Gladys Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Ordinarily, I don't think you can be sacked just for drink driving, unless your contract of employment provides that you can be dismissed following a criminal conviction, or the circumstances of the offence amounted to gross misconduct in your job (for example you were pissed while at work) or your conviction carried a custodial sentence making you unable to continue to perform your duties. However, I would say that the manner of conduct of a person holding such a position of duty and responsibility within the community is of such importance that it should mean that any criminal conviction should amount to gross misconduct and be a sackable offence. I wouldn't normally call for anyone to lose their job, but in this case I do think allowing the man to continue to enforce the law when he has been convicted of what, in other instances, we are told is a very serious offence, just calls the whole integrity of the police ethics into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I suspect people are getting confused here with what they think 'should happen' and what does happen after an offence such as drink driving is committed by a policeman. Before joining the police: "You must declare any convictions, even for a juvenile offence. A criminal record will not necessarily disqualify your application, but it will require a review and decision from the Chief Constable. More than six penalty points on your driving licence could raise questions about your suitability and a drink-driving ban would make progress extremely difficult." e.g. see this article. If it were I, I think I would have lost all chance of promotion, lost my credibility, and lost my authority - and would resign. This lack of accountability and personal honour and integrity is a major factor in Joe Public losing faith in the whole system. In my book a policeman should be a role model, and serious offences such as this should involve people 'falling on swords', maybe not sacked, but perhaps offered a move into a non-public-facing admin role. However, if I worked for Marks and Spencers and got caught drink driving in my own car on a Saturday night I would not expect to be sacked from M&S on Monday. However, if I got caught when I was driving an M&S van I would expect to be sacked immediately. However, with a policeman some people say they are always policemen and a different rule should apply, when in actual fact, as far as I know, they are private citizens when off-duty, with the same power of citizens arrest as you or I. Perhaps MHKs should be introducing ammendments to Acts that do specify what should happen in these cases - rather than leave the decision to the police themselves - so every time something like this happens there is a clearly defined and perhaps 'scaled' process - and not a furore and 'bad smells'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 However, with a policeman some people say they are always policemen and a different rule should apply, when in actual fact, as far as I know, they are private citizens when off-duty, with the same power of citizens arrest as you or I. Yes, agree with everything else Albert, but you are now confusing a policeman's powers with his responsibilities as an officer. But he has been given a position of authority and is an officer of the Crown (not sure exactly in the IOM context). His powers of arrest may change when he is on or off duty, but nevertheless, in a situation like this has he not been given a position of high responsibility and demonstrated that he is unworthy of that because he has disregarded the law of the land which his office is supposed to uphold and enforce? Yes, they are private citizens when off duty, but they hold an office which is a position of continuing responsibility not necessarily rights. Apart from the more refined arguments that could be had, how happy would you be if you were pulled over by a policeman who had been convicted of drink driving under suspicion of the same offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I have some sympathy with the view that policemen are people after all, with the same weaknesses as anyone else... some sympathy, but not a great deal. In this case, the man was a member of the 'Roads Policing Unit,' which probably means he was one of those who know the consequences of driving whilst over the limit better than most. I agree with Albert - it is essential for the integrity of the individual that he offers to resign from the force and that, if he is considered too good an officer to be lost to it, he should be placed out of harm's way in a job that doesn't require interraction with the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 In this case, the man was a member of the 'Roads Policing Unit,' which probably means he was one of those who know the consequences of driving whilst over the limit better than most. Good point, and one I was going to make. Presumably he was briefed at the start of the 'campaign' on what to look out for. He was at the 'front line' of enforcing the drink driving message. I am surprised he still has a job. Imagine him stopping someone on the way back from the pub..... Surely his position is now untenable. It can't be one rule for 'them' and another for the rest. We need to beleive (if possible) in the integrity of our Police. This does the Force no good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 According to the Independent the poor man drove because he had a blister on his foot. Yet he still managed to walk home after stacking his car. Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 As someone who had to be 'vetted' by the FSC, I had to inform them of all convictions if there were any (MINOR motoring offences don't count, such as parking tickets). Also, if I commit a serious crime (that includes drink driving) I have to inform them, the clear inference (though they're careful not to be upfront about it) most definitely being that I would likely lose my 'fit and proper' status and therefore my livelihood. That is a sufficient deterrent all by itself. Why should any member of the police force think any lower standards applied to them - these are the people who will stand in court and give evidence against lesser mortals and whose word is deemed to indeed be more equal than any others. This guy shouldn't have his job any longer and he should take responsibility for his actions. It's no good putting on the old false claim "what a great success the Christmas drink drive campaign has been" and all the crap that was being spouted on the radio this morning from the police about the excuses they get to hear from motorists, blah, blah, blah when they can't keep their own house in order! It should be explained why no evidence was offered in respect of the other incidents involving this motorist so we the public can make more sense of that, because you can be guaranteed if it were you or I (unless you are also in the police, dear reader!) they would scrape something together based on the flimsiest of 'evidence' such as hearsay from a passerby (I know because it's happened to me) and get a guilty plea because you know it's cheaper than throwing thousands away on advocates in your defence that you'll never be awarded in costs. I'd like to know does a deemster really have authority to tell the police force who they can and can't employ anyway? Mind you, when our politicians are outed in public inquiries and censured for lying to Tynwald and then cling to their public office like a drowning man to a lifebelt, what do you expect? No wonder conspiracy theories abound about the old funny handshakes! Isn't it important that the public can see that justice is done? What kind of message is this giving to our youth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 As someone who had to be 'vetted' by the FSC, I had to inform them of all convictions if there were any (MINOR motoring offences don't count, such as parking tickets). Also, if I commit a serious crime (that includes drink driving) I have to inform them, the clear inference (though they're careful not to be upfront about it) most definitely being that I would likely lose my 'fit and proper' status and therefore my livelihood. That is a sufficient deterrent all by itself. Why should any member of the police force think any lower standards applied to them - these are the people who will stand in court and give evidence against lesser mortals and whose word is deemed to indeed be more equal than any others. That sounds like a way forward to me i.e. introduce a fixed definition of a 'fit and proper person' into any legislation affecting the police and take the (often secretive) decision away from the police. However, not being a 'fit and proper person', in terms of a directorship or specific role required to be registered with the FSC, should not prevent you from making a 'back-office' living in such a company as a result of some offences (e.g. perhaps drink-driving no, fraud yes), nor, IMO, should it stop a policeman losing his livlihood and the opportunity of a 'back-office' role in the event of some wrongdoing (e.g. perhaps beating up a suspect yes, drink driving no). That's why I believe any such definitions of 'fit and proper' need to be scaled and differentiate between a variety of 'wrongdoings'. Whether drink-driving should be included as a serious crime in both finance and the police is surely the real debate? I suspect that since the government and police give out such powerful messages about drink driving, and it is punishable by a prison sentence, Joe Public's answer to that question is probably a 'yes'. Though if politicians and Joe Public want to vilify the offence, it needs to be treated equally across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 However, not being a 'fit and proper person', in terms of a directorship or specific role required to be registered with the FSC, should not prevent you from making a 'back-office' living in such a company as a result of some offences (e.g. perhaps drink-driving no, fraud yes), nor, IMO, should it stop a policeman losing his livlihood and the opportunity of a 'back-office' role in the event of some wrongdoing (e.g. perhaps beating up a suspect yes, drink driving no). That's why I believe any such definitions of 'fit and proper' need to be scaled and differentiate between a variety of 'wrongdoings'. I agree with you over the consistency that's missing, but to me (as I am part of a very small company) to be 'barred' and just having a back office function as a consequence would result in the failure of my company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 If Tony Brown, during election time was arrested for drink driving, crashing his vehicle, and leaving the scene... do you think he would have been elected, and then to the position of Chief Minister?? (well... to the sensible voters anyhow!) If the regular person accepts that drink driving is an offence and one that should not take place... then how can a police officer act any differently? Regardless of being 'off duty', he already knows that one should not drink alcohol excessively, especially when they would be driving home shortly! Does he really have any excuse? Again, it comes down to 'where do we draw the line?'. I've heard that this policeman has been going through some personal hardships... but notwithstanding that, his actions are inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 That's a terrible comparison. During election time would be considered almost like a job interview. This policeman already had a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 That's a terrible comparison. During election time would be considered almost like a job interview. This policeman already had a job. But that job... is always on 'interview' terms. When you go through the interview & assessment process, they make that very clear to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Next thing you're going to be telling us that life is an interview for a place in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Next thing you're going to be telling us that life is an interview for a place in heaven. Careful, ans... the time may come when you need a reference. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 as the guy was over the limit the next day does anyone know if traffic officers are breath tested before they begin each shifts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.