I am shocked at your attitude Wannabe; your an appologist for an inept system, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
You obviously did not read or comprehend me when I wrote:
But despite all our contempt for the criminals, despondency for the "colleagues (who) had bungled the manhunt" and our sympathy for the victims, my original suggestion, and subsequent suggestion still applies: there is professional etiquette to be respected, and there were other ways that he could have influenced the case without becoming directly involved.
I was well aware of the article before it was even posted on here, so I was talking from having read about it, yet all you've done is to justify "proffesional etiquete".
You may see my comments as justification of professional etiquette. It was an alternative unbiased opinion, not support for, or justification for professional etiquette. But certainly, I do follow professional etiquette, and I expect other professionals in the same field to also follow professional etiquette.
While most professional etiquette is not written and explicit, certainly in some fields of expertise, it is written and explicit. I suspect that the legal/police professions it is absolutely explicit and sacrosanct!
On that basis, and that alone, the interfering police officer was wrong! He could have and should have considered other alternatives.
It would seem that you've read the article with the intention of justifying your position.
You can draw what conclusions you wish.
Pete did try to get the case investigated properly, and when he managed that, the CCTV didn't get to the bail hearing on time, so the perpertator got bail. When the police deciced to charge him, it was on the lowest charge posible, and the CPS then admitted they hadn't reviewed the CCTV footage. And to top off the whole sorry episode, the original investigating officers then were exonerated over their incompetance,
I can only base my opinion on the information available to me. if you have more information, kindly provide it(with appropriate links) and perhaps we will all arrive at the same opinion.
yet Pete was charged with innaproriate intereference.
There was no mention of this in the article provided, even though he was obviously guilty of the inappropriate interference!
At no point did the sentence get reduced because of his involvement, even though the assailants solicitors tried to suggest that his client was only being charged because it was a coppers son that had been atacked.
Did you read my "perhaps"? It cannot be stated without condition, that the sentence was not reduced.
As a result of the incompetance shown by the Manchester police force, and their blatant attempts to cover up their ineptitude, and further because of the attitude shown to Pete because he forced the police and the CPS to do their job properly, his relationship with his supperiors deteriorated to the point where he had no option to resign, hence the constructive dismissal case.
Perhaps he became emotionally involved, which I accept is understandable. But it is why the professional etiquette exists!
The so called proffesional ettiqette that you so happily stick up for,
You are assiging an emotional bias to my comments, which do not exist. My comments are merely an unbiased alternative viewpoint which you, among others, had dismissed out-of-hand.
is why the NHS pays out so much for proffesional misconduct cases because no one is allowed to question inept doctors. This is why the whistle blowers charter was brought in, to stop all this "proffesional etiqette" rubbish.
Nonsense. Whistle blowing is entirely different to ignoring professional etiquette and interfering in another's work.
Indeed, if the police officer (ex-police officer) had "whistle-blown" on his colleagues it would have been an acceptable alternative action. He did not. He interfered, was emotionally involved, directly affected the outcome of the case and embarrassed himself and his colleagues.
That is several contravention of the professional etiquette, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. When you become a serving officer you explicitly accept that etiquette, for all its faults.
An analogy can be drawn by our involvement on this forum.
Suppose I see a comment which I think deserves to be deleted, so I report it to the mods. That is whistle blowing. The mods then take any action that they see fit. I must accept their decision! I cannot then directly interfere.
If I do directly interfere, perhaps by attempting to hack into the system, or some other unacceptable action, my conduct is illegal, unprofessional and downright wrong!
