ne0beatsm0rp86

Special Vetting

63 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

We can only be honest in giving an opinion. I I was making the decision appoint or not, I can only say that I would not.  Officers have to know that they can reply on their colleagues and would find it difficult to work with someone who has those convictions, knowing that you would be arresting people for the same.  I could se the embarrassment in a court case should the defence become aware of your history. The defence would have a field day.  I do not think that we are in a position to want to take a chance.  I can only be honest.

As an after thought in my editing. What would happen if you happened to be serving with one of the officers who had previously arrested you. IT would certainly be embarrassing and not fair on the officer or yourself.

 

If its the case that it wouldnt work in court, then why is it every police force in the Uk has the guideline that you cant become a police officer if you have a drink drive conviction in past 10 years? If its the case that the defence would have a field day with a officer if he had ever been convicted of a offence then surely it would be common practice that all forces decline anyone convicted of drink drive no matter how long ago it was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, ne0beatsm0rp86 said:

If its the case that it wouldnt work in court, then why is it every police force in the Uk has the guideline that you cant become a police officer if you have a drink drive conviction in past 10 years? If its the case that the defence would have a field day with a officer if he had ever been convicted of a offence then surely it would be common practice that all forces decline anyone convicted of drink drive no matter how long ago it was?

You mentioned several different offences and court appearances, any one of which would be an embarrassment and have a defence lawyer rubbing their hands with glee.  For your information it seems to have become a common practice for serving officers committing a drink driving offence to be dismissed on his conviction or resigned before hand.

 

I do not know where you get the information quote "why is it every police force in the Uk has the guideline that you cant become a police officer if you have a drink drive conviction in past 10 years"?

Edited by Zulu 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

You mentioned several different offences and court appearances, any one of which would be an embarrassment and have a defence lawyer rubbing their hands with glee.  For your information it seems to have become a common practice for serving officers committing a drink driving offence to be dismissed on his conviction or resigned before hand.

 

I do not know where you get the information quote "why is it every police force in the Uk has the guideline that you cant become a police officer if you have a drink drive conviction in past 10 years"?

Its the same criteria on every police force in Uk on their websites, also on HM Government criteria for all police forces in Uk:

  • One offence of drink driving or drunk in charge or driving under the influence of drugs within the preceding ten years

So basically cant join police with 1 drink drive conviction in the ten years of conviction, but after the 10 years you can become a police officer. Thats where im confused because if you say it would cause issues in court then surely the guideline would be never join police if ever convicted.

  • cautions (includes reprimands and final warnings for recordable offences within the last five years)
  • juvenile convictions within the last five years for any recordable offence
  • any recordable offence other than listed above within the last five years

And then the drunk disorderly were cautions which are well over 5 years ago so even still they are only listed for 5 years.

And i have only been to court once for drink drive conviction, the drunk disorderly was cautions.

Im unsure if this is all new guidelines to get more police officers as its already quite strict.

Edited by ne0beatsm0rp86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ne0beatsm0rp86 said:

Its the same criteria on every police force in Uk on their websites, also on HM Government criteria for all police forces in Uk:

  • One offence of drink driving or drunk in charge or driving under the influence of drugs within the preceding ten years

So basically cant join police with 1 drink drive conviction in the ten years of conviction, but after the 10 years you can become a police officer. Thats where im confused because if you say it would cause issues in court then surely the guideline would be never join police if ever convicted.

  • cautions (includes reprimands and final warnings for recordable offences within the last five years)
  • juvenile convictions within the last five years for any recordable offence
  • any recordable offence other than listed above within the last five years

And then the drunk disorderly were cautions which are well over 5 years ago so even still they are only listed for 5 years.

And i have only been to court once for drink drive conviction, the drunk disorderly was cautions.

Im unsure if this is all new guidelines to get more police officers as its already quite strict.

You can fail vetting and never be given the reason, it's the CC's discression:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

10 minutes ago, funkywingnut said:

You can fail vetting and never be given the reason, it's the CC's discression:

Ok thank you i guess ill have to just see what happens. Advantage to being young enough keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with your application. I think you're right, everyone deserves a chance, and you've clearly managed to turn your life around. If having past convictions were such an issue then nobody with any would be allowed to join, and the fact is they are, so clearly there is an understanding that people's past doesn't always reflect them as a person. You have nothing to lose!

Let us know how you get on.


Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

As far as I am aware I do not know of any Chief Officers who would be prepared to lower the standards required of officers, they have already been lowered enough. The College of Policing is trying to raise standards of education to degree level.  As far as I am aware, unless it has changed recently, it is still a disciplinary offence to consort with criminals. I do not know of any Chief Officer who would want to place officers in that predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

2 hours ago, Posh said:

I am not accusing you of not having changed, but you would be a hypocrite to stick anyone on for offences that you have committed yourself.

I don't really see what is all that hypocritical about it in all honesty. I've met so many officers who have various endorsements on their driving licence who would still deal with driving offences when they see them. Indeed, they are expected to deal with these the same as an officer with a clean driving licence would do.

