Good work Police Scotland

[///ajd]

Derek Smith said:

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news. A call had been made to the police/Emergency Serivces and it was NOT acted on. As a result of that a woman died. All you have done is spout 'corporate bull$hit' and defended them. All your nonsense about the 'process of assessment' is a smoke screen. A call was NOT acted on, someone fcked up big time.

Some of us may have had cause to ring the Emergency Services, they are pretty thourough in the questions they ask, annoyingly so at the time. Do you really think the call was "I've just seen a car that appears to have gone off the Motorway" - "OK thanks mate, bye". Of course not, the caller would be asked for where?the time? the colour of the car? etc etc, and the call is logged, all calls are logged.
All an inquiry needs to do is find out is where in the chain of communication
WHO failed to act on the call. The fact is, they cocked up BIG time, no excuses.

So someone made a mikstake.

Who did? You say you know enough of the facts to come to a definite decision. Well done. Perhaps you can prove who was at fault then.

Was it the person who took the call? If so, I'm not sure that it has been confirmed that s/he was not acting according to the force policies, guidelines and orders.

Is it the person/s who designed the systems? If so, do we know what limitations they were working under, what they were told to do, whether the system was suitable to base the set-up on? You seem to know: could you tell us please?

What about the great and the good who decided that there were massive cost savings to be made by unifying the police forces in Scotland, one of which was a change in call taking. Could you tell me if it was a factor in this case? I've just read the reports, although with some interest, given that I was in a call taking centre for two years.

Did the person who designed the call-taking system, altering it into two separate systems, plan for every eventuality? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

You gave us the conversation between the call taker and the informant. I'm afraid I did not see this in any of the reports. Could you provide a link?

Mind you, perhaps it is best to blame just one person. That was they can take all the blame. It is so reassuring. Everyone can point the finger and magically, everything is all right and such an occurrence could never happen again. Until, of course, next time.

Or one could actually manage a situation. But then that takes so much effort. It takes an awful lot of restraint. It takes a tremendous amount of maturity. So much easier to suggest that it is all down to one person.

You suggest that whenever you phone the police, a great deal of time is taken up with taking down details and being questioned. That, I bet, is most people's experience. Did the call taker ask questions? Was he given replies? Did the person give sufficient details to create an actionable operational log? I don't know. Perhaps you could tell me.

To me, the most important thing to ensure is that the police establish systems or checks to ensure that two people are never left at the roadside to die in the future. Even those with the weakest of minds must realise that even if the call taker is at fault, merely sacking them is doing nothing to solve the problem. You see that, don't you?

I, like all FCR inspectors I assume, used to run little debriefs at the end of every major incident the FCR was in control of or assisted in. The one common thing was that controllers would highlight mistakes. Even when these had no effect on the outcome, they would blame themselves. This is how the vast majority of people view their role: as something they want to do to the best of their ability. A mistake to them, to us, is reprehensible. You beat yourself up.

Every time these errors were investigated, reasons for the poor decisions, actions, or non-actions were found. Always. You seem to think that the controller in this case was inept, incompetent or a criminal. It is possible of course, but highly unlikely.

I'd ask to be allowed a little self indulgence. Quoted for posterity:

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news.

That is a little cracker.

You are right.
Pretending to know what happened before the facts are established is foolish.
If someone said they knew why a mysterious plane crashed before the blackboxes had been recovered/read, you'd just dismisstheir opinion as baseless speculation. This is no different.

[JensenA]

Derek Smith said:

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news. A call had been made to the police/Emergency Serivces and it was NOT acted on. As a result of that a woman died. All you have done is spout 'corporate bull$hit' and defended them. All your nonsense about the 'process of assessment' is a smoke screen. A call was NOT acted on, someone fcked up big time.

Some of us may have had cause to ring the Emergency Services, they are pretty thourough in the questions they ask, annoyingly so at the time. Do you really think the call was "I've just seen a car that appears to have gone off the Motorway" - "OK thanks mate, bye". Of course not, the caller would be asked for where?the time? the colour of the car? etc etc, and the call is logged, all calls are logged.
All an inquiry needs to do is find out is where in the chain of communication
WHO failed to act on the call. The fact is, they cocked up BIG time, no excuses.

So someone made a mikstake.

Who did? You say you know enough of the facts to come to a definite decision. Well done. Perhaps you can prove who was at fault then.

Was it the person who took the call? If so, I'm not sure that it has been confirmed that s/he was not acting according to the force policies, guidelines and orders.

