OT: Drunk cop told to go.

Simon Mason said:

Last month a local police anti DD campaigner was convicted of a DD offence.
Today he was told to leave.
Article begins.

"A Police constable who spearheaded road safety campaigns has been told to
resign after being convicted of drink driving.

PC Andy Walker was asked to clear his desk following a two-day misconduct
tribunal in Hull.

Walker was last month banned from driving for 16 months and ordered to pay
costs and fines totalling about £350 after admitting being behind the wheel
while almost twice the legal limit.

Today, a Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "Mr Walker faced a two-day
misconduct tribunal on Thursday and Friday of last week.

"He was required to resign with immediate effect."

Walker's case caused outrage among drink-drive campaigners because
Humberside Police did not suspend him.

He headed campaigns calling drink drivers "killers" and "idiots".

A chief officer from the force headed the hearing alongside two officers of
superintendent rank or higher.

Walker can now appeal the decision.

He today declined to comment on the decision or whether he will use his
right to appeal.

The 51-year-old was caught outside his home in Lairgate, Beverley.

A police officer's attention was drawn to PC Walker because he was
"struggling" to park his Jaguar and his female passenger had begun
staggering in the road.

Walker tried to exert "pressure" on the constable not to pursue the matter.

When a breath test was carried out, Walker failed it.

He was arrested and taken to Bridlington Police Station, where he failed two
subsequent breath tests.

He gave a breath test reading of 61mg in breath, the legal limit being 35mg.

Walker claimed he drank two pints and one glass of wine and decided he was
safe to drive after he failed to get a taxi."

--
Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net

So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
and not for Drink Drive.

Only reading between the lines though.

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
and not for Drink Drive.

Only reading between the lines though.

Sniper8052

If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Rola said:

Quoted message said:

So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
and not for Drink Drive.

Quoted message said:

Only reading between the lines though.

Quoted message said:

Sniper8052

If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Why?

Sniper8052

"Rola" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
and not for Drink Drive.

Only reading between the lines though.

Sniper8052

If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Don't see why he shouldn't.

He has done something stupid and has lost his job as a consequence. His
pension accumulation is based on his service and salary and he has made the
payments in so is entitled to the payments due to him at retirement.

Just because he was a public figure who should have known better does not
mean he should loose that (even though in certain circumstances he could
have).

Dave

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
SNIP

Quoted message said:

Frankly pensions confuse the
hell out of me so I just pay up and hope for the best.

If you are still in the old PPS then you will know that it is a 1/ 60th
scheme so if you get 30 years service you will get a pension based on 50% of
your final year's pay in rough terms.

The new PPS I understand is different and don't know enought about it to
comment.

And no I am not in the force.

Dave

Yea it seems a bit harsh - that copper that was filmed with a long
baton beating the living [censored] out of a striking miner in the early
80's became 'ill' and 'stressed' and was invalided out of the force on
a full pension which presumably he gets to this day.

Dave said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...
SNIP

Quoted message said:

Frankly pensions confuse the
hell out of me so I just pay up and hope for the best.

If you are still in the old PPS then you will know that it is a 1/ 60th
scheme so if you get 30 years service you will get a pension based on 50% of
your final year's pay in rough terms.

The new PPS I understand is different and don't know enought about it to
comment.

And no I am not in the force.

Dave

Yea see you've confused me now.

Sniper8052

"citizen142" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yea it seems a bit harsh - that copper that was filmed with a long
baton beating the living [censored] out of a striking miner in the early
80's became 'ill' and 'stressed' and was invalided out of the force on
a full pension which presumably he gets to this day.

I didn't say that everything was right. Although even in this case what
service he had up to that point he had paid for and was entitled to. The
part that is questionable is that which was awarded to him for his
"illness/stress" - and that part I would tend to agree with you on.

Dave

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Rola said:

Quoted message said:

So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
and not for Drink Drive.

Quoted message said:

Only reading between the lines though.

Quoted message said:

Sniper8052

If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Why?

Well, why did they require him to resign rather than sacking him? If he'd
had his hand in the till, would they have 'required him to resign'? Is
drink driving less or more serious than embezzling?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Rola said:

> So likely it was for attempting to pervert the course of justice,
> depending on what the meaning of the word 'pressure' in the above is
> and not for Drink Drive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Only reading between the lines though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Quoted message said:

Why?

Well, why did they require him to resign rather than sacking him? If he'd
had his hand in the till, would they have 'required him to resign'? Is
drink driving less or more serious than embezzling?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

No, why does it matter if he keeps his pension?

Sniper8052

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gkssl4-

Quoted message said:

Also reading between the lines, he had drunk enough not to appreciate how
drunk he was. Drunk enough to believe he was invincible. That's the
problem with allowing people who use alcohol make judgements about whether
or not they're fit to drive. The drunker they are, the more competent they
feel.

I feel slightly sorry for the man, but it's one of the reasons I
personally
won't drive within 24 hours of having drunk alcohol.

This guy's story does not add up at all. He claims he had 2 pints and one
glass of wine over about 4 hours. He ended up *twice* over the limit. That
is impossible. 25 years ago, I had 3 pints over 2 hours and passed a breath
test, so he must have had much more than what he is claiming. Plus he
claimed he was waiting for a taxi for 30 minutes and yet much later told the
traffic cop that his last drink was only 20 minutes ago! Was he drinking
when standing in the street waiting for this taxi or when driving his car
home?

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Simon Mason said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gkssl4-

Quoted message said:

Also reading between the lines, he had drunk enough not to appreciate how
drunk he was. Drunk enough to believe he was invincible. That's the
problem with allowing people who use alcohol make judgements about whether
or not they're fit to drive. The drunker they are, the more competent they
feel.

I feel slightly sorry for the man, but it's one of the reasons I
personally
won't drive within 24 hours of having drunk alcohol.

This guy's story does not add up at all. He claims he had 2 pints and one
glass of wine over about 4 hours. He ended up *twice* over the limit. That
is impossible. 25 years ago, I had 3 pints over 2 hours and passed a breath
test, so he must have had much more than what he is claiming.

There are varying strengths of drinks, plus varying degrees of persons
resistance. Just because 'you' can pass a test after 3 pints, doesn't
mean we all can. I'd doubt my ability to pass a breath test after a
pint, never mind 3.
--
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.

Simon Mason wrote on 04/07/2007 17:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

This guy's story does not add up at all. He claims he had 2 pints and one
glass of wine over about 4 hours. He ended up *twice* over the limit. That
is impossible. 25 years ago, I had 3 pints over 2 hours and passed a breath
test, so he must have had much more than what he is claiming. Plus he
claimed he was waiting for a taxi for 30 minutes and yet much later told the
traffic cop that his last drink was only 20 minutes ago! Was he drinking
when standing in the street waiting for this taxi or when driving his car
home?

There is always the possibility that he has upset some one and they were
out to get him. Its very unusual for police to arrest their own. I
remember when the Sir Allan Green, the then DPP, was arrested in 1992
kerb crawling round the back of Kings Cross. He had been doing it for
years, accompanied by his police minder, without being troubled but his
arrest occurred shortly after he sent three Surrey police officers to
trial for fabricating evidence in the Guildford Four case. Coincidence?

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

On 4 Jul, 13:37, Rola <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> If he resigns does he keep pension entitlement?

Quoted message said:

Why?

Well, why did they require him to resign rather than sacking him? If
he'd had his hand in the till, would they have 'required him to resign'?
Is drink driving less or more serious than embezzling?

No, why does it matter if he keeps his pension?

It doesn't. It is very harsh to take a man's pension off him, for whatever
reason. But I don't understand the nuance - why wasn't he just sacked? It
must make some specific difference.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

[email hidden] said the following on 04/07/2007 17:22:

Quoted message said:

No, why does it matter if he keeps his pension?

That wasn't Simon's question. The question was why was he made to
resign rather than just being sacked?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Jon B said the following on 04/07/2007 18:33:

Quoted message said:

There are varying strengths of drinks, plus varying degrees of persons
resistance. Just because 'you' can pass a test after 3 pints, doesn't
mean we all can. I'd doubt my ability to pass a breath test after a
pint, never mind 3.

AIUI, after one pint you will not fail a breath test. Where there is a
difference is that some people will be able to tolerate a pint with no
visible or mental effect, and others will notice an effect. I fall into
the latter category, and simply don't drink at all if I'm planning to drive.

This is what makes a bit of a mockery of the DD laws. I know full well
that even if I'm within the DD limit, I don't feel I should be driving.
yet the DD limits are supposedly set at a level where it is "safe" to
drive. Why is it that I appear to have a better idea of when I'm safe
to drive than the law does?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote on 05/07/2007 08:22 +0100:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said the following on 04/07/2007 17:22:

Quoted message said:

No, why does it matter if he keeps his pension?

That wasn't Simon's question. The question was why was he made to
resign rather than just being sacked?

Its often part of the negotiation. If someone is sacked you have the
potential as an employer of employment tribunals etc for unfair
dismissal that can tie up a lot of time even if the case has no merit.
Its easier to come to a deal part of which usually is to allow the
individual to resign rather than be sacked. It has big advantages for
the employee when they come to apply for their next job and costs the
employer nothing so is a useful and widely used negotiating tool.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said the following on 04/07/2007 17:22:

Quoted message said:

No, why does it matter if he keeps his pension?

That wasn't Simon's question. The question was why was he made to resign
rather than just being sacked?

It may be easier if he resigns.

If he was sacked then there are rights of appeal against that. If he resigns
even under pressure whilst he could appeal it is more unlikely that he will
win that appeal.

Dave

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Jon B said the following on 04/07/2007 18:33:

Quoted message said:

There are varying strengths of drinks, plus varying degrees of persons
resistance. Just because 'you' can pass a test after 3 pints, doesn't
mean we all can. I'd doubt my ability to pass a breath test after a
pint, never mind 3.

AIUI, after one pint you will not fail a breath test. Where there is a
difference is that some people will be able to tolerate a pint with no
visible or mental effect, and others will notice an effect. I fall into
the latter category, and simply don't drink at all if I'm planning to drive.

This is what makes a bit of a mockery of the DD laws. I know full well
that even if I'm within the DD limit, I don't feel I should be driving.
yet the DD limits are supposedly set at a level where it is "safe" to
drive. Why is it that I appear to have a better idea of when I'm safe
to drive than the law does?

No. Like the speed limit the DD limit is the point at which someone has
determined that it is unsafe to drive. Like speed limitsm individual
circumstances may mean that it is still unsafe to drive below that
limit.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_