drink driver caught on her own dash cam

[Scott_F]

They also know they can keep their job without worry. If they don't come down, there is little deterrent.
worl
Exactly why society has so many problems with criminals as people can get away with lenient sentences.

If you are someone who is happy for known criminals to be in charge of a school, good luck to you.

I'm glad the reality is as this teacher almost certainly will be sacked.

If you are someone who is suggesting that every employed person convicted of a criminal offence should also face losing their livelihood then I'm concerned.

This case seems shocking as we can all see it being played out on cam footage but unfortunately, in the wider scheme, it's actually a relatively minor offence and didn't even lead to a custodial sentence.

We already have a large workless criminal class in this country and if you dismiss those who have made mistakes that are unrelated to their job then you risk inflating that class yet further. She has been judged and punished by the court and doesn't need to be punished for a second time. Sitting around on benefits will not do her or the taxpayer any good at all. Far better that she learns from her mistake and passes on what she has learned to the children in the school.

 

[m2287]

If you are someone who is suggesting that every employed person convicted of a criminal offence should also face losing their livelihood then I'm concerned.

This case seems shocking as we can all see it being played out on cam footage but unfortunately, in the wider scheme, it's actually a relatively minor offence and didn't even lead to a custodial sentence.

We already have a large workless criminal class in this country and if you dismiss those who have made mistakes that are unrelated to their job then you risk inflating that class yet further. She has been judged and punished by the court and doesn't need to be punished for a second time. Sitting around on benefits will not do her or the taxpayer any good at all. Far better that she learns from her mistake and passes on what she has learned to the children in the school.

Actually “minor offences” are those that are dealt with by FPN, drink driving is considered a “serious offence” and has to be dealt with in court.

 

[Scott_F]

Actually “minor offences” are those that are dealt with by FPN, drink driving is considered a “serious offence” and has to be dealt with in court.

Rather than motoring offences in particular, I was referring to the wider context of criminal behaviour in general.

 

[John]

If you are someone who is suggesting that every employed person convicted of a criminal offence should also face losing their livelihood then I'm concerned.

This case seems shocking as we can all see it being played out on cam footage but unfortunately, in the wider scheme, it's actually a relatively minor offence and didn't even lead to a custodial sentence.

We already have a large workless criminal class in this country and if you dismiss those who have made mistakes that are unrelated to their job then you risk inflating that class yet further. She has been judged and punished by the court and doesn't need to be punished for a second time. Sitting around on benefits will not do her or the taxpayer any good at all. Far better that she learns from her mistake and passes on what she has learned to the children in the school.

Can you quote where I stated that as I don't recall suggesting everyone should lose their job if convicted of a criminal offence?

This is a person entrusted with the future of our impressionable young people. Do I want a figurehead of the school who is charged with drink driving to be the role model? No.

I'm glad you find drink driving minor given what could have resulted.

You've twisted this around to try and win an argument which you have already lost.

 

[John]

Rather than motoring offences in particular, I was referring to the wider context of criminal behaviour in general.

Except we are talking about a criminal offence, not a motoring offence.

Big difference.

 

[Scott_F]

Except we are talking about a criminal offence, not a motoring offence.

Big difference.

Exactly.

 

[John]

Exactly.

Right, so when talking about the head of a school and a criminal offence, they should be out the door.

 

[m2287]

Rather than motoring offences, I was referring to the context of criminal behaviour in general.

Fair enough, your personal view is yours. Mine differs, mainly because my uncle (a pedestrian walking down the footpath near his house) was run over and killed by a drunk driver when I was a kid.

 

[John]

Fair enough, your personal view is yours. Mine differs, mainly because my uncle (a pedestrian walking down the footpath near his house) was run over and killed by a drunk driver when I was a kid.

This is part of my argument.

Again, anyone who finds drink driving acceptable is slightly unhinged.

 

[m2287]

This is part of my argument.

Again, anyone who finds drink driving acceptable is slightly unhinged.

My other uncle in America was hit by a drunk driver when he was on a motorbike, paralyzed from the waist down (before I was born).

