Donate SIGN UP

Answers

41 to 43 of 43rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. 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.
I didn't say it should be ignored, I just think it's way over the top after what Couzens got away with for so long, and barry to say they reacted like that because of Couzens is just ridiculous - there's no comparison !
burlyshirley - // I just think it's way over the top after what Couzens got away with for so long, and barry to say they reacted like that because of Couzens is just ridiculous - there's no comparison ! //

It's not 'way over the top' - it's application of the regulations governing the behaviour of police officers, and the law of theft.

To mention it in the same sentence as the Couzens situation infers that there is a link, even though as you confirm, there is no comparison.

Your inference is that the police acted in an overly-zealous manner in light of what happened previously.

My view is that they have acted properly, and the two situations are not linked, and the failures in one have not, and should not, impact on the other.
1) could have been an honesty test - the police do them
2) there is no de minimis rule for dishonesty - dishonest is disonest and it doesnt matter how much

a doctor ( excuse me?) was disciplined internally for stealing - - croutons for his soup - - and it was a big deal because it they cd dismiss if found liable

41 to 43 of 43rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Isnt This A Little Ott?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions