Police internal affairs involved in child porn case

[KL3-Something]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

grasping at straws now GD....grasping at straws

[grumpydigger]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

grasping at straws now GD....grasping at straws

Police internal affairs do not investigate civilians

[fvkasm2x]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

Or a court orderly.

Either way, he isn't a cop. Apologize!!!

[KL3-Something]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

grasping at straws now GD....grasping at straws

Police internal affairs do not investigate civilians

Civilians no. Civilian employees yes.

[KL3-Something]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

Or a court orderly.

Either way, he isn't a cop. Apologize!!!

I don't think he needs to apologize. He just needs to be man enough to admit that he was wrong in his presumption.

[Mr. Personality]

Or include "Civilian RCMP Employees" in his statement.

[fvkasm2x]

Or include "Civilian RCMP Employees" in his statement.

No.

He could work for the courts or as a baliff/sherrif. Neither of those positions are funded by the RCMP

[Mr. Personality]

How about throwing "Civilian Employee working an RCMP related job" in there.
You have to admit, there is a definite link to the RCMP. I'm not saying I agree with GD, I'm just saying he may have the right idea, wrong wording.

[Ken7]

Hall's occupation was listed as a deliveryman of court documents.

It is extremely unusual that police internal affairs would be investigating a civilian........Someone who merely delivers documents would just have to be bonded.

I got a feeling, there may be a little sleight-of-hand and some covering up going on-Here.

I wonder if he may have been a sheriff's officer

_____________________________________________________________

If one is employeed by the City, or the Detachment it would fall upon internal to investigate.

I won't print a assumption as there are too many made here already. No names!!

[KL3-Something]

How about throwing "Civilian Employee working an RCMP related job" in there.
You have to admit, there is a definite link to the RCMP. I'm not saying I agree with GD, I'm just saying he may have the right idea, wrong wording.

Did you notice which police force that the article is about? Maybe you should go back and re-read.

[goatboy]

How about throwing "Civilian Employee working an RCMP related job" in there.
You have to admit, there is a definite link to the RCMP. I'm not saying I agree with GD, I'm just saying he may have the right idea, wrong wording.

Did you notice which police force that the article is about? Maybe you should go back and re-read.

What? Worry about your post being factual, come on now, don't be silly.

[Mr. Personality]

Did you notice which police force that the article is about? Maybe you should go back and re-read.

To be honest, no. That's my bad. How about "in a job related to law enforcement and the courts"?

What? Worry about your post being factual, come on now, don't be silly.

Go back to ragging on GD. Or at least say something worthwhile. As bad as GD is, you're worse.

[goatboy]

Did you notice which police force that the article is about? Maybe you should go back and re-read.

To be honest, no. That's my bad. How about "in a job related to law enforcement and the courts"?

What? Worry about your post being factual, come on now, don't be silly.

Go back to ragging on GD. Or at least say something worthwhile. As bad as GD is, you're worse.

If you want me to take your posts seriously, then they should at least reflect that you have read what you're posting about. You post:

You have to admit, there is a definite link to the RCMP

and then complain that I'm not saying something worthwhile?

I only rag on GD for doing the same thing, posting inaccurate information. I have never complained to him about posting factual information.

[Mr. Personality]

If you want me to take your posts seriously,

I really don't care what you think of my posts. Don't flatter yourself.

[goatboy]

If you want me to take your posts seriously,

I really don't care what you think of my posts. Don't flatter yourself.

OK then. Your post showed that you have no idea what you were talking about.