You Must Never Give BIBs a Bollocking In Public Ever
Discussion
vescaegg said:
Having stern words with the supervisor and even putting him in the police car after (presumably) being told how serious it is, was idiotic though. Id guess that 95% of people know asbestos is very bad stuff, and Asbestos Insulation Board is some of the worst stuff you can come across. You are not even allowed to touch it without notifying the HSE 14 days before and doing a mountain of paperwork first.
The HSE are serious serious people you really dont want to ever want to do something to get on the wrong side of!
Does everyone know Asbestos is bad? I suspect as with a lot of these things the job of protecting people has been done so well that a lot of people don't know or care about it. The HSE are serious serious people you really dont want to ever want to do something to get on the wrong side of!
A lot of kids don't get real science lessons, a lot of people fall for the diHydrogen Monoxide trick, just because the older generation know about it possibly because of personal experience seeing people suffer through Asbestos doesn't mean the current crop of 20-30 somethings know about it. Lead in Petrol is something that I bet a hell of a lot of people under 30 know very little about.
Someone back there asked why police don't apologise.
I've had a few friendly appoligies in my time time.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Sorry for the diversion.
That sort of thing, just polite words.
In terms of an official apology though, I'd guess it's an answer if two parts.
1. The average cop is not authorised to make an official apology.
2. Because an apology can be considered an admission of blame then the police open themselves up to being sued.
In terms of corrupt cops; I'm not sure if a few bobbies putting the fear of god into a mouthy disrespetful youth could be considered corruption.
Fear is a good substitute for respect.
We do seem to have lost sight of the op though
I agree with the poster who said that the workman just saw an opportunity to have a pop at an authority figure.
I've had a few friendly appoligies in my time time.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Sorry for the diversion.
That sort of thing, just polite words.
In terms of an official apology though, I'd guess it's an answer if two parts.
1. The average cop is not authorised to make an official apology.
2. Because an apology can be considered an admission of blame then the police open themselves up to being sued.
In terms of corrupt cops; I'm not sure if a few bobbies putting the fear of god into a mouthy disrespetful youth could be considered corruption.
Fear is a good substitute for respect.
We do seem to have lost sight of the op though
I agree with the poster who said that the workman just saw an opportunity to have a pop at an authority figure.
Snowboy said:
I agree with the poster who said that the workman just saw an opportunity to have a pop at an authority figure.
So do I.And one has to remember that the story as told to the OP may well have been slanted to make the workman look good and the policemen look bad. From there the haters on here picked the ball up and ran with it, as usual
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
Fear is a good substitute for respect.
That attitude might be fine for a playground bully but it's not acceptable for those in positions of authority.Certain elements of society will never have respect for anything or anyone.
If these groups fear the police, then some control can be maintained over them.
singlecoil said:
And what would be a good substitute then?
Answer- there isn't one. It may not be a good one in your eyes, but it's the best there is. The fault lies not with the police, but with that class of person that respects nothing.
Answer- there isn't one. It may not be a good one in your eyes, but it's the best there is. The fault lies not with the police, but with that class of person that respects nothing.
Online Code of Conduct for Officers and Staff Cumbria Police with URL for reference below said:
Honesty and integrity
Be honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse position.
This means not abusing other social networking users, not disclosing information about colleagues and not compromising your position as a member of staff or an officer.
Authority, respect and courtesy
Act with self control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
This means ensuring that the language you use online is appropriate, you respect others views and in making your own views, that you do so with respect for others. Light humour is often helpful but you should ensure you do not offend others or give the impression that you do not take your role in the police seriously.
It also means accepting that anything posted online is in the public domain, so if you wouldn't say it to your boss, partner, a member of the public or even the media, don't say it online.
from: Be honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse position.
This means not abusing other social networking users, not disclosing information about colleagues and not compromising your position as a member of staff or an officer.
Authority, respect and courtesy
Act with self control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
This means ensuring that the language you use online is appropriate, you respect others views and in making your own views, that you do so with respect for others. Light humour is often helpful but you should ensure you do not offend others or give the impression that you do not take your role in the police seriously.
It also means accepting that anything posted online is in the public domain, so if you wouldn't say it to your boss, partner, a member of the public or even the media, don't say it online.
http://www.cumbria.police.uk/Admin/uploads/attachm...
singlecoil said:
The fault lies not with the police, but with that class of person that respects nothing.
Whose fault is it if BiB, and those intent on impersonating BiB, routinely choose to disregard such policies about acceptable Internet usage?If any BiB are regularly riding roughshod over such policies should we assume that that's the only rule or regulation they grant themselves exemption from?
carinaman said:
Whose fault is it if BiB, and those intent on impersonating BiB, routinely choose to disregard such policies about acceptable Internet usage?
If any BiB are regularly riding roughshod over such policies should we assume that that's the only rule or regulation they grant themselves exemption from?
There is a big difference between a social media policy which provides guidance and, for example, PACE? If any BiB are regularly riding roughshod over such policies should we assume that that's the only rule or regulation they grant themselves exemption from?
Scuffers said:
Whilst I am at it, surely this should be one of the primary goals of the Police Federation? to support the rank and file against the dishonestly and politicized leadership of these senior officers?
The Federation should provide PC Patrick with legal advice/ representation - paid for from The Voluntary FundsI don't know any more about this case than has been reported in the press - but, if he has a case I'm sure the Fed lawyers will run with it ...
Red 4 said:
Scuffers said:
Whilst I am at it, surely this should be one of the primary goals of the Police Federation? to support the rank and file against the dishonestly and politicized leadership of these senior officers?
The Federation should provide PC Patrick with legal advice/ representation - paid for from The Voluntary FundsI don't know any more about this case than has been reported in the press - but, if he has a case I'm sure the Fed lawyers will run with it ...
if a PC can't trust his fellow officers or management, where does that leave us?
I only mention this case because it was brought up as a reason why the 'good' cops keep their heads down, and to my mind, that's already an admission of failure of the Police as a service....
Scuffers said:
If a PC can't trust his fellow officers or management, where does that leave us?
Good question ...There are loads of examples of officers suing the job due to "organisational failings".
The most recent case that comes to mind was that of Mike Baillon. This officer was heavily criticised by morons who know nothing about this man or how he was treated ...
As ever - do your own research. Organisational failings/ bullying/ call it what you like. Sometimes those with the real power like to wield it - sometimes that is very, very wrong and comes back to bite them in a spectacular fashion.
Red 4 said:
Scuffers said:
Whilst I am at it, surely this should be one of the primary goals of the Police Federation? to support the rank and file against the dishonestly and politicized leadership of these senior officers?
The Federation should provide PC Patrick with legal advice/ representation - paid for from The Voluntary FundsI don't know any more about this case than has been reported in the press - but, if he has a case I'm sure the Fed lawyers will run with it ...
IMHO, if he is found to have been telling the truth then 90% of all issues are resolved there and then, regardless of policy. Perhaps a minor rap on the knuckles for talking out of turn rather than using correct procedures, but no more than that.
If he's found to have not been telling the truth then throw him to the wolves.
Red 4 said:
The most recent case that comes to mind was that of Mike Baillon. This officer was heavily criticised by morons who know nothing about this man or how he was treated ...
I am one of those. I started a thread on the incident. To me it still seems over the top and excessive. I think I commented in the more recent threads about it that I didn't like individuals being abused by their employers'.
Red 4 said:
Sometimes those with the real power like to wield it - sometimes that is very, very wrong and comes back to bite them in a spectacular fashion.
So just as employers or senior ranks can use the full power of the law or regulations as they were granted for their sole use, and drive them like they stole them, then it could also be said that sometimes officers use all the power at their disposal whether it's necessary or not?Just as employers and supervisors can go over the top with their powers, because they can, they can like police officers, use the 'Procedures were followed' line. That's used by Professional Standards Depts. and used by employers and their legal representatives.
Just because policies and procedures have been followed doesn't mean that they may not have been misappropriated.
My referencing of the line 'Procedures were followed' is used by the police and employers alike as a 'catch all' umbrella, 'Not our fault, it wasn't personal, it was just the procedures......' has been influenced by the recent news that the tasering of Colin Farmer, the stroke victim was in the press again last week:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/26/pol...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff