Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Don’t you know who I am son? Better make it a caution when it’s a superintendent?

By johnboy 2 September 2010 169

Exfeds has drawn our attention to a story in the Herald Sun on the operation of the AFP when it comes to ticketing senior members for serious speeding offences:

A decision handed down this week by Fair Work Australia raises allegations that junior officer Richard Curie was pressured to withdraw a speeding ticket he issued to Supt Eric Grimm.

The pressure allegedly came from senior officers, including a sergeant who is reportedly a friend of Supt Grimm.

Supt Grimm was initially fined after he was allegedly caught travelling at 123km/h in an 80km/h zone in the ACT in April 2007.

But the ticket was withdrawn after senior officers intervened and replaced the fine with a traffic caution notice.

The allegations have come to light after Mr Curie complained he had been unfairly sacked after being bullied over unrelated matters and complained to Fair Work Australia.

The intriguing decision is available online.

UPDATE: The AFP’s national media unit has issued a circular denial of wrongdoing:

An article in the Herald Sun titled ‘AFP Officer Escapes Fine’ on Thursday 2 September 2010 has incorrectly claimed that members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) acted inappropriately in relation to the issuing of a speeding fine to another off-duty member of the AFP.

Specifically the article alleges that the speeding fine was downgraded to a traffic caution notice as a result of pressure from AFP Senior Officers.

This allegation was investigated by AFP Professional Standards and no misconduct was identified by any officers in relation this matter.

The AFP takes this type of issue very seriously and would not accept this behaviour by any of its operational members.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
169 Responses to
Don’t you know who I am son? Better make it a caution when it’s a superintendent?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
9
exfed2 2:12 pm 08 Oct 10

vg said :

“Well Spidey what on earth was old VG refering to? “

I’ll make it more simple than I thought it already was.

Crackers = loopy, nuffy, mental…..or absolute rubbish

Sooo, once again you guys contradict what each other say, miss the point and dare suggest others posts are not coherent…..

No point even bothering with you guys, more like politicions than what I susspect you are 🙂

vg 12:23 pm 08 Oct 10

“Well Spidey what on earth was old VG refering to? “

I’ll make it more simple than I thought it already was.

Crackers = loopy, nuffy, mental…..or absolute rubbish

Tooks 12:12 pm 08 Oct 10

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

[ Critizising your writing doesn’t count.

Criticising

Hehe, I saw that as I hit post! It’s one of my most hated American spellings too.

Jim Jones 11:43 am 08 Oct 10

Tooks said :

[ Critizising your writing doesn’t count.

Criticising

Tooks 11:36 am 08 Oct 10

exfed2 said :

Tooks said :

exfed2 said :

Because the ‘AFP is untouchable and accountable to no person’

And no reply back from ACLEI as yet re complaint submitted over three weeks ago now. And two more email requests for a response. Someone mentioned a royal comission would need more than the speeding issue, how about flawed investigations by the AFP into their own? Government organisation (ACLEI) spending countless taxpayer dollars on what? Not responding to a simple complaint from a taxpayer

but saying “the AFP is untouchable and accountable to no person” is off the mark.

Not to far off the mark hey?

Once again, you are very much off the mark. You said the “AFP is accountable to no person”, despite there being 87 substantiated complaints in the ACT in the last financial year, therefore they were accountable to the people who made those complaints.

Keep digging – you’ll get yourself out eventually.

Tooks 11:30 am 08 Oct 10

exfed2 said :

No you didn’t although you are correct that in your last post you were ‘suggesting’ not saying now that you meant ACLEI.

I take it back, with your constant change in direction when confronted with error, denigration of others etc, inability to admit error (I’m sure this was directed at the AFP during Haneef investigation :)) and move on………. you are more than likely in the job

– Constant change in direction? Nice try, but wrong.
– Denigration of others? Show me an example. Critizising your writing doesn’t count.
– Inability to admit error? What error?
I know I meant ACLEI, and if you read a few replies before that one, you could see that’s what I meant.

Jim Jones 2:15 pm 07 Oct 10

exfed 2, here’s a link for you: http://tinyurl.com/mc6x57

exfed2 1:58 pm 07 Oct 10

Tooks said :

exfed2 said :

Because the ‘AFP is untouchable and accountable to no person’

And no reply back from ACLEI as yet re complaint submitted over three weeks ago now. And two more email requests for a response. Someone mentioned a royal comission would need more than the speeding issue, how about flawed investigations by the AFP into their own? Government organisation (ACLEI) spending countless taxpayer dollars on what? Not responding to a simple complaint from a taxpayer

but saying “the AFP is untouchable and accountable to no person” is off the mark.

Not to far off the mark hey?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/27/2401877.htm

The program also interviewed the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who spoke about the attitude of the AFP towards his investigations into the organisation.

Professor John McMillan investigates complaints about Commonwealth Government departments and agencies.

He says the AFP is the most challenging of government agencies and puts up resistance to his investigations.

He has told the program he is often told he is wasting police time and dwelling on trivialities.

“I’ve had a couple of instances where I have been told directly by senior officers that the investigations I’ve planned would be a waste of time and impairs the capacity of police to get on with functions,” he said.

“I have a robust exchange with other agencies as well but it’s never been put as directly as that.”

exfed2 12:43 pm 07 Oct 10

And BTW where was your ‘a’ between be and higher above?

Shame on you Mr Tooks and you have the nerve to attack other peoples posts 🙂

exfed2 12:40 pm 07 Oct 10

Tooks

In your first post re priority you never mentioned who it would be higher for. Then when picked up on this you changed your stance and said,

‘I never suggested a stolen chocolate bar was higher priority for police – I SAID it was probably higher priority for ACLEI though…’

No you didn’t although you are correct that in your last post you were ‘suggesting’ not saying now that you meant ACLEI.

I take it back, with your constant change in direction when confronted with error, denigration of others etc, inability to admit error (I’m sure this was directed at the AFP during Haneef investigation :)) and move on………. you are more than likely in the job

Tooks 12:19 pm 07 Oct 10

Exfed2, honestly, conversing with you at any level is just painful.

– Which part of my paragraph didn’t make sense?
– You’re right, I didn’t say who it would be a higher priority for, but if you look at the context of my reply, it would be clear (to anyone with a brain, anyway) that I was suggesting it might be a higher priority for ACLEI (again showing your lack of comprehension).

“And BTW with your criticism of others grammatical errors and posts you couldn’t be in the job. You would have driven everyone nuts and been sent packin ga long time ago”

Really? Please look back at some of your posts. I rarely pick on the writing of others, as I am far from perfect, but I’m not surprised you’re an ‘ex’. You can barely construct a coherent sentence. I can only wonder at what the quality of your work was like.

Spideydog 10:27 am 07 Oct 10

Special G said :

If you can’t work out the difference between a traffic offence and a criminal offence it is a good thing you are ex-feds.

Part of the story is that Grimm didn’t admit to the speed Curie maintains he was doing. Which was checked with a non-certified speedo. Curie could have sent it to Court but he didn’t.

+1

You keep talking about “facts” ….. it didnt go to court, (which you should have done if you felt it could be proven) all you have is an “allegation”

You come accross as a bitter, twisted, ex-employee with a generous amount of sour grape syndrome. If you trully believe in your convictions, place your concerns/complaints with the relevant depts/organisations and let them investigate (which you appear to have done). Coming on here whinging and airing “allegations” not “facts” is not helping your cause. Just an observation.

exfed2 9:43 am 07 Oct 10

Tooks said :

exfed2 said :

Why do you keep harping on about the chocolate bar? Stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit. A stolen chocolate bar would be higher on their priority list, I’d imagine.

Tooks you have to be joking! lol stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit by more than 40kph…….. by anyone let alone an off duty AFP member. And in your opinion a stolen chocolate bar would be higher in priority for police than exceed speed by this margin? Thanks Tooks for sharing your thoughts, I need to go have a laugh now 🙂

I never suggested a stolen chocolate bar was higher priority for police – I said it was probably higher priority for ACLEI though…

The sad thing is I get the feeling a lot of people are laughing every time you post and you clearly can’t even tell when people are taking the piss out of you.

Tooks you have some nerve 🙂 Your entire first paragraph does not make sense.

‘I said it was probably higher priority for ACLEI though…’

No you didn’t. You didn’t specify who it would be a higher priority for! Help us please. If you can’t even remember what you posted a few posts earlier then I think I would be the last person people would be laughing at.

