MORE ON CONSTABLE ANDREW ROBSON

I am very glad to see the amount of time and ink that the Waterloo Region Record have been devoting to this important case. It is my hope that Constable Robson will find peace and relief and it's also my hope that his trials and tribulations will bring a recognition to the Waterloo Regional Police, that they have a duty to their officers to assist them in their time of need. Last Friday the Waterloo Region Record carried this story: "Investigator defends drug sting that nabbed officer".

I am somewhat surprised by the article's statement that fellow officers had been making allegations against both Officer Robson and two others. I know that the teachers' union for example expressly order that any union member complaining or criticizing a fellow union member, absolutely must provide the target of their allegations with a copy in writing. This indeed serves a partial purpose of discouraging petty or frivolous complaints. This is why I kind of don't understand what's going on with the policemans' benevolent association (ie. union). Are they playing favourites and only protecting those in the clique, or are they protecting all their member officers equally? Something is being kept hidden from the public and I don't know if it reflects upon the union, upper management or even the political masters.

What is also significant to me is that Officer Robson was offerred a conditional discharge "...meaning he wouldn't acquire a criminal record- if he pleaded guilty and resigned." This suggests that the Waterloo Regional Police simply want to get rid of him and the marijuana charge was simply the method chosen to do so. I wonder if the upper management discussed this with the union ahead of time? Wouldn't that be an interesting scenario? Constable Robson in court described "...a macho police culture with no tolerance for signs of weakness." Again I wonder if this intolerance includes the police union and their support or otherwise for an officer in trouble?