Is it the person/s who designed the systems? If so, do we know what limitations they were working under, what they were told to do, whether the system was suitable to base the set-up on? You seem to know: could you tell us please?

What about the great and the good who decided that there were massive cost savings to be made by unifying the police forces in Scotland, one of which was a change in call taking. Could you tell me if it was a factor in this case? I've just read the reports, although with some interest, given that I was in a call taking centre for two years.

Did the person who designed the call-taking system, altering it into two separate systems, plan for every eventuality? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

You gave us the conversation between the call taker and the informant. I'm afraid I did not see this in any of the reports. Could you provide a link?

Mind you, perhaps it is best to blame just one person. That was they can take all the blame. It is so reassuring. Everyone can point the finger and magically, everything is all right and such an occurrence could never happen again. Until, of course, next time.

Or one could actually manage a situation. But then that takes so much effort. It takes an awful lot of restraint. It takes a tremendous amount of maturity. So much easier to suggest that it is all down to one person.

You suggest that whenever you phone the police, a great deal of time is taken up with taking down details and being questioned. That, I bet, is most people's experience. Did the call taker ask questions? Was he given replies? Did the person give sufficient details to create an actionable operational log? I don't know. Perhaps you could tell me.

To me, the most important thing to ensure is that the police establish systems or checks to ensure that two people are never left at the roadside to die in the future. Even those with the weakest of minds must realise that even if the call taker is at fault, merely sacking them is doing nothing to solve the problem. You see that, don't you?

I, like all FCR inspectors I assume, used to run little debriefs at the end of every major incident the FCR was in control of or assisted in. The one common thing was that controllers would highlight mistakes. Even when these had no effect on the outcome, they would blame themselves. This is how the vast majority of people view their role: as something they want to do to the best of their ability. A mistake to them, to us, is reprehensible. You beat yourself up.

Every time these errors were investigated, reasons for the poor decisions, actions, or non-actions were found. Always. You seem to think that the controller in this case was inept, incompetent or a criminal. It is possible of course, but highly unlikely.

I'd ask to be allowed a little self indulgence. Quoted for posterity:

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news.

That is a little cracker.

Did you actually read my post? Obviously not, so to summarise it for you....

Someone rang the police/emergency services.
Police \emergency services fails to act on the call.
As a result a lady died.
A inquiry needs to find out WHO decided not to log, or act on that call.

And those are the FACTS that we knew at the beginning.

[Mojooo]

So if someone took the call, went to take a leak and forgot about it when they came back - so what? Dismissal?

The Police have already said the person who took the call is still working there.

[///ajd]

Janluke said:

///ajd said:

I'm a bit surprised there has not been more said about who called it in. It seems the clio was travelling at speed into trees - surely itwas obvious this was serious. Why not stop and see, but just call? At the end of the day, without that call, there would beno discussion. What responsibility does the caller carry, especially as it seems it was likely that it would occur to the caller that the crashed car would not be visible?

I wondered if they where traveling on the other carriageway. Not sure anyone would/should stop and cross six lanes of motorway. I have no idea if this is the case but just a thought

Yes thats a good point, and a good excuse not to stop.

Very unfortunate though, a cruel combination of a road that should be busy enough for lots a witnesses, but seemingly not, and the dual carriage nature may have prevented the only witness from stopping (when otherwise they would). The fact they bothered to make a call suggests they might know they werethe only likely witnesses; if I saw a car crash like that in the other carriageway direction with other cars travelling in the same carriageway as the crash and clearly seeing it, not sure I'd call, would you?

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 12th July 22:03

[Derek Smith]

JensenA said:

All an inquiry needs to do is find out is where in the chain of communication
WHO failed to act on the call. The fact is, they cocked up BIG time, no excuses.

There you go.

You suggest, quite clearly, well fairly clearly, that the call taker is at fault. You even put who in capitals. Either that or you have worded you post poorly.

Perhaps I should apologise. I had meant to put in my post that the appears that the call taker is at fault. Can't think why I didn't. Funny enough, I can remember typing it but that must be wrong as all I did, it seems, was give out corporate bull. You said so.

My point was . . . well read it. But you won't. You've read the newspaper so you know 'things'.

I was two years in my force control room and spent more time in a command role. I do know the systems to an extent, and my post made no excuses. It was there for information and perhaps edification of those who are aware of their limitations in knowledge.

As I say, possibly meant to, it would appear that the call taker made a mistake. Leaving it at finger pointing will not do anything to lessen the chances of the same sort of thing happening again.

This is my point. I stick by it. I would suggest that there is a lot in management books and courses that supports my point of view.

