Cret Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Just kidding - I do a lot of work there myself on occasion. Sorry - it just rattles my cage when people roll that old chestnut out all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholmondley-Warner Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 He should have recieved the same as the Bus driver.Sacked Refused social security But no he will leave the force with a nice pay off, pension and be able to claim state benifits. I agree that there should be consistency in the law and sentencing. I disagree with your assumption that he will be more privileged than anyone else following his resignation. If he resigned, forced to or otherwise, then he is not entitled to any pay off, if he was sacked then maybe he would have been. His pension contributions to the date of his dismissal he is entitled to regardless but of course his pension is now frozen and depending on his length of service may not be particularly valuable and as he left his job, then he is subject to the same rules as anyone else, there are no special benefits for ex-policemen so he won't receive Social Security until the prescribed period is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 All the above are relevant, how subtle is another matter. On the subject of police crashes, on the way to the boat on 3/2/7 I saw a police landrover on it's top in a field at mountain box. Any action from this re. careless driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 All the above are relevant, how subtle is another matter.On the subject of police crashes, on the way to the boat on 3/2/7 I saw a police landrover on it's top in a field at mountain box. Any action from this re. careless driving? Hey - that was an ambulance service vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Maybe the drugs squad should all start taking drugs so that they're more qualified for their job! So then - I suppose that they probably don't on the IOM. But some of them certainly do sometimes, some places in Britain. It's hardly a big secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I absolutely agree with that. I don't think it should have cost him his job. You mean that "Moffatt, from the Roads Policing Unit" should be allowed to continue policing roads (without a licence) and stop vehicles on suspecting that the driver has been drinking? Why's that then, is he more qualified now to be able to tell who has and who hasn't been drinking? No that's not what I mean. There are many other pen pushing positions within the force, one of which he could have filled. Taxes will have paid for his training and now his services have been completely lost. Cutting one's nose off perhaps? Maybe the drugs squad should all start taking drugs so that they're more qualified for their job! As an official policy that would be just silly. However, I'm not naive enough to think no drug squad officers use drugs though. And yes I believe there was a police car that was crashed on 08th June 1991 and the driver was fined £80 and given 3 penalty points. Funny, I don't know why I remember things like that! Stav. I'm not playing Albert Tatlock's silly game on that one. If he has a relevant point to make, he should just make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasKommandant Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 PC Moffatt dropped a bollock - to err is human. Okay so he is in the traffic department, I am led to believe the internal Constabulary procedures will have done his knees - then dismissal (enforced resignation) never mind the cutting remarks from the above contributors. A familyman who is now up shit creek....nice to see human nature at its very best. Regardless of your opinions towards the Police is this really worthy of 3 pages of drivel assassinating a guy who`s fucked up - then paid the price for it. I personally think not. Lets get some perspective on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 PC Moffatt dropped a bollock - to err is human. Okay so he is in the traffic department, I am led to believe the internal Constabulary procedures will have done his knees - then dismissal (enforced resignation) never mind the cutting remarks from the above contributors. A familyman who is now up shit creek....nice to see human nature at its very best. Regardless of your opinions towards the Police is this really worthy of 3 pages of drivel assassinating a guy who`s fucked up - then paid the price for it. I personally think not. Lets get some perspective on the issue. I accept what your saying, but I do not have a responsible job upholding the law, and yet if I was caught drink driving my life would be fucked up. Well and truly fucked up, so I really don't see the issue here. It is very sad for the chap, and I'm sure its something he'll regret for ages, but I think you have to say that anyone who is employed to uphold the law makes their position untenable in these circumstances. Just as I would expect to lose my job if I was found guilty of the same offence. I have a friend in the UK who is a travelling salesman who lost his job because he lost his license as he got a speeding offence which tipped his points over the edge. Now that is tough shit, and indicative of what other mere mortals have to go through for getting 12 points on their license because of the fucked up way they police speeding in the UK. Wake up and smell the coffee. You cannot have a police officer with a DD conviction in employment when people are losing their jobs because of speed cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 PC Moffatt dropped a bollock - to err is human I think for a traffic cop to crash his car whilst drunk driving is a bit more than "dropping a bollock" nice to see human nature at its very best Human nature is probably thinking that those who enforce the law should probably try complying with it themselves I'd find it hard to believe that it was a one off first time offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasKommandant Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I hear what you are saying BUT still think the comments are unnecessary...17 years of good service blown in one foul swoop - albeit self inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I hear what you are saying BUT still think the comments are unnecessary...17 years of good service blown in one foul swoop - albeit self inflicted. That's life. People are losing their jobs every day for stupid stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I think this case highlights some peculiarities of driving laws, in particular drink driving laws. If this officer had lost control of his vehicle as a result of excessive speed, either during the execution of his duties or not, then the consequences to his life would probably have been far less severe. The mere mention of alcohol sends everyone into a frenzy, and yet I bet many more innocent people have died from the actions of speeding police drivers than from drunken police drivers. In fact, I would hazard a guess that excessive speed is far more of a killer on Manx roads than legally excessive alcohol consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 people are losing their jobs because of speed cameras. I thought they were losing them because they were breaking the law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 people are losing their jobs because of speed cameras. I thought they were losing them because they were breaking the law... It's a rare thing but I agree. At 3 points per offence you'd have to be caught 4 times before a ban. One fine would make me think twice about speeding, 2 would make me stop doing it period. That leaves another 2 before any ban more fool the driver. You can't blame the cameras. A decent sat nav would neutralise their effect. If your job depends on it stick to the limit, take responsibility for your actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessa Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Reading this thread reminds me of the differences and importance of having Policing Services and their officers remaining genuinely committed to their duties and codes of being held fully accountable to Integrity, Justice and Public Service and so forth ..... An alternative example of policing in another small population highlights to me some of the HUGE difficulties of keeping law and order or even vulnerable citizens safe! Most distressing especially when crime and violence realities become 'taboo' topics - and of course when some victims are not protected nor helped etc Constable charged with raping teenagerWednesday February 07, 2007 By Louisa Cleave A policeman has been charged with raping a teenage girl, adding to a raft of serious offences officers are facing. The senior constable was suspended in early December and has been charged with sexual violation by rape of a female aged 12 to 16 years. The man, from the South Island, has appeared in court and was granted name suppression. Police said the charge related to recent allegations. The policeman, who has served at least 14 years in the force, is among 28 officers who have been stood down from duty because they face criminal charges, internal proceedings or allegations of criminal offending. The total salaries paid to the suspended staff range up to $1.91 million. Of the 11 facing criminal charges, one is an officer who was suspended in April 2005 and convicted of indecent assault, according to information released to the Herald by police national headquarters. Among the other charges faced by the suspended officers were assault, attempting to pervert the course of justice, male assaults female off-duty, careless driving and providing a false statement to police. Investigations are under way into allegations against officers of sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual assault domestic, harassment while off-duty and assault while off-duty. One officer faced internal charges around timesheet discrepancies and a criminal charge of assault while on duty. The longest period of suspension is three years and that is understood to be Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards, stood down on full pay for alleged historic offences. [postscript *] Rickards and former officers Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were acquitted last March of raping Louise Nicholas but then charged with raping a second woman in the 1980s. [postscript **] The information, supplied under the Official Information Act, shows one suspended officer, believed to be Rickards, is earning a base annual salary of $150,000 to $159,000.[ postscript ***] Superintendent Stu Wildon, national manager of police professional standards, said a rape charge was a "very serious matter" and the suspension of the senior constable was "at the serious end of the scale". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....jectid=10422757 postscript * - The information supplied to the Herald under the Official Information Act, shows one suspended officer, believed to be Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards, is earning a base annual salary of $150,000 to $159,000 while suspended. postscript ** - think two officers were already imprisoned by the time of their second or third gang rape trials ie when finally Rickards went up before the bench himself some of his witnesses or alibis or codefenders or whatever were in supplied suits rather than jail apparel etc However much of this information was suppressed to permit jury objectivity it seems - and only disclosed after the Rickards acquittal on his first prosecution etc I think a mix of combined or separate trials have been held for each officer as well as each victim so far - hence some convictions and some acquittals so far - and now the huge confusion and loss of confidence for me perhaps imho postscript *** - not sure on the remaining charges or final decision on his employment which is facing this officer Clint Rickards. However this is only my current POV in relation to other alleged rapes he may have committed and various other questionable activities by Rickards publically reported and verified elsewhere .... plus the Commission Inquiry into Police Conduct reporting deadline keeps getting extended etc Sorry like other topics under discussion - not sure that I should say too much more at this time BUT I did want to say by the looks of various initiatives lately that the Isle of Man Police Service efforts should be greatly commended and encouraged imho!! I feel that this kind of difficult but sometimes necessary inhouse reflection and quality assurance to the public ...well it gives me hope and confidence for better tomorrows for all our children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.