Nick Tessla Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Report on the other site Three people arrested for drug dealing. One is a civvie, the other serving Warrington police officers, who have since resigned. The report names the civvie but as for the police officers "Officials at Cheshire Police have refused to name them." 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 But Nick they've only been accused at this point so if and when they're convicted, I'm pretty sure they'll have to release the names. I don't know how it all works but I could guess that the media gets to know the names of anyone that gets arrested, especially for serious crime. If the police choose to withhold names of officers, then it's their decision and after all it's their ball so they can make up the rules as they see fit. Bill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 The "officers" have already resigned.... just like you do when you are innocent!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Resignations implies guilt. They should not have been given opportunity to resign but should have been dismissed, sacked, fired, given the push! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Surely anyone has the right to resign if they are yet to be found guilty of an offence. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 'Innocent until proven guilty' is the backbone of our justice system isn't it? It is very easy to judge people but if we don't know all the facts it is premature. I daresay the 2 police officers won't find life easy in the the next few months, finding work, for one thing, will be difficult under the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Resignations implies guilt. They should not have been given opportunity to resign but should have been dismissed, sacked, fired, given the push! Rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Rubbish. If and when these ex-police officers are found guilty as charged then by all means 'have a go at them' until that happens 'lay off', it won't be the first time that persons charged with a serious offence, and their families, have been persecuted only to be found innocent!. There are too many of the 'Let's Lynch em' now!' brigade around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I completely agree Algy (and to the other comments saying similar) !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Does Mr Huhne's resignation imply guilt? Throw stones when we know what we are aiming at. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 According to some on here, Rednapp was guilty before the trial had finished. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Mr Hune is guilty - his wife said so! And hummmm.... why would two cops resign if innocent? If innocent they surely would have stood their ground instead of going before being pushed out when found to be guilty! Mark my words They are <possibly> guilty! . Edited February 10, 2012 by Dizzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Choose your words carefully Cleo as your last comment could have been be libellous especially if/when they are found not guilty. You weren't on line so I have edited your post for you before Gary gets a knock on the door... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 According to some on her - we still think they're guilty as sin - marvellous what a good legal tean can do, if you can afford them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 According to some on her - we still think they're guilty as sin - marvellous what a good legal tean can do, if you can afford them! AGREED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 They faced the choice of resign - and keep their accrued pension entitlements - or fight the allegations, and possibly lose their entire retirement income. I've never really agreed with stripping anyone who gets sacked of the pension entitlements they may have built up over years and years of previous good service. Perhaps a fairer system would be for disciplinary action NOT to just die when someone hands in their notice (although why it can't all just be dealt with during the notice period before someone's employment ends is beyond me). I don't really see why back holiday pay, references and the final months salary can't be with-held until it is determined whether an employee who resigns after allegations should be sacked or the resignation allowed to stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 The Terry incident is interesting from this perspective: IF some foreign player wished to confound England's chances, a malicious allegation could be made; then the suits at the FA would pre-empt due process; and the allegation could be withdrawn prior to a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 27, 2012 Report Share Posted April 27, 2012 John Griffiths, one of the two arrested, was was charged on wednesday with possesion of a class A drug and two counts of misconduct in public office and will appear in court on Wednesday June 6th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 (qote) Choose your words carefully Cleo as your last comment could have been be libellous especially if/when they are found not guilty. You weren't on line so I have edited your post for you before Gary gets a knock on the door... (end quote) Guilty as charged. Jailed for 8 months and 2 months to run concurrently. My mojo was working good then 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.