And BTW with your criticism of others grammatical errors and posts you couldn’t be in the job. You would have driven everyone nuts and been sent packin ga long time ago 🙂

Special G 9:37 am 07 Oct 10

If you can’t work out the difference between a traffic offence and a criminal offence it is a good thing you are ex-feds.

Part of the story is that Grimm didn’t admit to the speed Curie maintains he was doing. Which was checked with a non-certified speedo. Curie could have sent it to Court but he didn’t.

Special G 9:33 am 07 Oct 10

I can’t even work out which is which anymore. Same non-coherant arguement. It is easier to address Exfeds and Exfeds2 as one person.

As I mentioned in the other thread – Mully award.

Tooks 8:45 am 07 Oct 10

exfed2 said :

Why do you keep harping on about the chocolate bar? Stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit. A stolen chocolate bar would be higher on their priority list, I’d imagine.

Tooks you have to be joking! lol stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit by more than 40kph…….. by anyone let alone an off duty AFP member. And in your opinion a stolen chocolate bar would be higher in priority for police than exceed speed by this margin? Thanks Tooks for sharing your thoughts, I need to go have a laugh now 🙂

Once again, your second sentence makes no sense and your comprehension skills are abysmal. What I was saying was a traffic offence and a criminal offence aren’t the same thing. I never suggested a stolen chocolate bar was higher priority for police – I said it was probably higher priority for ACLEI though…

The sad thing is I get the feeling a lot of people are laughing every time you post and you clearly can’t even tell when people are taking the piss out of you.

exfed2 1:14 am 07 Oct 10

Spideydog said :

exfed2 said :

vg said :

exfed2 said :

WOW, even I am suprised. Over two weeks and three follow up emails and still no response. Considering ACLEI was setup to oversee complaints against AFP and ACC it’s now obvious they must be inundated with other complaints 🙂

No, they just have a prioritisation system, and something categorised as ‘crackers’ goes to the bottom of the pile

Thats right VG we all know what your opinion on police breaking the law is. So answer this, if a complaint re this matter is in your opinion low or ‘crackers’ what would your opinion be on an officer stealing a chocolate bar from a store?

I don’t think vg was saying the ‘complaint’ was crackers.

Well Spidey what on earth was old VG refering to?

‘and something categorised as ‘crackers’ goes to the bottom of the pile’

The only thing they would have received was the complaint and that’s the only thing that would go to the bottom of the pile…….. damn you guys love dodging facts to avoid the truth the truth. Stay straight and focused for once instead of the childish misdirection. Don’t worry you’ll all be able to catch up for drinks and compare ‘funny’ comebacks to the facts at hand

exfed2 1:10 am 07 Oct 10

Why do you keep harping on about the chocolate bar? Stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit. A stolen chocolate bar would be higher on their priority list, I’d imagine.

Tooks you have to be joking! lol stealing is not comparable to exceeding the speed limit by more than 40kph…….. by anyone let alone an off duty AFP member. And in your opinion a stolen chocolate bar would be higher in priority for police than exceed speed by this margin? Thanks Tooks for sharing your thoughts, I need to go have a laugh now 🙂

Tooks 9:08 pm 06 Oct 10

Spideydog said :

exfed2 said :

vg said :

exfed2 said :

WOW, even I am suprised. Over two weeks and three follow up emails and still no response. Considering ACLEI was setup to oversee complaints against AFP and ACC it’s now obvious they must be inundated with other complaints 🙂

No, they just have a prioritisation system, and something categorised as ‘crackers’ goes to the bottom of the pile

Thats right VG we all know what your opinion on police breaking the law is. So answer this, if a complaint re this matter is in your opinion low or ‘crackers’ what would your opinion be on an officer stealing a chocolate bar from a store?

I don’t think vg was saying the ‘complaint’ was crackers.

Exactly.

Spideydog 8:43 pm 06 Oct 10

exfed2 said :

vg said :

exfed2 said :

WOW, even I am suprised. Over two weeks and three follow up emails and still no response. Considering ACLEI was setup to oversee complaints against AFP and ACC it’s now obvious they must be inundated with other complaints 🙂

No, they just have a prioritisation system, and something categorised as ‘crackers’ goes to the bottom of the pile

Thats right VG we all know what your opinion on police breaking the law is. So answer this, if a complaint re this matter is in your opinion low or ‘crackers’ what would your opinion be on an officer stealing a chocolate bar from a store?

I don’t think vg was saying the ‘complaint’ was crackers.

9

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site