Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17
th, 2008 at 8:34pm:
I think the main issue was she did not tell them of her past.
course, would not be an easy thing to do for her.
However, the police or army really have to have total disclosure from applicants
I think so too, but my question is
how did they find out about her past? This is not easily traceable for someone who works in this arena. And let me quote from the main article:
Quote:but it is not known how officers at the Goulburn-based facility found out about her alleged past.
Often girls don't even give their real names, and it's not a requirement, as far as I know. Was some personal vendetta at work here? A spurned police officer client? To mention one hypothetical. Where did this information about her past come from? Maybe a relative dobbed her in, I don't know. And surely, sprint, you think she is the first academy trainee police officer to have a "seedy" past? How, in heaven's name, does what she did in the past reflect on her current personality? In my area, please tell no one, police have done deals with drug dealers. Maybe there was some kind of conspiracy to get her in, or maybe she signed up as a joke, but what do we know?
That's why I'm asking this - why was she singled out? And how did the police find out about her? It could not have been done through a check of the electoral rolls only, I presume?