Final straw for the police?

robgmun said:
And I think we've found this years "aeroplane on a treadmill question"
Click to expand...

Jaffa Cakes are officially cakes in the UK. Definitely not biscuits. There was a court case which settled the matter. It sounds a bit silly, but it was actually about tax (VAT rates on chocolate coated cakes and chocolate coated biscuits were different) and a lot of money was involved.
 
Hotwired said:
Someone must have disliked said policeman quite a lot to rat out their misconduct to the media.
Click to expand...

Police gross misconduct hearings are a public affair these days. Generally, you can go to each force website and they'll advertise the dates of the hearings for people to attend.

This is one of he reasons why it appears so much more prevalent now, it's not necessarily happening more often, but is a lot more visible and that why you see more stories in the media.
 
arknor said:
You used to see police walking the streets and mingling with the public though, now you never see them outside of a car, have they became detached from the public? their more like private security for the wealthy now
Click to expand...

You don't see them mingling often because there's a long list of 999 calls which haven't yet been deployed to.
 
You'd be a rubbish business if you didn't do everything legally possible to avoid a massive tax bill.

Since that case failing would mean peoples jaffa cakes costing more it's just a humorous story and not worth getting emotional about. Any other legal tax loopholes which don't obviously increase daily prices are fair game to demand the government "crack down on".
 
Bouton Aide said:
Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Having different rates of tax on chocolate covered biscuits and chocolate covered cakes is a bit strange, but tax law often is. It's usually slopped together on an ad hoc basis, which isn't a good basis for consistency. Maybe there was a halfway sensible reason why chocolate cakes weren't taxed and chocolate biscuits were.

Hmm...I had a quick look online and didn't find one. I did find that it only applies to chocolate (or something similar) on the outside of the biscuit. So, for example, a chocolate digestive would be taxed but a biscuit made of two chocolate digestives joined together on the chocolate sides would not be taxed.
 
From a charity no less. People who engage in that kind of thing have a pretty low moral standard in the first place and not the kind of people you want enforcing the law.

Sadly something we've had problems with where I work with people skimming, or outright stealing, from money raised for a children's charity no less.
 
omnomnom said:
No, he stole something. [..]
Click to expand...

He underpaid by 90p. The details are publically available.

omnomnom said:
[..] 90p or £90 its irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's relevant. Scale matters, to some extent. It's why, for example, if I find £1 on the pavement I put it in my pocket and if I find £100 on the pavement I make a reasonable attempt to find the rightful owner. Probably nothing more than handing it in to a police station, but the point is that my response is different.
 
I think lying about it after the fact definitely makes the ex-copper's error in judgement worse. We need to be able to trust police officers, and an incident like this shows he wasn't a trustworthy person.

That said I do have some sympathy for him. I'm sure basically every single person in the country has done something untrustworthy at some point - be that a 'white lie' to a friend, not owning up to a mistake at work, cheating on a partner, speeding in a car when you don't think you'll get caught, etc. Some people will do these things more often than others and some will be sorry about them while others won't. The guy in question was to some extent just unlucky to get caught imo. On the other hand it was basically shoplifting which in this context is more than just a minor incidence of untrustworthiness (quite a black and white right/wrong situation with a concrete impact, so much less room for argument than with more personal examples of untrustworthiness), and with the attempt to lie about it afterwards I do think it betrays his character...

If only such a stringent attitude was taken with other misdemeanours I wonder if we'd have fewer police officers in the force who feel happy doing things like threatening to plant evidence, beating people unnecessarily, or worse... I'm not anti-police at all and by and large I'm sure police officers are good people doing a difficult job, but there are undeniably some people in the force who shouldn't be.
 
Last edited:
He should rightfully have been sacked his behaviour throughout that's been reported by the BBC has shown that this man shouldn't be in such a position. Had he been upfront and honest from the start he may not have lost his job.
 
Angilion said:
He underpaid by 90p. The details are publically available.



It's relevant. Scale matters, to some extent. It's why, for example, if I find £1 on the pavement I put it in my pocket and if I find £100 on the pavement I make a reasonable attempt to find the rightful owner. Probably nothing more than handing it in to a police station, but the point is that my response is different.
Click to expand...
Did he steal something or not? Deliberately under paying is stealing by the way.
 
A thief and a liar is not someone who should be enforcing the law. Stealing from a charity also makes him a despicable ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom