Driving Instructor query

[st4]

Okay, but is it morally right? What if the person in question was an MBclub member and he saw this. Okay, say you were done and you read on a forum about your offense and how the bobby was openning up the posibility of letting it go. You'd be probably relieved, but its still a bit close to the bone.

Then there is the very issue surrounding this thread. Sorry, I think its off.

 

[Mark300SL]

Instead I was appalled, offended and disgusted by the content that lied within. A policeman discussing someones offense (that hadn't yet been prosecuted) on a public forum, speculation by the OP and others the outcome of the conviction if successful, and what he/she thought they should do as the guys job depended on it.

I know the OP is only human, but c'mon it ain't fair on the person in question.

Maybe you are just objecting to the fact that some coppers have have a concience ?

To me it shows the OP is giving some thought to the offense, but still insists the offence was absolute, ie no-one would have got away being a chief constable, magistrate or advanced driving instructor
I think it would not be human not to argue their defence mentally with yourself.
As I see it if he gets 3 points for speeding then he is very unlikely to lose any job for it, if he already had 6 or 9 points however to make these 3 that important, then maybe he should have been a lot more cautious.

IMO If he really could lose his ticket for just 3 points under any circumstances then his driving was inappropriate anyway.


Mark

 

[glojo]

Okay, but is it morally right? What if the person in question was an MBclub member and he saw this. Okay, say you were done and you read on a forum about your offense and how the bobby was debating letting it go. You'd be probably relieved, but its still a bit close to the bone.

Then there is the very issue surrounding this thread. Sorry, I think its off.

I would NEVER dream of asking ANY specific details regarding this incident and it may well be hypothetical? I was curious as to what speed limit was contravened, but I'm not interested in the county, the town, the age, sex, or company this person works for, or if they really exist??

I'm afraid I'm with Guido regarding this.

I mean how many in the same profession grass on each other? it may bite you back in the bum.

I would like to think that EVERY police officer would instantly report or arrest any colleague they saw that had committed a criminal offence

regards
John

 

[MBManInKen]

Okay, but is it morally right? What if the person in question was an MBclub member and he saw this.

Under which aspect of morality would this not be right? Members discuss things on here continuously that might be embarrassing or otherwise difficult for the individual in question, from disciplinaries at work, experiences with garage professionals, accidents, ebay experiences, etc.

As long as there is no personal data divulged, that is perfectly fine. We all do it all the time and last time I checked it was a free country.

But suddenly if the individual happens to be a copper, suddenly the laws that govern the rest of us don't apply? I don't think so.

 

[st4]

Maybe you are just objecting to the fact that some coppers have have a concience ?

Mark

Wrong, delighted.

But Its the reasons behind this. The form of words and way of thinking "I won't issue the ticket as I fear he may lose his job" I find odd as if it were some esle they would get the ticket form this policeman. Thats unfair at best and I could use a lot of other not so pleasant words to use, but I won't.

If he said words like "I think the speeding offense, although a crime, was a minor breach and the likely legal punishment won't at all fit the crime" then I'd be delighted.

Letting someone off because of their occupation, status, whatever is wrong, letting them off because their crime is in their view a trivial one is great.

On numerous occasion I have said I wanted a more human element to policing on the roads and in the public, and I still do. What I don't want is one person getting let off, by the same police officer for the same crime, whilst another one done. There is a massive difference between the two.

 

[recycled]

I would like to think that EVERY police officer would instantly report or arrest any colleague they saw that had committed a criminal offence

regards
John

not sure about this john. maybe most but certainly not EVERY and that is very subjective .
nothing to do with the police, it is the same in most professions

 

[st4]

Under which aspect of morality would this not be right? Members discuss things on here continuously that might be embarrassing or otherwise difficult for the individual in question, from disciplinaries at work, experiences with garage professionals, accidents, ebay experiences, etc.

As long as there is no personal data divulged, that is perfectly fine. We all do it all the time and last time I checked it was a free country.

But suddenly if the individual happens to be a copper, suddenly the laws that govern the rest of us don't apply? I don't think so.

I think this is a little different but never mind. Its not like a bad repair at a garage, getting a ticking off from the boss, its discussing a potential legal case in a public place.

The there is the issue behind the thread, I asked indirectly whether its right that because one person commits a crime, its okay to let it go as his job requires a squeeky clean licence, but someone else who's job doesn't gets convicted. I don't think it is, what do you think?

 

[st4]

not sure about this john. maybe most but certainly not EVERY and that is very subjective .
nothing to do with the police, it is the same in most professions

They did oust one that was caught for having indecent images on their PC's. He felt the hand of the law alright, and rightly so.

 

[pammy]

Wrong, delighted.

But Its the reasons behind this. The form of words and way of thinking "I won't issue the ticket as I fear he may lose his job" I find odd as if it were some esle they would get the ticket form this policeman. Thats unfair at best and I could use a lot of other not so pleasant words to use, but I won't.

And what gives you the impression that this is the case here? It's simply asking whether a statement made might be true or not - nothing more, nothing less Don't see anywhere where it suggests they would be treated any differently.

 

[st4]

Posts 6 & 9 in this thread.

I'd like the OP come back and address the issue as I may have read something into this that isn't there. I sincerely hope I have.

 

[recycled]

They did oust one that was caught for having indecent images on their PC's. He felt the hand of the law alright, and rightly so.

remember the aviaiton disasters in the US about the faulty services schedules of the planes. no one came forward and the one that did could not get a job in the avaiation industry

 

[MBManInKen]

I think this is a little different but never mind. Its not like a bad repair at a garage, getting a ticking off from the boss, its discussing a potential legal case in a public place.

Your first two examples are potential legal cases just as much as this one. It's all a load of twaddle really.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss matters like these in this generic way. There is no law against it and we do it all of the time, including in the press (in a way that is far less anonymous than this generic question was).

what do you think?

I think we should stop using two measures: one for coppers and one for the rest of us.

 

[st4]

remember the aviaiton disasters in the US about the faulty services schedules of the planes. no one came forward and the one that did could not get a job in the avaiation industry

I heard that one before. Its a known fact that in the city if your a "whistleblower" then getting a job elsewhere is not doable. I would like to go through a grievence proceedure @ work due to the conduct of my boss in the workplace, but it would be as damaging to me in the long run.

 

[st4]

Your first two examples are potential legal cases just as much as this one. It's all a load of twaddle really.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss matters like these in this generic way. There is no law against it and we do it all of the time, including in the press (in a way that is far less anonymous than this generic question was).



I think we should stop using two measures: one for coppers and one for the rest of us.

1. No, in the first two examples you never specified police invovlment.

2. The press is slated here regularly, especially my paper of choice. One rule for everyone, coppers, civvies and the press then

3. No law, thanks for clearing it up. Is it professional of the OP? I've got my views, you have yours.

4. My question was asking your opinion on whether it is right for a bobby to let a crime go because of the perpetrators circumstances, within the context of this thread.

 

[MBManInKen]

4. My question was asking your opinion on whether it is right for a bobby to let a crime go because of the perpetrators circumstances, within the context of this thread.

Are you saying he should not be able to exercise discretion? Yes or no please.

 

[st4]

No, he should have discretion, but in the context of the crime itself, not the person behind it.

Eg. if he would let that person off with that crime, he'd have to let everyone off of the same one. It sticks out that if this person wasn't an advanced instructor, he'd have given the ticket and assisted with the prosecution.

 

[pammy]

Yes I am, but in the context of the crime itself, not the person behind it.

Eg. if he would let that person off with that crime, he'd have to let everyone off of the same one. It sticks out that if this person wasn't an advanced instructor, he'd have given the ticket and assisted with the prosecution.

And I restate - I can't see where it suggests that has happened. Please show exactly where the OP says he let this person off because of is occupation and threat of losing his job?

 

[st4]

And I restate - I can't see where it suggests that has happened. Please show exactly where the OP says he let this person off because of is occupation and threat of losing his job?

It was being contemplated and implied in posts 6 & 9. Words like "I would find it harsh" implies slightly different.

 

[pammy]

It was being contemplated and implied in posts 6 & 9.

was it I actually thought it was discussing what an employer might do over and above what the law did and that that was what might be harsh.

 

[st4]

was it

I think it was, the nature of the opening posts, ,extending that argument the OP said he'd find it harsh, that impies action may be taken so that the outcome isn't "harsh". I hope I will stand corrected when the OP comes back.