In case I am being obscure, I'll put it another way:

There were a series of accidents at a junction where I used to live. I remember reading - I was working in a local newspaper at the time and I read the galley proofs - of a traffic inspector saying that it was the fault of the drivers and that they should all be prosecuted for dangerous driving. Even at my young age then, probably 19 or so, I could see the fault in this. Although the drivers may well have made errors, given that they had probably driven for hours, days, weeks, months and longer without having an accident, it seemed odd that they were having accidents at that particular point. What suddenly made them go criminal? Perhaps a cause?

Sure enough, traffic management moved in, changed the approach, replaced signs and all of a sudden the drivers were somehow improved.

In other words, there might well be a valid reason why this call taker made the decision not to record the call.

I'd go further and say that in my, not inconsiderable, experience of such matters, this is the most likely scenario.

But point the finger if it makes you feel better.

[anonymous-user]

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset

No we didn't. Until it was confirmed there were possibilities on both sides.

JensenA said:

All you have done is spout 'corporate bull$hit' and defended them. All your nonsense about the 'process of assessment' is a smoke screen.

I've not defended them (please point out where I have done), merely pointed out a range of possibilities at the start. There's no smokescreen, they need to assess whether or not there is anything they can do to the processes and procedures (you do understand these things exist, don't you?) which can prevent / minimise this occurring again.

JensenA said:

Did you actually read my post? Obviously not, so to summarise it for you....

Someone rang the police/emergency services.
Police \emergency services fails to act on the call.
As a result a lady died.
A inquiry needs to find out WHO decided not to log, or act on that call.

And those are the FACTS that we knew at the beginning.

You didn't know they failed to act as you didn't know the content of the call at that time. Acting is circumstantial depending on the information. It's not hard to position ourselves at different points in time and realise what we know and don't know at those times.

JensenA said:

We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news.

Yes, that well known relationship between knowing all the facts and news coverage!

V8 Fettler said:

The design of your call handling system appears to be flawed. The two non-emergency systems I have some involvement with are designed to accommodate errors by any one person.

A call centre can hardly be described as efficient if it fails to prevent a fatality.

It depends on the error rate and cost / benefits of trying to reduce the error rate further. If we're talking about 99.99% accuracy, which is perfectly possible in a sample of nearly 10 million, then adding layers of processes, procedures and additional systems could do greater overall harm vs the improbable and high-impact scenario occurring like this. Without knowing the systems well and the data it's hard to judge.

[anonymous-user]

Fortunately we have been spared more hand wringing by old Elroy.
Happen he is doing some really important police work such as attending a health and diversity course or a How to liase with the LGBT community in a sympathetic manner exam.

[NoNeed]

Mojooo said:

The Police have already said the person who took the call is still working there.

So we know a call was made and who took it.

All we need to know now is what they did with the information from that call.


1. was it passed on? if so who to and who decided not to go.

2. was it not passed on, if not why not.


Gross negligence in a public office is very serious, it's no wonder we're hearing the usual excuses and smoke screen bullst from Derek, we hear it every time the police do something wrong, Those in blue will never admit any mistake they make, that's why these things always escalate and confidence in the honesty of the police is at an all time low.

[V8 Fettler]

Cat said:

V8 Fettler said:

The design of your call handling system appears to be flawed. The two non-emergency systems I have some involvement with are designed to accommodate errors by any one person.

Can you explain what sort of systems these are and how they work to eliminate human error?

Cat

Call handling centre. Each incoming call automatically generates a file including time, date, caller I/D (if available), link to recording of call (storage is cheap), call handler adds detail and allocates call. Screen cannot be closed with no action, summary of call reviewed by supervisor within 24 hours.

The call handlers are not paid the highest of hourly rates; mistakes are expected, unlikely to be life threatening but some cost implications.

[Rovinghawk]

NoNeed said:

we hear it every time the police do something wrong,

they never do anything wrong- it's our misperception.

NoNeed said:

confidence in the honesty of the police is at an all time low.

It's at an all-time high, apparently- they have surveys, you know.

[neelyp]

///ajd said:

Janluke said:

///ajd said:

I'm a bit surprised there has not been more said about who called it in. It seems the clio was travelling at speed into trees - surely itwas obvious this was serious. Why not stop and see, but just call? At the end of the day, without that call, there would beno discussion. What responsibility does the caller carry, especially as it seems it was likely that it would occur to the caller that the crashed car would not be visible?

I wondered if they where traveling on the other carriageway. Not sure anyone would/should stop and cross six lanes of motorway. I have no idea if this is the case but just a thought

Yes thats a good point, and a good excuse not to stop.

