Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32


Sounds like a Detective in our midst. lol
quote:
Originally posted by GTO4ever:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32


Sounds like a Detective in our midst. lol

Good one, GTO. Nope, not a Detective.
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32


I observe or "survey" everywhere I go. I sit there with my eyes and ears open. Charge me with criminal surveillance because I listen and look around everywhere I go.
quote:
Originally posted by charliedale7:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32


I observe or "survey" everywhere I go. I sit there with my eyes and ears open. Charge me with criminal surveillance because I listen and look around everywhere I go.


I am just kidding with you Charlie Smiler I am guilty of that myself,It pays to know what's going on in your surrounding area, That way there are no surprises.
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by charliedale7:
quote:
Originally posted by bubba081962:
The good church folk thought they knew James and LaVonda Wells too but they didn't seem to know about those sado-masochistic snap shots of themselves showing their true colors without their Bibles in their hands behind the closed doors now did they?


It is my understanding that Tre was not in those pictures. That couple was married and those pictures had no place in the public's eye. What did the pictures show? Did it show all three, James, LaVonda and Tre ALL having sex? That would have been the ONLY evidence. Another instance when antidepressants took over and intelligence was thrown out the window.


I have to agree with you on the pictures of LaVonda and James Wells those should have never been made public those were to personal especially if they did not show Tre in them.

You sure are against antidepressants,maybe you have had a bad experience? who knows. IMO they don't make you more stupider unless you are already stupid in that case nothing will help.


I just picked up on the anti-antidepressant movement when I found out from news reports how many millions and millions of Americans are taking antidepressants. It's plumb depressing to think that many people take drugs to get happy. I think that's sad. No I haven't had a personal experience myself but I have to deal with people everyday who have "fuzzy" thinking because of drugs. It gets pretty nauseous.
quote:
Originally posted by charliedale7:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
quote:
Originally posted by ~*~Freebird~*~:
quote:
Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.


I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol


Absolutely! Careful, Charlie, not to violate Section 13A-11-32


I observe or "survey" everywhere I go. I sit there with my eyes and ears open. Charge me with criminal surveillance because I listen and look around everywhere I go.


I suppose that was my mistake, Charlie, to which I will accept responsibility. I failed to include LOL at the end of my post referencing Sec. 13A-11-32. Didn't intend to ruffle any feathers. I, too, (as everyone should be) am observant and aware of my surroundings.
quote:
Originally posted by bluesman *:
First of all I have known Pete for more than 35 years, he has never done me wrong, what he did or did not do to others is not my business, if he has done wrong it will come out in the court or at the Civil Service Board meeting. If he is guilty of mis-conduct than he has to live with it. I also know Hank who is a good friend of mine, and hey, Hank thank's so much, and you know what I mean, if your reading the forums. As far a Rick goes, he also is a friend of mine for more than 35 years, and no he does not do his BBQ business while he works. Rick, as far as man goes, has a heart of gold. I am just sick and tired of seeing the FPD put down so much, they are all a bunch of good men and women, who would lay down their life to help others. So, I won't and will not cut anyone down, nor or after the facts come out, that is left up to a court of law, or the Civil Service Board. End of story.


You are right it will all come out. I have high respect for our Law enforcement and it sadden me that one person is guilty of misconduct and the community wants to condemn the whole force.

I have know Rick for over 20 years and in my opinion he does a great job as chief. I go by the BBQ place all the time and don't see him. I think he hides cause it owes me dinner..lol

There is a bad apple in every bag but that don't make the whole bag bad unless it is not remove.
quote:
Originally posted by charliedale7:
quote:
Originally posted by bubba081962:
The good church folk thought they knew James and LaVonda Wells too but they didn't seem to know about those sado-masochistic snap shots of themselves showing their true colors without their Bibles in their hands behind the closed doors now did they?


As a baccalaureate registered nurse, I'm confused about your reference to anti-depressants. Please explain...
It is my understanding that Tre was not in those pictures. That couple was married and those pictures had no place in the public's eye. What did the pictures show? Did it show all three, James, LaVonda and Tre ALL having sex? That would have been the ONLY evidence. Another instance when antidepressants took over and intelligence was thrown out the window.
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
No, Charliedale7 apparently connects the Wells case to Pete Williford's plight.


There's nothing like the old apples and oranges comparison. Though I stopped trying to keep up with the huge Wells thread, I realized that some people think those accused of wrongdoing are always innocent and worth defending. In both of these cases, neither is true.
Good ole Pete - It's been a long time coming! If you have ever worked at FPD with or for Pete you would not be so quick to defend him.

I agree with Freebird on the fact " I do know how Williford got his promotion and it wasn't for being an excellent officer -- he got his promotion partially because of Singleton. Williford and Singleton have a history that dates back before the PD . Williford has always had an attitude that he is better than and smarter than everyone else -- and his arrogance showed his ignorance with the symbol issue and with some of his comments and actions in the media. He has done the PD more harm than good and I would have to disagree that other officers should want to be like Pete." (AMEN to THIS!!)

Pete is HORRIBLE to work with or work for - He is a complete butt to most officers and a control freak. His personality is beyond bad and even other police departments can't stand him - I have heard the commit many times he is the only man I know you can put in a police meeting with 100 officers and 99 will hate him before you leave the building. Over the years he has had numerious complaints from FPD officers and workers about his actions and statements made to them in e-mails and in person. He was always PROTECTED until the last year when I guess Singleton decided his political career was getting hurt by his department's actions. Spencer Butler,Pete and the others with their misconducts..that have been know about for years and talked about in his office. Pretty Funny in my opinion that several of these officers got the Chief's big award or Officer of the Year and Supervisor of the Year. If that is what is takes to get his awards we are all in trouble. Singleton's afraid for his career and finally Pete gets what he derserves. Why do you people think that Florence Police Department has so many young officers and they are all looking for new jobs. It's the supervison - Between Pete and Spencer there is no telling how many really good officers they have run off in the past 12 years! THE CITY NEEDS TO CLEAN HOUSE AT FPD and these two were a good start.
Thru a friends family situation,I had one encounter with this ~gentleman~ (cough,choke,gag) and got a very lasting impression. Smart mouthed,over flaunting his authority,manupulative.Not a positive to have in our police department. I could not believe the way he spoke to this mother in reguards to her 23 yr old son. He was a grown man,responsible for his own actions. This mother had not even seen her "wild child" in 2 yrs and was trying to locate him herself!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×