Lost Login Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I presume you are referring to the post relating to the dog and I have to admit I was surprised at the reaction to the "joke". Admittedly it may have been insensitive but "bad taste" jokes do have appear to have a certain place in our society and many have brought a smile to my face although I would be careful when and to whom I said them. Within days there were 11/9 jokes going round. I had presumed the reaction was a consequence of the poster having a history rather the specific comment especialy as a couple of more jokes abouts dogs and leads or barking up the wrong tree followed but ellicited no response. I have no idea who the poster is or their history of posting but it does appear that as soon as the individual posts it automatically attracts a certain type of response and abuse whatever the content which seems to me to be OTT. In this particular case I do have mixed feelings as there has been a certain lynch mob menatility on the issue and also with regard to the dog case. I hope the cuplrit is caught and is punished according to law. That is the law as it stands and not as some would appear to like see handed out. With regard to the policeman there was at times previoulsy in this discusion comparisons to him and the bus driver. I am sorry but they are totally different as one was over the limit whilst on duty and one while off duty. If the police officer had been under the influence at work as the bus driver was then I agree instant dismissal. In this case the fact that the police officer was a traffic cop I think had some bearing on the matter, as I wonder what the outcome would have been if he had been say a community officer. I do not have the answer and I think, if otherwise he was a good officer, I may have been in favour of keeping him in the force back on the beat etc fully aware that he he was knocked down to the lowest rank of constable and with an awful lot of foot slogging to be put before he started to redeem himself. Finally I would like to say that I have no call generally with drink driving and I am happy to see those caught very heavily punished. I do though have a bit of sympathy with those who get a taxi home and when they fetch their car in the morning are over the limit as I think some recognition should be given to the fact that they did endeavour to act resposnibility as opposed to the drunk with X pints in them who then drives. Maybe if Moyles had been a bit sevierer in his sentancing then the issue may not have arisen as I get the feeling that some felt it was lenient and compared it with the bus driver case, although as I say it was a different set of facts, and that as a consequence they wanted the Chief Constable to take further action. That is only an my impression which may be wrong. Declan, It is not that he/she has a point of view, it was only a few days ago that heshe posted something that upset and tbh sickened me (and quite a few others) in another thread. To have a point of view is one thing; to intentionally troll for an extreme respose is heshe's game. Well heshe got one, and for that I will not apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Declan, It is not that he/she has a point of view, it was only a few days ago that heshe posted something that upset and tbh sickened me (and quite a few others) in another thread. To have a point of view is one thing; to intentionally troll for an extreme respose is heshe's game. Well heshe got one, and for that I will not apologise. I'd stopped reading the dog thread after the first couple of posts, there are only so many posts saying "I'm well sickened I am" you need to read to get the gist. However I've been back and read it. Did Keyboarder make a comment that has been deleted other than the dog food comment? Because if that is the cause of the bile directed at her then people should be ashamed. Oh and if it was so bad did anyone report it to the mods? Or e-mail Keyboarder and ask if she'd edit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allrightyessa Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 back on topic for a bit peeps its about bloody time too hope he had his secret knock knock club membership taken away too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 back on topic for a bit peeps OK let's see how long it lasts... its about bloody time too So far so good... hope he had his secret knock knock club membership taken away too Damn and you were doing so well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allrightyessa Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 oh well i tried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Might have been better for us if you had remained Silentbob, but nevertheless, Keyboarder, you silly little cretin, Legally, and Excessive cannot be used in the same sentence when applied to drink driving. Legal = 0-80 Illegal 80+ Legally excessive would mean that under 80 is excessive, if 50 was excessive, the limit would be 45. Yawn, lol, thought I'd already clarified this point. Take legally to mean pertaining to the law. Ergo, 81 is illegal. Ok? As to your usual ant-speed endevours - Speed is NEVER the SOLE cause of an accident, NEVER! It is usually the error in judgement by either an a) inexperienced younger driver who pushes himself and/or his vehicle past their limit (which may or may not be anything over 30mph, and is usually due to peer pressure, hence the passenger casualties) OR B ) An older experienced - yet habitually ignorant/stupid/incompetent - plonker who just screws up. The sad thing is that sometimes it is B who cause the accident, whilst not actually getting caught up in it (remember the motorcyclist who died by the cemetary above the test centre??) There are ofc exceptions to every rule, so please don't all think I am pidgeon-holing everyone into those 2 catogories; but history does prove that 90% of accidents fall into them quite nicely. That's your opinion. I disagree with it. Can you prove your claims? Keyboarder Most forums I frequent/admin you would have been banned many times over for trolling and flaming, I can only guess you are a privilaged user's alternative ego. You have been a cock, continue to be a cock, and I expect will remain a cock until someone beats some sense into you. I am not saying I would like to beat some sense into you (but I am thinking it) Mmm, as you appear to be a cock person I suggest this comment is poppycock. Most forums I frequent would ban you for your innappropriately offensive personal insults, and your laughable thinly veiled threats. I'm not frightened though, lol, lol....