Auditors

[Fedster + 1,307]

Officer lied about his job after being caught with shopping he had not paid for.

 

A Cheshire Constabulary officer who tried to bamboozle supermarket staff by paying for part of his shopping at the self-service check-out has been dismissed for gross misconduct.

PC David Lambert, based at Warrington Police Station, paid for £7.32 worth of shopping at ASDA Birchwood on August 10 at the self-service check-out.

But he was caught by staff trying to leave the store with £19.76 in shopping in a separate bag in a trolley.

A spokeswoman for Cheshire Police said Lambert had paid the extra £19.76 on the spot and was banned from the supermarket.

But Lambert gave a “false job” to staff, she said.

She added that since the discount supermarket’s policy is not to prosecute shoplifters who agree to pay for the goods they tried to steal, the incident was not brought to the force’s attention until later on.

The Warrington Guardian reported the items Lambert shoplifted were wine and barbecue sauce and that Lambert said at the misconduct hearing the incident was an “honest mistake contributed to by stresses in his personal and working life”.

He was dismissed without notice on December 15 after an independent panel found he had breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct.

Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Bennett, head of the People and Professional Standards Department said: “I welcome the outcome of this hearing, which shows that we treat all allegations we receive extremely seriously.

“It is essential that the people we serve have both confidence and trust in the service we deliver. 

"We actively promote the highest of standards of personal and professional behaviour and integrity to all officers and staff.

“Unfortunately, in this case PC Lambert’s behaviour fell well below the level expected of a serving officer and he grossly undermined the privileged position that his role as a member of Cheshire Police demands and expects.”

View On Police Oracle

[Hyphen + 693]

How did this come to light later on, I did find that part confusing. Although there is an ethical argument he would have been under no legal obligation to provide his occupation. Maybe in the moment he was embaressed to say he was a cop. How do we know it wasn’t an error? He paid for the goods as soon as he was spoken to about it and had paid for some. 

Either way like we always say, there must be more to this. It seems a harsh penalty to lose his livelihood over this.

[Zulu 22 + 4,630]

Sorry, no sympathy for him. Had he been arrested his occupation would have been obtained. He paid for the goods because he was caught and it happened to be Asda's policy.  

[Hyphen + 693]

Don’t get me wrong Zulu, I’m not trying to say I would have got myself in to such a situation or defend him, more just to generate discussion.

What I was getting at is there is no legal obligation to give an occupation to Asda security. How do we know it wasn’t an error? Seems crazy to risk his livelihood for some wine and bbq sauce doesn’t it?

[Mac7 808]

There probably isn’t any legal obligation to give any details. However, every cop knows that if you lie, you’re out. It’s not the “forgetting to pay” that’s got him dismissed, it’s the lying.

As with all these things there would have been an investigation, interviews, no doubt he would have been legally represented but at the end of the day he’s been dishonest.

[Beaker 817]

How did this come to light later on, I did find that part confusing.

My first thought there was that he'd been called to deal with something at the supermarket, and been recognised.

[Hyphen + 693]

2 hours ago, Mac7 said:

There probably isn’t any legal obligation to give any details. However, every cop knows that if you lie, you’re out. It’s not the “forgetting to pay” that’s got him dismissed, it’s the lying.

As with all these things there would have been an investigation, interviews, no doubt he would have been legally represented but at the end of the day he’s been dishonest.

Well said. You’re right, people do tend to get dismissed for fairly minor things but only after attempts to hide it and cover it up. It is definitely the best policy that if you mess up, own up.

[Zulu 22 + 4,630]

5 hours ago, Mac7 said:

There probably isn’t any legal obligation to give any details. However, every cop knows that if you lie, you’re out. It’s not the “forgetting to pay” that’s got him dismissed, it’s the lying.

As with all these things there would have been an investigation, interviews, no doubt he would have been legally represented but at the end of the day he’s been dishonest.

He was dismissed for theft. He just complicated it by lying.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

In a parralel universe he might have been dismissed for announcing he was a police officer! 

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

When using self service checkouts before, particularly when it's busy and hectic, I've been scanning things through with one hand and absent mindedly placed things in my bag with the other and its not tripped the scale to warn 'unexpected item' either. It's been shear chance I've then caught myself and thought 'oops'. Of course removing the item from the bag then causes it to complain, so I've had to find the assistant to explain what's happened so they can cancel the error and I can scan it. I've been told this happens alot and not to worry.

I was also in a local shop which doubles as a post office, I collected a few supplies (some biscuits) and went to post a letter and then left. It wasn't till I got half way up the street I realised I had a packet of biscuits tucked under my arm and hadn't paid for them because in my mind I'd just paid (albeit for the post). So I went back red faced and apologised profusely much to the amusement of the shopkeeper. Thankfully he knows me anyway, although I am forever ribbed as being the 'biscuit theif' and he even mocked up a poster behind the counter.

I can imagine either of these situations could have resulted in my dismissal had it being the wrong person or had I not noticed. No matter how innocent the situation the burden of proof required for gross misconduct is pretty slight in these matters, it would forever tarnish.

So I am in two minds really. Do we have an obligation to provide our employment details over such mistakes? Is it reflective on our conduct as a police officer, if in our personal life we make a mistake - which is rectified and ultimately disposed of in a circumstance that isn't criminal.

Maybe he did 'steal' the wine. Maybe not. The matter was settled with the view it was a mistake though. If it is about him being a police officer and lying. Then I can think of many times I've thought best to provide false employment when someone's asked what I do, namely because it attracts bother and not something to shout about.

[Mac7 808]

It’s been commented on here and the other thread regarding dismissal that these matters would be fully investigated. I would suggest a deliberate act and an honest mistake are easily distinguishable. For what ever reason he has decided to try and shop lift some goods, he’s been caught, realised he was in the brown stuff and tried to cover it up by lying.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

Just for full disclosure 3 days ago I filled up with fuel on the way home in the area I police and didn't have any means to pay (warrant card left in stab vest).

The staff were extremely shirty ("you need to show us ID or well call the police" not understanding that my ID and bank cards were all in the same place) until one of the girls recognised me as a police officer and filled out an inability to pay form for me.

I was very annoyed (at myself) and tired. Had I been that much more tired I probably would have said to the first woman "I've given you my correct details. I'll be back in 10 minutes. Call who you Like!"

It seems like some people on here, had events turned differently, would be saying 'good riddance' after the inevitable guilty finding at a misconduct hearing. 

Remember the burden of proof for disciplinaries is 50.01% likelihood. Which bearing in mind the consequences of a dismissal from the police is a very low bar I feel.

So in Scenario City - if the first cashier had asked my occupation would I have been obliged to tell her what I do? And as I point out, in doing so would I be at risk of trying to misuse my position. Because allegedly saying you're a police officer puts you in some kind of untouchable position - yet that's the opposite of what i experience.

[bensonby + 3,503]

22 hours ago, MerseyLLB said:

In a parralel universe he might have been dismissed for announcing he was a police officer! 

I’ve questioned an officer precisely on that point: “why did you show out?” After he was stopped by police.

[Remmy + 1,401]

Just now, bensonby said:

I’ve questioned an officer precisely on that point: “why did you show out?” After he was stopped by police.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't 

[bensonby + 3,503]

I was stopped by security at Tesco recently because I had a bottle of scotch on me that still had the security tag on: I’d legitimately bought it at a self service checkout but they didn’t take it off (it was in a box). I genuinely nearly poo’d myself when I was stopped - not because I’d done anything wrong but because I couldn’t recall if id grabbed a receipt (it turned out I had done) and because I know how these things can go wrong so quickly for people on our profession.