. A very immature view I must say. Just how long did you take to mull over this one before typing your rant.

    Do you understand the spectrum of incidents that are included under 'misconduct'? Just think of the cases where you can have administrative action taken against you under AGAI 67 and you are not far off. To suggest it is right to automatically discharge police officers for misconduct is infantile.
     
  6. A very immature view I must say. Just how long did you take to mull over this one before typing your rant.

    Do you understand the spectrum of incidents that are included under 'misconduct'? Just think of the cases where you can have administrative action taken against you under AGAI 67 and you are not far off. To suggest it is right to automatically discharge police officers for misconduct is infantile.

    Exactly ! I have a speeding ticket from 2002, should I have been sacked as well?? Oh, for info, this is nothing to do with the BBC, this is the Lib Dems trying to disprove they're a bunch of totally out of touch cnuts
     
  7. This really is sad sensationalism on the part of these politicos. Each force has always had its own policy relating to misconduct. Of course, this includes the fact that you can get off with the offence but still go through a disciplinary and lose pay or rank and so on.

    Most forces would err to allowing a spent conviction for many traffic offences, drunk and disorderly and sometimes drunk driving (couple of points above the legal limit). They will also allow an officer to keep his job if convicted of many traffic offences whilst on duty because the offence of say driving without due care and attention , for example, is an offence of negligence rather than criminal intent( e.g. when following a stolen vehicle). Poaching was also traditionally treated with leniency although this was and probably still is the only range of offences linked to dishonesty that one could get away with.

    As a general rule, an officer over the limit for alcohol would be sacked as would offences specifically covered by the the theft act 1968 and the definition of theft.

    One last thing, when these people talk of criminal, they use this word as a catch all. To put this whole load of swollocks into perspective, if a Constable gets a speeding ticket whilst off duty or on if needed, it is reportable and counts as a conviction because he is , quite rightly , in a notifiable occupation. I myself have a conviction ( pleaded quilty) for due care and attention. I was allowed to keep my job but not a lot of my money and my position on C.I.D.

    Someone above said it takes a thief to catch a thief. Probably correct. The key difference is that the ones in the uniform have their own standards one of which is not doing the dirty on others. Please put this into perspective.