 

I work with an ex-traffic cop who spent most of his years in traffic sitting on 9 points as he's got a notoriously heavy right foot. He'd get a hard time at court from the defence when he'd issued somebody a ticket for speeding but as he points out, it isn't him that is on trial and it doesn't cancel out what the accused has done. You couldn't use his colleagues clean driving licence to prove the accused committed an offence in the same way you couldn't use his to disprove it. JPs can normally see through the defence tactics anyway, if they're resorting to slating a police witness for their driving record then they are usually scraping the bottom of the barrel anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


They are slating them for their record, and it does work. Endorsements are not the same as a drink driving offence. I gave worked on traffic and no of no traffic officer with points, they generally have a greater regard for their standard of driving. The applicant has 2 X d & D,  and a criminal damage. Officer's should be above that standard, full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

They are slating them for their record, and it does work. Endorsements are not the same as a drink driving offence.

Of course they are slating them for their record, I just said as much. Still not sure I see the hypocrisy in it, if having a few traffic offences under my belt meant I could never have to deal with traffic stuff again I'd drive everywhere at a hundred miles an hour to be honest... The reality is officers are expected to deal with what they see in front of them regardless of their own imperfections.

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

I gave worked on traffic and no of no traffic officer with points, they generally have a greater regard for their standard of driving.

[Content Removed]

4 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

The applicant has 2 X d & D,  and a criminal damage. Officer's should be above that standard, full stop.

If they are outside of the time frame mentioned above then I wouldn't say to anyone they shouldn't apply. I've met enough people who weren't whiter than white in their youth to realise that they can turn the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

I would like to know exactly how the defence would find out about these convictions or someone's licence endorsements. While a few minutes' research suggests the OP would have to submit some or all of his convictions on an MG6B probably for every case he deals potentially for all of his service it is not automatically disclosable to the defence, and I can't see a good reason why things like speeding points should ever be relevant enough to an officer's integrity to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

10 minutes ago, Sceptre said:

I would like to know exactly how the defence would find out about these convictions or someone's licence endorsements. While a few minutes' research suggests the OP would have to submit some or all of his convictions on an MG6B probably for every case he deals potentially for all of his service it is not automatically disclosable to the defence, and I can't see a good reason why things like speeding points should ever be relevant enough to an officer's integrity to admit.

CPIA for 6H ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


4 minutes ago, funkywingnut said:

CPIA for 6H ?

I'm no expert on disclosure and I don't really know what 6H means, but this part of the Disclosure Manual suggests that disclosure to the defence of matters listed on the MG6B is by no means automatic and to a certain extent dependant on the prosecutor's judgement of what is relevant.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

5 hours ago, ne0beatsm0rp86 said:

If its the case that it wouldnt work in court, then why is it every police force in the Uk has the guideline that you cant become a police officer if you have a drink drive conviction in past 10 years? If its the case that the defence would have a field day with a officer if he had ever been convicted of a offence then surely it would be common practice that all forces decline anyone convicted of drink drive no matter how long ago it was?

If you get called to a drink drive and then have to deliver the death message, would you be able to look in the eyes of that grieving family and tell them you are sorry for their loss knowing that you could have very well been the driver of that vehicle?

5 hours ago, ne0beatsm0rp86 said:

Its the same criteria on every police force in Uk on their websites, also on HM Government criteria for all police forces in Uk:

  • One offence of drink driving or drunk in charge or driving under the influence of drugs within the preceding ten years

So basically cant join police with 1 drink drive conviction in the ten years of conviction, but after the 10 years you can become a police officer. Thats where im confused because if you say it would cause issues in court then surely the guideline would be never join police if ever convicted.

  • cautions (includes reprimands and final warnings for recordable offences within the last five years)
  • juvenile convictions within the last five years for any recordable offence
  • any recordable offence other than listed above within the last five years

And then the drunk disorderly were cautions which are well over 5 years ago so even still they are only listed for 5 years.

And i have only been to court once for drink drive conviction, the drunk disorderly was cautions.

Im unsure if this is all new guidelines to get more police officers as its already quite strict.

Your cautions are declarable. Policing is an exempt occupation with regards to spent convictions.

3 hours ago, Milankovitch said:

I don't really see what is all that hypocritical about it in all honesty. I've met so many officers who have various endorsements on their driving licence who would still deal with driving offences when they see them. Indeed, they are expected to deal with these the same as an officer with a clean driving licence would do.

 

I work with an ex-traffic cop who spent most of his years in traffic sitting on 9 points as he's got a notoriously heavy right foot. He'd get a hard time at court from the defence when he'd issued somebody a ticket for speeding but as he points out, it isn't him that is on trial and it doesn't cancel out what the accused has done. You couldn't use his colleagues clean driving licence to prove the accused committed an offence in the same way you couldn't use his to disprove it. JPs can normally see through the defence tactics anyway, if they're resorting to slating a police witness for their driving record then they are usually scraping the bottom of the barrel anyway.

I'd suggest minor traffic matters are substantially different from criminal offences.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

My arguement to this post as a whole is that this drink drive was nearly 10 years ago. People can change a lot in 6 months so 10 years with no other issues with police or fines etc kind of proves the point that I'm not that person I was nearly 10 Years ago.

If you do a simple search on Google there is hundreds of officers on active duty with drink drive convictions in past.

R.e court I'm sure the court would see it was the past and not recent past either. And I would hold my hand up and say rightly so it was the stupidest thing I ever did and shouldn't have done it.

The conviction for drink drive was 16 months no points and my alcohol level was 46 I think so yes it was wrong but even the court seen I was a decent person made a stupid mistake and never issued points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites