Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National One law for them?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by NiteKreeper, Sep 10, 2011.

  1. This article has appeared in the Courier today. I thought it was interesting because there have been a number of discussions on the topic here recently...
    It would also seem from the quotes in the article that the old bullshit line that coppers are exempt from the road rules "at all times" is just that. Just don't expect them to be punished - around 65% got a warning from the boss...

  2. omzgsss!! Bash the motorcyclist why don' they...
  3. stuck in first, etc
    • Like Like x 1

  4. Where did you get the 65%? you left out this bit:
    That was out of over 600. So it seems to be an article about police being held to the same laws rather than "one law for them".

    The article further mentions;

    Given that they had to pay the fine and were also disciplined it would seem that they cop it harder, which should be the case as they should be held to a higher level, and this article seems to back that up! What's the story then?
  5. Its in relation to a number of discussions that have been evident recently on the forum.
  6. That site is really quite relieving in a way, yes while it is sickening to see police acting like that it is good to know that they are being held to the same standard of justice as the rest of the public.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. I thought those discussions highlighted the fact that they have a general exemption provided that certain criteria were met. The issues in the discussions tended to assume the officer did not have a reason for the exemption without any background information, so were often left open ended.
  8. Have to agree there. It is good to know that bad ones are open to getting caught.
  9. Every time there's a blitz somewhere, the papers in the following week make a HUGE deal about the numbers caught, and how irresponsible those people were. Those people, remember, who haven't sworn an oath to uphold the law and protect each other...
    Some of those people suffer immeasurably for their transgression - loss of license = loss of job for more than a few, which = families in peril.

    Why wouldn't an officer of the law who has sworn an oath to uphold it, be held to a higher account than the rest of us? EVERY SINGLE TIME??!!
    Why would anyone in the community respect an organisation who is able to stop me providing for my family for exceeding the speed limit, but who laughs in my face when caught for similar offenses?

    To use one of "your" favourite tactics here: What if your nanna was getting bashed in her home by an intruder, and trying to call for help when this guy was off doing god-knows-what whilst on duty? Would YOU be satisfied that he got a slap on the wrist while nanna was lying, bleeding on her kitchen floor for hours?

    And you can't see the fucking story?
  10. And where have I said that this shouldn't be the case? In fact I pointed out that the article made note of this. My issue was with the way you added to the article information not in it, such as the 65% you noted and left out important facts that show the true point of the article.

    People on this site are smart enough to read articles and get the story so it is questionable that you should try to change the direction and point of the article. It is proof that cops get their arses kicked harder than the general public. You claim that it is unfair for the media to make a big thing about the results of blitzes when cops are getting caught too, well the cops are part of those figures, and when they are caught are open to a bigger media frenzy, and for good reason as I noted in my posts above. Again your article proves this.

    My favourite tactic? I generally look at a post and if it is biased ask if the poster has considered all factors. I don't see how that bares any resemblance to your analogy. Some how I must have hit a chord with you earlier in another thread, or you have me confused with someone else, but either way that is not one of my tactics.

    As to your analogy, yes of course I would be pissed off. But as mentioned before, I believe that any cop who floutes the rules should be held accountable for their actions, like any person in authority should.

    I don't know where your venom came from nor this skewed view of the point of the article, as I have generally gound your posts to beof two types, either well thought out or farking funny. So I am disappointed that I have got you off-side. Then again, I may have totally got the gist of the article wrong or your view of it, so am prepared to be corrected. Either way, my weekend can't get any worse, first the Hawks get beaten then I piss off NiteKreeper. What next? :-s
  11. Day I apologise if it seems like I'm having a go at you, which on reflection would be a pretty accurate assumption. Certainly not my intention though.
    The "your" in quotes wasn't very definitive either - it was a broad-brush swipe at one of your members here who loves the "What if it was your nanna..." analogies to "explain" why discretion can't be used. You'd think I'd remember who that was, seeing it pisses me off...

    This venom has been building for a little while now, and at the risk of becoming tedious it stems from the Luke Wilson case (I told you I'd never forget him, and I can even see him now, smiling in a photo posted here...).
    It's aided by the countless stories here about fender eliminators and loud pipes being deemed kiddie-killing instruments of death.
    And it's confirmed by stories of coppers leaving their posts in the company car whilst on duty, leaving them "unable to respond to an urgent case", and yet remaining in the job?

    I've been charged AWOL for sleeping in. It cost me money.
    I've been charged over a brawl in a military bar that ended with me and my opponent going through a plate-glass window. That one cost me my freedom and some money...
    I'm fully aware that in any other job, I'd get away with the first and be treated more leniently over the second. But I accept that because of my job, I was held to a higher account. My standard of behaviour was expected to be above the norm...
    I expect nothing less of our police forces, is all.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. No apology needed if no offence was intended. I can see your points and it makes sense. Sorry if my initial post had offended you.

    As far as standard of behaviour goes, then we are of the same view. My view may not appear apparent to all most of the time, as I tend to ask people to consider all options, as they would want to have their own actions considered rather than be judged for the wrong reasons.

    I hope that makes sense.

  13. Makes perfect sense mate, and I'm aware of the fine line you must be treading between opinion and policy....
    And if you and I agreed on everything, I'd have cause for even more worry about the state of law enforcement ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Talk about the perfect report for this thread...lol


    • Like Like x 1
  15. This is ICAC material, and it damn-well would be in my government job...

    If there's a log, there's accountability. If the log has been destroyed, someone's accountable for that too. Someone's corrupt here, and even an elephant tracker could work out who...

    Who's watching the watchers?
  16. Do police get held to a higher level of accountability than civilians? Er ... sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It's extremely inconsistent. I've known cops to have the book thrown at them, beyond all reason or proportion, for doing pretty simple, basic things that any reasonable person might do under the circumstances. I've also known cops to get away scot free doing ... fairly silly things that anybody else would have been fined big $ for. Being a cop is like double-or-nothing. You might get clean away, but you might get screwed over by your fellow officer on principle, because 'you should know better.'

    This is neither a defence nor an attach, simply an observation. Some cops defend and cover for their own, outrageously, and some go after fellow officers like ... an over zealous parking inspector or something.
  17. That's the part that struck me. If someone signs off on something, they're accountable. What gives?