Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Should Former Police Chief David Duckenfield Be Stripped Of His Police Pension?
He won't face charges for this (as he has health issues) , but he should be stripped of his police pension at the very least.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chuck - back off, you are seeing things a little too black and white and there's a lot of emotion still flying around on this one (and not only in Liverpool), no different to Savile et al as an analogy - and, in both cases, after all these years. A lot of us know why you see things like this, but you are digging yourself a wee bit of a deep hole on this one, especially to those who don't know you as many of us AB regulars.
-- answer removed --
> Caring about a lump of rotting meat (which is all that we are after death) is pure madness.
People do not grieve for the body, but a) the lost life opportunity for the poor unfortunate loved one who was killed and/or b) the loss to the the griever, whose ongoing life will be the poorer without the deceased being present to contribute further to it.
People do not grieve for the body, but a) the lost life opportunity for the poor unfortunate loved one who was killed and/or b) the loss to the the griever, whose ongoing life will be the poorer without the deceased being present to contribute further to it.
I stand corrected, Chris, and thanks for the link.
I think paras 8 and 9 are pertinent:
8. The Home Secretary will consider whether the pensioner’s offence was either gravely injurious to the interests of the State or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service
.
9. A person’s rights to a police pension are part of the remuneration to which that a certificate will be issued, it is an additional penalty which should not be added automatically to whatever sentence the Court has imposed. In deciding whether to issue a certificate therefore, the Home Secretary attaches a greater weight to the "serious loss of confidence in the public service" than the harm inevitably caused by any police officer or former police officer who commits a crime.
First of all, of course, Mr Duckenfield will have to be convicted of an offence and this is by no means a certainty. Further, if he is, it is arguable whether his actions led to a “serious loss of confidence in the police service”. His actions on the day were an error of judgement, plain and simple. However he compounded that error by his subsequent lies.
What I find most interesting, though, having read the Cheshire document is the legitimacy of these regulations. I don’t know if they have ever been invoked but it is quite clear that forfeiture of pension is a considerable additional penalty which is being imposed for a criminal offence non-judicially. Up to a few years ago serving prisoners could lose remission (when they got a third off for “good behaviour”) following a hearing in front of the prison governor. It was ruled that additional penalties were being imposed by the governor who was not “a properly convened tribunal”. It is clear from the document, when it speaks of decisions being made at a “quasi-judicial meeting” that the status of such a panel could be simily challenged.
I actually find it outrageous that a police officer can suffer a substantial additional penalty for a criminal offence over and above what a court imposes in accordance with the law and sentencing guidelines (even though it is clear that he the sum he personally had contributed to his pension cannot be subject to forfeit).
I think paras 8 and 9 are pertinent:
8. The Home Secretary will consider whether the pensioner’s offence was either gravely injurious to the interests of the State or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service
.
9. A person’s rights to a police pension are part of the remuneration to which that a certificate will be issued, it is an additional penalty which should not be added automatically to whatever sentence the Court has imposed. In deciding whether to issue a certificate therefore, the Home Secretary attaches a greater weight to the "serious loss of confidence in the public service" than the harm inevitably caused by any police officer or former police officer who commits a crime.
First of all, of course, Mr Duckenfield will have to be convicted of an offence and this is by no means a certainty. Further, if he is, it is arguable whether his actions led to a “serious loss of confidence in the police service”. His actions on the day were an error of judgement, plain and simple. However he compounded that error by his subsequent lies.
What I find most interesting, though, having read the Cheshire document is the legitimacy of these regulations. I don’t know if they have ever been invoked but it is quite clear that forfeiture of pension is a considerable additional penalty which is being imposed for a criminal offence non-judicially. Up to a few years ago serving prisoners could lose remission (when they got a third off for “good behaviour”) following a hearing in front of the prison governor. It was ruled that additional penalties were being imposed by the governor who was not “a properly convened tribunal”. It is clear from the document, when it speaks of decisions being made at a “quasi-judicial meeting” that the status of such a panel could be simily challenged.
I actually find it outrageous that a police officer can suffer a substantial additional penalty for a criminal offence over and above what a court imposes in accordance with the law and sentencing guidelines (even though it is clear that he the sum he personally had contributed to his pension cannot be subject to forfeit).
> Selfishness at its very worst.
Of course Chris. If you have children, and you spend many hours over many years bringing them up, nurturing them and being a central part of their lives and vice versa, and then they're killed before they're even adults, an end to their life and leaving a massive hole in yours ... how selfish of you to mourn their loss and yours.
Obviously we should all live with no ambition for ourselves, our children or anything we do, and if we are stupid enough to have life plans and those plans are thwarted by the evil deeds or incompetence of others, we should simply shrug our shoulders, say "Hey ho" and get on with it without missing a heartbeat.
I think if everybody thought like that, we'd be an extinct race by now.
Of course Chris. If you have children, and you spend many hours over many years bringing them up, nurturing them and being a central part of their lives and vice versa, and then they're killed before they're even adults, an end to their life and leaving a massive hole in yours ... how selfish of you to mourn their loss and yours.
Obviously we should all live with no ambition for ourselves, our children or anything we do, and if we are stupid enough to have life plans and those plans are thwarted by the evil deeds or incompetence of others, we should simply shrug our shoulders, say "Hey ho" and get on with it without missing a heartbeat.
I think if everybody thought like that, we'd be an extinct race by now.
>>>I don’t know if they have ever been invoked
Not Cheshire, NJ, but still relevant:
http://
>>>I actually find it outrageous that a police officer can suffer a substantial additional penalty for a criminal offence over and above what a court imposes in accordance with the law and sentencing guideline
I'm no great fan of coppers but even I've got to agree with that!
Not Cheshire, NJ, but still relevant:
http://
>>>I actually find it outrageous that a police officer can suffer a substantial additional penalty for a criminal offence over and above what a court imposes in accordance with the law and sentencing guideline
I'm no great fan of coppers but even I've got to agree with that!
Did he perjure himself ?
Depends if he swore to the opposite in any of the many inquiries - I think he he said he just let people think it
and there has to be an independent witness to his giving the order
( perjury act 1906 )
as you know from the law section the decision to prosecute is a CPS decision and is two tailed - is there are a realistic prospect of getting a conviction and is it in the public interest ?
Depends if he swore to the opposite in any of the many inquiries - I think he he said he just let people think it
and there has to be an independent witness to his giving the order
( perjury act 1906 )
as you know from the law section the decision to prosecute is a CPS decision and is two tailed - is there are a realistic prospect of getting a conviction and is it in the public interest ?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.