Very unfortunate though, a cruel combination of a road that should be busy enough for lots a witnesses, but seemingly not, and the dual carriage nature may have prevented the only witness from stopping (when otherwise they would). The fact they bothered to make a call suggests they might know they werethe only likely witnesses; if I saw a car crash like that in the other carriageway direction with other cars travelling in the same carriageway as the crash and clearly seeing it, not sure I'd call, would you?

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 12th July 22:03

The layout of the road at the spot the car went off the motorway is where the motorway splits, the person who reported it could have been on the split going to Glasgow, where the victim's car came to rest was at the left hand split.

[Derek Smith]

NoNeed said:

So we know a call was made and who took it.

All we need to know now is what they did with the information from that call.


1. was it passed on? if so who to and who decided not to go.

2. was it not passed on, if not why not.


Gross negligence in a public office is very serious, it's no wonder we're hearing the usual excuses and smoke screen bullst from Derek, we hear it every time the police do something wrong, Those in blue will never admit any mistake they make, that's why these things always escalate and confidence in the honesty of the police is at an all time low.

So what have I said that is wrong? Smoke screen, eh? My intent has been to clarify, although if you don't want to look, that's pointless.

I've said a number of times that it appears as if the call taker made an error. I don't know if s/he did, and neither do you.

I'm not in blue.

There does seem to be a certain glee from some poster on PH whenever police do make an error. The fact is that errors in call-taking are very low. Perhaps many people realise this and that is why confidence in the police is high.

Like you, I have no idea of current systems in the service. I don't even know if they differ from those of the English/Welsh forces. What I do know is what it was like in my time and, in talking to ex colleagues, it would appear that there is little different in the basics.

There used to be checks on calls, around 7% being checked for conformity with grading at one time I remember.

Those who love to bash the police, for whatever reason, will bash the police and nothing I nor officers say will convince them otherwise. They shut their ears, take no notice of the information, and never change their tune. So be it.

However, the fact remain that this controller would probably have taken over one call per minute, 500 a shift, 2,500 a week, well over 100,000 in a year. There are those who suggest that the police are inept, criminal - you mention malfeasance - and biased. And to prove it we have one officer who might well have dealt effectively with 100,000 calls. It is possible he made an error in this one. He or she is, after all, human. You can't expect anything else.

Those on the nines deal with emergencies all day and every day. They have the injured, the distressed, the inarticulate, those at the end of their tether passing problems for the call taker who then has responsibility. Accept it is a difficult role. They have decisions to make which are, as we have seen in this case, life and death on occasion.

100,000 every year, 2,500 every week, 500 every shift, one call every minute and when they've cleared that one, there are other lights flashing, each with their own problem.

If you see that as a smokescreen, then you are wrong. It might well contradict what you believe, but that doesn't make it obfuscating. If you want it simple, then you are doomed to disappointment most of the time because it normally isn't.

I've tried to explain the real world of the call taker's day where the right way to deal with an incident is not always crystal clear.

Just calm down, look at it logically and see that, in all probability, at worst this is an error, a mistake. If that is so then the officer will be dealt with according to the rules, especially as there's no CPS up there for the HO to lean on.

The horror of the event is a reality which must be devastating for families and friends. It is a terrible event. Suggesting that the call taker has committed gross negligence does not help them. Let's wait and see.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

Those in blue will never admit any mistake they make, that's why these things always escalate and confidence in the honesty of the police is at an all time low.

The Chief Constable has literally come out and apologised and said they're wrong, which has been quoted in the thread. It always seems the most melodramatic read the least about the matter they talk of.

Rovinghawk said:

NoNeed said:

confidence in the honesty of the police is at an all time low.

It's at an all-time high, apparently- they have surveys, you know.

I'll take the statistical methodologies from the ONS and others over your bias, agenda, filtering and perception. You'd no doubt be supportive of the data if it concluded what you wanted it to.

Derek Smith said:

So what have I said that is wrong? Smoke screen, eh? My intent has been to clarify, although if you don't want to look, that's pointless.

I've said a number of times that it appears as if the call taker made an error. I don't know if s/he did, and neither do you.

The problem is they're not willing / capable of realising / debating in any depth. It takes effort to go beyond the the first, intuitive response and actually think about things. Suggesting this incident requires the processes and procedures examined to see if there's an opportunity to reduce the chance of it reoccurring is a "smoke screen", apparently. Also, words like "process" are BS bingo. It's clearly an obfuscated term.

I'm not sure just being angry and irrational makes for much improvement in organisations. I always thought there needs to be some specificity into what should be done.

[Cat]

V8 Fettler said:

Call handling centre. Each incoming call automatically generates a file including time, date, caller I/D (if available), link to recording of call (storage is cheap), call handler adds detail and allocates call. Screen cannot be closed with no action, summary of call reviewed by supervisor within 24 hours.

The call handlers are not paid the highest of hourly rates; mistakes are expected, unlikely to be life threatening but some cost implications.

So does a supervisor listen to every call and confirm that what was said matches the details added to the system or do they just review the summary of the call added to the system by the call handler? If it's the former how does it impact on resources - is there a supervisor for every couple of call handlers? If it's the latter how do they pick up if the call handler adds incorrect information to the summary?

Cat

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

words like "process" are BS bingo.

BUT:

La Liga said:

Now it's the full circumstances are nearly established, they can go through the process of assessment the severity and degree of the mistake and take appropriate action against whoever and see if there's anything to put in place from a process / system point of view to minimise the risk of this occurring again.

I refer you to earlier, where I suggested your comment was bullst bingo.

[Mojocvh]

"In case I am being obscure, I'll put it another way:

There were a series of accidents at a junction where I used to live. I remember reading - I was working in a local newspaper at the time and I read the galley proofs - of a traffic inspector saying that it was the fault of the drivers and that they should all be prosecuted for dangerous driving. Even at my young age then, probably 19 or so, I could see the fault in this. Although the drivers may well have made errors, given that they had probably driven for hours, days, weeks, months and longer without having an accident, it seemed odd that they were having accidents at that particular point. What suddenly made them go criminal? Perhaps a cause?"

Derek, nicely put.

I too have had the experience of the "all drivers are stupid" attitude from a police officer after an incident on the A9 [by Dunkeld, involving black ice, a 3/4 gritted road [not the de-acceleration slip/lane though] and a gritter that managed to slide off the road 3 times in 70 yds], PC came out with the amazing statement "their still skidding on the shell grip" [no st sherlock]

After trying to point out that the drivers were coming off a completely clear, treated road onto a black iced de-acceleration slip/lane and that the ensuing mayhem wasn't completely their fault was met with a mantra like "drivers are stupid" reply, this from a policeperson-who then reversed her vehicle into a works yard only to, yes you've guessed it, end up being unable to get the vehicle back up the slight gradient due to, err, black ice...

[Rude-boy]

Putting to one side the fatal failures of the reporting system for one moment.

How many times did a patrol car pass the scene of the incident in the 3 days after it happened?

Was there no sign or indication as to any accident visible from the carriageway from either direction?

I ask this I find it a little hard to believe that there was no trace whatsoever of a very recent accident which would have been visible to a half alert person, let alone a Police Officer, who we are all repeatedly advised are highly trained in observational skills.

It might well be the case that there was no trace, but I do find that difficult to imagine.

[Mojocvh]

Rude-boy said:

Putting to one side the fatal failures of the reporting system for one moment.

How many times did a patrol car pass the scene of the incident in the 3 days after it happened?

Was there no sign or indication as to any accident visible from the carriageway from either direction?

I ask this I find it a little hard to believe that there was no trace whatsoever of a very recent accident which would have been visible to a half alert person, let alone a Police Officer, who we are all repeatedly advised are highly trained in observational skills.

It might well be the case that there was no trace, but I do find that difficult to imagine.

see any crashed car or traces of it? and I don't mean the dotted lines....

[V8 Fettler]

Mojocvh said:

see any crashed car or traces of it? and I don't mean the dotted lines....

Surprised there isn't any Armco before the trees, another few years and hitting one of those will be like hitting a concrete pillar.

[Rude-boy]

Mojocvh said:

see any crashed car or traces of it? and I don't mean the dotted lines....

From that picture, taken well above driver's eye level and the height at which the car would have impacted nothing, save the fresh divot of sod that appears to have been pulled up. As said, there may well have been no possibility for anyone other than the original caller to see any sign of any incident - it can happen not far from me are plenty of car size ditches that could hide a crashed car - it's just I do find it quite hard to get a handle on as there is usually something amiss that you can spot, such as a freshly turned divot of grass with no explanation.

ETA - the accident will also have started well before the scene of that photo I suspect (assuming that they are looking at the 'entry point'. No skid marks? No glint of metal, no bent branches? No fresh chunks of bark missing?

To be honest the fact that nothing was called in by any other drivers between then and the Police finding the car suggests that there may well not have been, then again who calls in a crashed car a day or two after the event?

Edited by Rude-boy on Monday 13th July 10:54