 

[John]

My other uncle in America was hit by a drunk driver when he was on a motorbike, paralyzed from the waist down (before I was born).

I've never really been one for "well, nothing happened so everything is fine".

The fact you got shtfaced and decided to drive a car means you deserve the book thrown at you.

It's too late once someone is dead from being struck to say "oh yes, so they did kill someone".

It needs stamping out before it gets to that stage.

 

[m2287]

The only “excuse” I can think of is if someone has genuinely been spiked.

 

[John]

The only “excuse” I can think of is if someone has genuinely been spiked.

I guess it is possible.

But unless you have a high tolerance to alcohol because you've drunk a hell of a lot over the years (like those people who can act normally and almost seem to drive normally with a blood alcohol reading of something like 140), you can normally taste / feel alcohol. I know I certainly can after one typical strength beer.

I can't comment if you are spiked with drugs and then drink as I have no idea how it feels.

I suppose in this situation it is unfortunate but at the very least, I would like to think you would know you are not fit to drive.

 

[Scott_F]

Can you quote where I stated that as I don't recall suggesting everyone should lose their job if convicted of a criminal offence?.

Let's just say that you were somewhat ambiguous....

They also know they can keep their job without worry. If they don't come down, there is little deterrent.

Exactly why society has so many problems with criminals as people can get away with lenient sentences.

If you are someone who is happy for known criminals to be in charge of a school, good luck to you.

So who exactly are "they" ? Criminals in general ? Criminals who receive lenient sentences ? Criminals who work in schools ? One minute you are talking about role models in schools and the next about the levels of criminality in wider society.

You've twisted this around to try and win an argument which you have already lost.

I have neither twisted nor lost anything, I simply have a view that differs from yours. And since this incident happened months ago and I have yet to hear that the woman has been dismissed then it's my view that prevails not yours.

 

[Scott_F]

I'm glad you find drink driving minor given what could have resulted.

Fair enough, your personal view is yours. Mine differs, mainly because my uncle (a pedestrian walking down the footpath near his house) was run over and killed by a drunk driver when I was a kid.

I'm not condoning, excusing or trivialising this woman's actions.

However, aside from a ban which is standard in all drink driving cases, she received 150 hours community service, £85 costs and an £85 surcharge. In the greater scheme, I'm afraid this would be well down the list when looking at offences in terms of their gravity. We currently have nearly 100,000 people in prison who have committed much more serious offences and many more who should be inside too but there simply isn't room.

So whilst she was stupid and deserved to be sentenced, in the wider context courts have to deal with far worse offenders every day and a great many of them also receive sentences that people feel are lenient.

And of course, most of them don't record their transgressions on dash cams.....

 

[John]

So who exactly are "they" ? Criminals in general ? Criminals who receive lenient sentences ? Criminals who work in schools ? One minute you are talking about role models in schools and the next about the levels of criminality in wider society.

This merely serves to move the discussion away from this individual... and is not relevant in the context of the op.

I have neither twisted nor lost anything, I simply have a view that differs from yours. And since this incident happened months ago and I have yet to hear that the woman has been dismissed then its my view that prevails not yours.

You've tried to twist the debate round to all criminality which this post isn't about. Suffice to say in my view, anyone in a position of any serious responsibility cannot hold down a job where they are not responsible.

You've lost the original argument on the basis that a conviction itself constitutes a dismissal offence:

As already stated, I'm not at all sure that the conviction itself constitutes a dismissal offence.

I've already demonstrated with evidence a conviction constitutes a dismissal offence. If you search, you will find other examples which I've already read about and not just in schools.

We may never hear what happened to this individual but given there are documents on the Internet from UK government websites showing the process which is followed, a "conviction" will result in a teacher employee's dismissal for bringing them into disrepute, it's a highly likely outcome so your view does not prevail I'm afraid.

This is not exclusive to schools and will happen where such evidence exists.

People have been sacked for slagging off their employer online, for inappropriate conduct etc. etc. the list goes on.

I am certainly glad our views differ on drink driving not being a serious offence.