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Sometimes it's best to stop picking a scab, Keyboarder, it does you no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I don't know about anyone else, but I was more concerned with the inconcistency of the 'hanging judge' in his sympathy and understanding of the circumstances of the case and hoping that he wouldn't lose his job! If the guy was say, a garage mechanic in the same circumstances, I think we know that there would have been very little sympathy at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessa Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 uuummm I am not sure if this topic is still under discussion ....but here goes a little bit of my thinking here I suppose He broke the law, and a law that, as a Traffic division policeman, he is presumably specifically entrusted to uphold (not many bobbies walking the beat can stop a drunk-driver whilst they are driving) - I would say his position was close to being untenable, but maybe an advocate can chime in on whether it would have affected any prosecution that was brought after he had arrested someone for drink-driving *shrugs* I pretty much agree with this comment of yours rallybug - tho I cannot comment on any of the other issues being highlighted by posters with regards to consistency of treatment either within the Island nor within the UK law enforcement worlds etc My concern is basically that if any warranted officer commits a crime and either escapes accountability or has been shielded from lawful or just consequences .... then sadly far worse things can happen ie other than their credibility in future courtrooms perhaps being compromised etc These days I personally feel INTEGRITY and having an ethical code and value system of the highest order with our Police and other public servants is vital in the 21st century etc I don't wish to go off topic too much in my waffling here ... but one other area I did want to highlight perhaps is..... I also feel it is likewise vital that Police Officers and their families are also well supported in both their workplace and in their personal lives for all sorts of reasons etc For example, attending MVA fatalities or being exposed to other traumatic experiences &/or assaults in the line of duty is often most distressing for the officers and their families. So there are times when I can sympathise with errors of judgement by individuals &/or even drinking when off duty etc The difficulty for me is when an officer is under stress and is not being supported and then if they lose their job or sustain a conviction.... then imho it may already be too late to avert many actual and potential losses and regrets unfortunately This can be especially hard if any of these adverse outcomes were potentially avoidable &/or if an innocent person has perhaps been harmed etc So while I personally feel that many good officers can make mistakes or become also exposed to any stressor just like the rest of us .... but sometimes as hard as it is .... perhaps accepting the error or situation has happened may be a chance to step forwards rather than not etc. BUT then imho its most important here to ensure and assist the officer and his family and peers are being properly supported in his or her return to civilian life!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 As to your usual ant-speed endevours - Speed is NEVER the SOLE cause of an accident, NEVER! It is usually the error in judgement by either an a) inexperienced younger driver who pushes himself and/or his vehicle past their limit (which may or may not be anything over 30mph, and is usually due to peer pressure, hence the passenger casualties) OR B ) An older experienced - yet habitually ignorant/stupid/incompetent - plonker who just screws up. The sad thing is that sometimes it is B who cause the accident, whilst not actually getting caught up in it (remember the motorcyclist who died by the cemetary above the test centre??) There are ofc exceptions to every rule, so please don't all think I am pidgeon-holing everyone into those 2 catogories; but history does prove that 90% of accidents fall into them quite nicely. That's your opinion. I disagree with it. Can you prove your claims? i can http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=mot...NEWS_OTHER-NEWS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I was surprised that he still gave a reading of 120mg the following morning after sleeping the night in his car. I thought that by simply being in the car he could have been done for drunk in charge of a motor vehicle and I wonder what reading he would have given then, before "sleeping it off" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watch With Mother Again Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 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. I'm not saying that I don't agree with you but unfortunately what makes this seems so unfair to me is that we do have serving police officers in the Isle of Man who did not lose their jobs when covicted of drink driving. Not only that, but I think I am correct in saying (forgive me if I am wrong), that the Department of Home Affairs is in charge of the police and the head of that Department is also a convicted drink driver. Seems to me to be a case of do as I say not as I do. The Officer in question should have know better, particularly in the role that he had and seeing every day at close hand the destruction that actions like these can cause and the devastation left behind. He is "lucky" that the only devastation he has left is his career in tatters and not families left with a tradgedy but then he probably knows that already. Surely taking his job didn't achieve anything other than being seen to do the right thing. I agree with the comment earlier in this string that mentioned the training and experience that has now been lost. What a waste! It's sad to see that once again the forums have sunk to the level of slanging matches instead of good debates but we've been here before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessa Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm not saying that I don't agree with you but unfortunately what makes this seems so unfair to me is that we do have serving police officers in the Isle of Man who did not lose their jobs when covicted of drink driving. Not only that, but I think I am correct in saying (forgive me if I am wrong), that the Department of Home Affairs is in charge of the police and the head of that Department is also a convicted drink driver. Seems to me to be a case of do as I say not as I do. Sorry I don't know the history of other individual officers or Public Servants with respect to their drink driving habits WatchWMA .... but you raise what could be a bit more difficult to discuss imho ie Aside from any other bigger credibility or integrity issues within the organisations perhaps?? I guess also that I can find it really difficult when youngsters themselves voice questions &/or backchat if they think justice can be manipulated or bought or whatever etc Sadly examples like you mention above make it a bit frustrating [for me] during times of trying to encourage teens in showing respect for laws or police etc Only other thought I had regarding the loss of any training and experience of an officer ... is perhaps this is where the flexibility in discharge processes and supports could help? I know many former officers often head into private security or investigation fields ... but something different within the Public Service fields might help offset any negatives instead? The other benefit would perhaps be recouping even court or lab or other investigation and disciplinary expenses [if any] and this may then help with other initiatives that support other types of victims too in other types of cases etc Could also minimise any risks of the officer becoming disillusioned or lost in a bottle too maybe then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.