Support For Two Sacked Met Police Officers

[dan_999uk]

Ive no idea. She had 11 points before she was sentenced for these offences and received 18 points in one go. 

[Delbow]

6 hours ago, hackey lad said:

They were ordered to pull over , they didn’t and carried on for a few miles, raising suspicion.

Also, the panel found that they weren't ordered to pull over before they actually pulled over - this is covered in the section about whether following the car counted as a 'pursuit' or not, a section you haven't read and never will.

[dan_999uk]

They aren't interested in the facts of course, they usually get in the way of their world view. 

[Axe]

5 hours ago, Delbow said:

Paras 115-155 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:bd1cf879-37cc-42fa-9995-6932804597e0

Let's wait to see the result of the appeal.  The Met were wrong not to give the two police officers the benefit of doubt regarding the cannabis claim.

[Delbow]

7 minutes ago, Axe said:

Let's wait to see the result of the appeal.  The Met were wrong not to give the two police officers the benefit of doubt regarding the cannabis claim.

The decision was made by an independent panel - do you not know anything?

[Axe]

2 minutes ago, Delbow said:

The decision was made by an independent panel - do you not know anything?

You are nitpicking.  It was the Met Police who sacked them after the panel hearing.  They could have chosen not to sack them and discipline them in another way. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Axe said:

You are nitpicking.  It was the Met Police who sacked them after the panel hearing.  They could have chosen not to sack them and discipline them in another way. 

Most of us are glad that the Met did the right thing for a change and worked towards the highest standards of policing.

[Delbow]

9 minutes ago, Axe said:

You are nitpicking.  It was the Met Police who sacked them after the panel hearing.  They could have chosen not to sack them and discipline them in another way. 

Yeah if they want to keep hold of dishonest cops. 

 

What you're saying is that a panel of three people, which included a senior police officer, who watched the body worn video and dashcam  footage of the whole incident and who were able to cross examine the officers in person and assess the reliability of their answers to the questions put to them, got it wrong, whereas you - Lord Crackhead of Armchair - are able to use your special knowledge and skills to make the right decision? 

[Axe]

14 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Yeah if they want to keep hold of dishonest cops. 

 

What you're saying is that a panel of three people, which included a senior police officer, who watched the body worn video and dashcam  footage of the whole incident and who were able to cross examine the officers in person and assess the reliability of their answers to the questions put to them, got it wrong, whereas you - Lord Crackhead of Armchair - are able to use your special knowledge and skills to make the right decision? 

I have more of clue what is right and wrong than you have in your deluded imagination.  

 

Yes, it was wrong for the two police officers to be sacked for carrying out their duty.  The incident would never have occurred if the Portuguese failed athlete had cooperated with police and pulled over when instructed to do so. 

[dan_999uk]

1 hour ago, dan_999uk said:

They aren't interested in the facts of course, they usually get in the way of their world view. 

Nicely proving my point.