 

[m2287]

I'm not condoning, excusing or trivialising this woman's actions.

However, aside from a ban which is standard in all drink driving cases, she received 150 hours community service, £85 costs and an £85 surcharge. In the greater scheme, I'm afraid this would be well down the list when looking at offences in terms of their gravity. We currently have nearly 100,000 people in prison who have committed much more serious offences and many more who should be inside too but there simply isn't room.

So whilst she was stupid and deserved to be sentenced, in the wider context courts have to deal with far worse offenders every day and a great many of them also receive sentences that many feel are lenient.

I understand and expect that you don’t condone her actions however after making such a wreckless decision I do not think that she should be able to work within a position of power. Especially overseeing vulnerable people/children.

In no means should she not be allowed to work but the position that she is in requires someone of sound mind, and to get in a car when she was that drunk she has proven that she isn’t!

The police report states “The scary thing is this isn’t a particularly unusual or extraordinary example of drink-driving; the driver has displayed a number of characteristics which you would typically expect. What you wouldn’t expect, of course, is for someone in such a state to get behind the wheel of their car.”. I ask myself if I could trust her wholeheartedly with my children and I couldn’t, could you?

 

[John]

I'm not condoning, excusing or trivialising this woman's actions.

it's actually a relatively minor offence and didn't even lead to a custodial sentence.

-----

However, aside from a ban which is standard in all drink driving cases, she received 150 hours community service, £85 costs and an £85 surcharge. In the greater scheme, I'm afraid this would be well down the list when looking at offences in terms of their gravity. We currently have nearly 100,000 people in prison who have committed much more serious offences and many more who should be inside too but there simply isn't room.

So whilst she was stupid and deserved to be sentenced, in the wider context courts have to deal with far worse offenders every day and a great many of them also receive sentences that people feel are lenient.

This isn't what this debate is about. We are talking about the dismissal of a headteacher who has been convicted of criminal offence.

And of course, most of them don't record their transgressions on dash cams.....

That further serves to demonstrate the stupidity of this individual, who would have got caught anyway...

 

[Scott_F]

This merely serves to move the discussion away from this individual... and is not relevant in the context of the op.

Yet remains relevant when challenging your views and assertions.

You've tried to twist the debate round to all criminality which this post isn't about. Suffice to say in my view, anyone in a position of any serious responsibility cannot hold down a job where they are not responsible.

You've lost the original argument on the basis that a conviction itself constitutes a dismissal offence "". I've already demonstrated with evidence a conviction constitutes a dismissal offence. If you search, you will find other examples which I've already read about and not just in schools.

We may never hear what happened to this individual but given there are documents on the Internet from UK government websites showing the process which is followed, a "conviction" will result in a teacher employee's dismissal for bringing them into disrepute, it's a highly likely outcome so your view does not prevail I'm afraid.

This is not exclusive to schools and will happen where such evidence exists.

People have been sacked for slagging off their employer online, for inappropriate conduct etc. etc. the list goes on.

Whereas all of this may well be the case, with such widespread media attention devoted to this incident you can be sure that her dismissal would have been reported on as a follow-up to the original story. So regardless of what you feel that you have demonstrated in theory, in practice the woman currently remains in post a full four months later and it is therefore my view that still holds sway.

I am certainly glad our views differ on drink driving not being a serious offence.

Not really the point I was making but I'll let it go.

 

[John]

Yet remains relevant when challenging your views and assertions.

Not when it extends to all criminality. The fact remains any criminality will likely result in dismissal, regardless of anyone's views.

Whereas all of this may well be the case, with such widespread media attention devoted to this incident you can be sure that her dismissal would have been reported on as a follow-up to the original story. So regardless of what you feel that you have demonstrated in theory, in practice the woman currently remains in post a full four months later and it is therefore my view that still holds sway.

Not necessarily as it is an envitable outcome. Bit like reporting on a murder and not the follow up. Would anyone be poised on their seat waiting...

Not really the point I was making but I'll let it go.

Let's just say that you were somewhat ambiguous....

... in that case.