2badge_mango said:Interesting reaction, and slight deviation from the original point I was trying to make. When we were "bad lads" in any sort of situation that brought us into the public eye, the punishment meted out always involved an amount of "consequential punishment", graduated to reflect the amount of disrepute into which the "uniform" (ie. the service) had been brought.
Should this not also apply to senior police officers who think they can disregard the law on the assumption that their juniors will let them get away with it?
I think Nutty and I are probably on the same wavelength apropos this case.
Certainly in my day in the Metropolitan Police if you got a conviction for Drunk Driving you were sacked and lost all your pension rights. Most other outside the force problems carried some form of punishment from Reprimand to required to resign(Sacked but you kept your pension only fair as Plod pay 11% or more of their gross pay in pension contributions. The scheme then runs on Peter pay Paul situation, what the serving officers pay is used to pay the pensioners. If its not enough the Force has to make it up, if its more, the Force take it and it goes into the general precept).
Like all places some very well connected people got off with things and the higher the rank the less likely you were to get trooped in the first place. Also IMHO the smaller the Force the less likely they were to instigate disciplinary proceedings. A bit like Big Ships Small Ships.
It is possibly like Pusser now with discipline having a lighter touch than that we knew 20/30 years ago
PS. Yes I think any Police Officer who steps over the line should receive some form of secondary punishment from his Force. It goes with the Job and should apply to all persons involved in the Law. Judges, Magistrates, Barristers, Solicitors, Probation Officers and in particular MP's who actually MAKE the laws.