Monday, October 23, 2006
One rule for one...
Following on from last weeks posts about our wonderful police, today here in The Times we learn of a Mr Darby, the area commander for East Surrey Police who was spotted by a motorist using a hand held mobile phone whilst driving. This has been an offence for most of us subjects since August 2003; of course the offence was introduced with a cry of the usual platitudes you know "road safety", "for the children" etc etc; and although someone like myself can be cynical about these, presumably Mr Darby whose job it is to enforce draconian laws whose purpose is for the above platitudes, actually believes them. This of course makes his transgression even more heinous because he isn't simply (in his mind) flouting a draconian law, but actually endangering children and road safety.
Anyway I digress as I said he was spotted by a motorist who realising he was a police officer I quote: "“I saw he had a fluorescent police jacket on. I was not that bothered at first because I thought he must be on important police business,”" "“But as I followed him I realised he was talking on his mobile phone as he drove along. I was horrified because the weather conditions were hazardous...""
Mr Donohue followed him to a police station where: "“I stopped and approached the policeman as he got out of his car,” he said. “But he was blasé to the point of rudeness. His reaction was as if to say, ‘I don’t know what you hope to achieve by this’.”" No surprise hey? The accountable police service it's like they say: "Little man you obey the rules we enforce or we'll be on your back, but don't you dare expect us to do the same we're untouchable you know we're the police."
Mr Donohue to his credit made a formal complaint (he can probably expect increased police attention to his vehicle and activities) an investigation followed and apparently: "Mr Darby was later interviewed about using a mobile phone while driving, which has been banned since December 2003. He admitted the offence and was given a formal written warning that will remain on his file for a year."
Oh is that all? No wait there's more: "The officer, who earns up to £80,000 a year, (worth every penny to the taxpayer) was reprimanded by his force and ordered to pay £30, the equivalent of the fixed penalty fine for the offence, to charity."
So Darby didn't actually get a conviction, I wonder why not, I think anyone else would have, from the article: "The force was unable to issue a formal fine because the offence can be detected only by a police officer." This is simply a weasel excuse, as once Darby confessed to the offence in front of a police officer surely that counts as a detection? Alternatively, Darby as a police officer confessing has detected the offence himself so there's no reason for him not to be properly charged and fined, with appropriate records made against his character.
The last paragraph tells us of the confession itself to none other than the Deputy Chief Constable: "A spokesman for Surrey Police said: “When Mr Darby was confronted by the motorist he went straight into the police station and telephoned the Deputy Chief Constable to confess what he had done.”" Surely a "detection" for the DCC. We're not told if Darby wore brown trousers for the rest of his shift.
Anyway I digress as I said he was spotted by a motorist who realising he was a police officer I quote: "“I saw he had a fluorescent police jacket on. I was not that bothered at first because I thought he must be on important police business,”" "“But as I followed him I realised he was talking on his mobile phone as he drove along. I was horrified because the weather conditions were hazardous...""
Mr Donohue followed him to a police station where: "“I stopped and approached the policeman as he got out of his car,” he said. “But he was blasé to the point of rudeness. His reaction was as if to say, ‘I don’t know what you hope to achieve by this’.”" No surprise hey? The accountable police service it's like they say: "Little man you obey the rules we enforce or we'll be on your back, but don't you dare expect us to do the same we're untouchable you know we're the police."
Mr Donohue to his credit made a formal complaint (he can probably expect increased police attention to his vehicle and activities) an investigation followed and apparently: "Mr Darby was later interviewed about using a mobile phone while driving, which has been banned since December 2003. He admitted the offence and was given a formal written warning that will remain on his file for a year."
Oh is that all? No wait there's more: "The officer, who earns up to £80,000 a year, (worth every penny to the taxpayer) was reprimanded by his force and ordered to pay £30, the equivalent of the fixed penalty fine for the offence, to charity."
So Darby didn't actually get a conviction, I wonder why not, I think anyone else would have, from the article: "The force was unable to issue a formal fine because the offence can be detected only by a police officer." This is simply a weasel excuse, as once Darby confessed to the offence in front of a police officer surely that counts as a detection? Alternatively, Darby as a police officer confessing has detected the offence himself so there's no reason for him not to be properly charged and fined, with appropriate records made against his character.
The last paragraph tells us of the confession itself to none other than the Deputy Chief Constable: "A spokesman for Surrey Police said: “When Mr Darby was confronted by the motorist he went straight into the police station and telephoned the Deputy Chief Constable to confess what he had done.”" Surely a "detection" for the DCC. We're not told if Darby wore brown trousers for the rest of his shift.
Tags: justice, police, rule of law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
