Another bent copper

"Another" bent copper?
From the thread title I assume this story is just one more in a long list of similar examples. I must have missed that thread.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
You could call it stupidity, but that would be trivialising it. Human beings are fallible and never perfect and even in a profession where integrity is essential, like policing, there's still a very small number who let the rest down.
Click to expand...
But Johnny it is a trivial matter. The crime doesn't change because he is a bobbie. It is a trivial crime.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
You could call it stupidity, but that would be trivialising it. Human beings are fallible and never perfect and even in a profession where integrity is essential, like policing, there's still a very small number who let the rest down.
Click to expand...
I like that way of looking at it, however such a sensible outlook seems to be rare these days. A lot of people would view this as clear evidence pointing to the fact that the Police are corrupt.
 
Jostler said:
Out of interest, what were you wearing to make them think that? I just want to know for part of a social psychology course I might decide to take in the future.
Click to expand...

Nothing out of the ordinary. Tshirt, jeans and trainers as I have done for the last 50 odd years. Maybe I looked like someone in the police. No idea.
 
Laughing said:
But Johnny it is a trivial matter. The crime doesn't change because he is a bobbie. It is a trivial crime.
Click to expand...
The implications for him are greater than the majority of other profressions, that's a fact. Its overwhelmingly likely he will be sacked.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
The implications for him are greater than the majority of other profressions, that's a fact. Its overwhelmingly likely he will be sacked.
Click to expand...
And quite rightly so it's a betrayal of trust. It doesn't mean, however, that he would take a bung or is more generally corrupt. But it does make those scenarios more likely, which is why, If found guilty, he will and should be fired.
 
NoloBoro said:
I like that way of looking at it, however such a sensible outlook seems to be rare these days. A lot of people would view this as clear evidence pointing to the fact that the Police are corrupt.
Click to expand...
Some members of the police are 'corrupt, after all they are drawn from society as a whole so its inevitable. But its a very small minority, so labelling all polce officers as corrupt is simply inaccurate, of course.
 
Laughing said:
And quite rightly so it's a betrayal of trust. It doesn't mean, however, that he would take a bung or is more generally corrupt. But it does make those scenarios more likely, which is why, If found guilty, he will and should be fired.
Click to expand...
Suppose it depends on your definition of corruption. This isnt a case i would put in that bracket, but it is dishonest.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Suppose it depends on your definition of corruption. This isnt a case i would put in that bracket, but it is dishonest.
Click to expand...
No I agree as I said earlier its not a big deal... Oh I was told off for an earlier post that was a joke. In any event its hardly the height of corruption but it makes corruption more likely.
 
If he’s convicted he will definitely be sacked.

I don’t even think it’s about the “he’s likely to be susceptible to corruption” etc.

It’s more about, whatever he says or does could be questioned in court and ultimately found as inadmissible.

Finds some drugs / weapons in a house. Defence Barrister will have a field day - “Were did you find the article in question Pc Donut?”, “Under the bed”, “Would you class yourself as an honest person PC Donut?”, “Yes”, “What about the donuts you thieving bar steward?”

How can he make a statement relating to what he found, how someone was acting, what someone said, what he said, what he did, why he did it etc etc.

If convicted his integrity is ruined and therefore he is of no use to the police force.
 
Heam44 said:
If he’s convicted he will definitely be sacked.

I don’t even think it’s about the “he’s likely to be susceptible to corruption” etc.

It’s more about, whatever he says or does could be questioned in court and ultimately found as inadmissible.

Finds some drugs / weapons in a house. Defence Barrister will have a field day - “Were did you find the article in question Pc Donut?”, “Under the bed”, “Would you class yourself as an honest person PC Donut?”, “Yes”, “What about the donuts you thieving bar steward?”

How can he make a statement relating to what he found, how someone was acting, what someone said, what he said, what he did, why he did it etc etc.

If convicted his integrity is ruined and therefore he is of no use to the police force.
Click to expand...
Whilst that made me laugh, it's not very accurate, switching the price tag on a box of donuts would be absolutely not be allowed to be mentioned in a jury trial and would result in a mistrial. Though it was very funny. I didn't know his name was donut what a coincidence that is.
 
Laughing said:
Whilst that made me laugh, it's not very accurate, switching the price tag on a box of donuts would be absolutely not be allowed to be mentioned in a jury trial and would result in a mistrial. Though it was very funny. I didn't know his name was donut what a coincidence that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m pretty certain his name isn’t PC Donut. And of course that conversation isn’t going to happen in a trial.

Point I was trying to make is how can the police use ‘PC Donuts’ statements, witness testimony etc knowing he is proven to be dishonest.

Also I’d imagine the Judge may (at the request of the defence in any trial where ‘PC Donut’ was a witness) exclude any evidence from ‘PC Donut’ due to his incompetence as a witness due to his previous ‘dishonesty’ related conviction.
 
Heam44 said:
Yeah I’m pretty certain his name isn’t PC Donut. And of course that conversation isn’t going to happen in a trial.

Point I was trying to make is how can the police use ‘PC Donuts’ statements, witness testimony etc knowing he is proven to be dishonest.

Also I’d imagine the Judge may (at the request of the defence in any trial where ‘PC Donut’ was a witness) exclude any evidence from ‘PC Donut’ due to his incompetence as a witness due to his previous ‘dishonesty’ related conviction.
Click to expand...
Any criminal or disciplinary conviction would have to be declared in any case where he was a witness, so in effect his credibility would be shot. All a moot point though because I think he'll be sacked.
 
Jonny if found guilty he will be sacked you cannot be a serving police officer with a criminal conviction, I am not sure about a spent conviction
 
Happens in work places up and down the country, he must daft as asres for doing it. However it isnt the crime of the century, he will regret it for the rest of his life paying the price for being stupid.

A story that shows how not throw something that you cant put a price on integrity, I bet his family and friends are gutted that hes been so daft.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Any criminal or disciplinary conviction would have to be declared in any case where he was a witness, so in effect his credibility would be shot. All a moot point though because I think he'll be sacked.
Click to expand...

That’s the point I’m making, that’s why he will be sacked.

There’s no ‘think’ about it, he will definitely be sacked if found guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top