She doesn't stand to make that much, that's how much she'll lose if fired compared to her superior only being docked $4000 in pay!!Again, read for comprehension. lol
Also, where does it say she only worked 6 years? I see only 14 years on the force?
her firing has nothing to do with the tawdry affair. that is a completely separate matter. she was docked 7 pays pay and her boss 10 days pay. and that concluded the matter.the woman, her lawyer, the union and the media have falsely conflated the affair with the unrelated matter of her justified termination. she is apparently unable to function in the demanding role of rcmp officer and she should be released. it happens it's a hard job and people wash out of the rcmp every year and they have to leavethe affair as it turned out was a truly brilliant move. as it created a false diversion from the real issue which is her fitness to be an rcmp officer. she has successfully put it to the force to do the right thing, stand up to feminists and the media and terminate her. they haven't yet and they won't. they would prefer to spend $4 million to avoid a confrontation even though they are in the right
The article is about how both at the beginning the 2 officers had an affair(supposedly) She claimed otherwise. She was found guilty of disgraceful conduct for having the affair — which included sex in a police cruiser — and then lying about it (supposedly caused from her mental illness). She claims that "Specifically we are concerned that expert evidence was rejected improperly and that factual findings were made in error." When the board handed out punishment to him (Pearson) two weeks ago, the panel chairman said he would have faced much worse punishment had his commanding officer made different accusations.Reid said for unknown reasons, Pearson didn't face accusations of abuse of authority, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and lying to a superior officer.He said he wouldn't hesitate to demote Pearson for such conduct, but those allegations were not before the board because his someone didn't charge him right (which is possible). As he was her superior.Because of her perceived mental illness (which made her unsuitable to be a RCMP), she would have faced a tougher sentence than he would have. She would have lost $4 million in pay and he would have lost 10 days. So instead they are putting her on disability.It all sounds fishy to me and that the RCMP are trying to cover up for a superior when he screwed up (not the 1st time the RCMP have done this. They know she has a mental illness and so they are trying to blame that instead.They are obviously fooling you and getting you to show your true colours, blaming feminists. What a joke! I suppose you blame feminists for everything.
Post a Comment