Good work Police Scotland
Discussion
La Liga said:
A lot more.
There's roughly 2.14 officers per square mile in England and Wales, and 0.57 officers per square mile in Scotland.
30,414 square miles for Scotland with 17,318 officers.
58,335 square miles for England and Wales with 125,000 officers.
On the other hand:There's roughly 2.14 officers per square mile in England and Wales, and 0.57 officers per square mile in Scotland.
30,414 square miles for Scotland with 17,318 officers.
58,335 square miles for England and Wales with 125,000 officers.
Each officer in Scotland only has to Police 305 people - whereas in England and Wales they have to cope with 448.
So police officers in Scotland should have 46% more time on their hands to deal with stuff like this
It does appear to be call-handling error, that the call was received but not entered on to the system:
Stephen House said:
"Firstly I want to apologise to the families of John Yuill and Lamara Bell and to the people of Scotland for this individual failure in our service. Everyone in Police Scotland feels this most profoundly.
The details given below have been shared with both families but I feel it is right that we also make them public.
I completely understand the level of concern being raised about the circumstances surrounding the handling of the incident of the crash near the M9 slip road at Bannockburn, and in particular, Police Scotland’s response to information received. That we failed both families involved is without doubt.
However, I want to make clear to members of the public, and all those who have rightly expressed concern, that the mistakes made in not responding to the call from a member of the public on Sunday 5th July arose because the information received was not entered onto our systems.
"We know that just prior to 11.30am on Sunday 5th July 2015 a member of the public contacted Police Scotland via the 101 system to report that they could see a vehicle down an embankment near the M9 slip road at Bannockburn.
All callers to 101 receive an electronic options menu. This call was answered within 6 seconds following that message by an experienced officer and the relevant details were given by the caller.
For reasons yet to be established this call was not entered onto our police systems and not actioned out to operational teams in the Stirling area to respond and trace the vehicle.
Shortly before 10am on 8 July, 2015 a second call was made to Police Scotland via the 101 system. This call was answered, recorded and allocated to operational teams who located Mr Yuill and Ms Bell within their car.
Police Scotland are legally constrained from giving any detail into an incident if it is referred to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), as this incident rightly was.
As the public would expect the police must remain independent of this investigation which will be carried out by the PIRC under the direction of the Crown.
All further detail going forward will therefore be a matter for the Crown Office and the PIRC."
The details given below have been shared with both families but I feel it is right that we also make them public.
I completely understand the level of concern being raised about the circumstances surrounding the handling of the incident of the crash near the M9 slip road at Bannockburn, and in particular, Police Scotland’s response to information received. That we failed both families involved is without doubt.
However, I want to make clear to members of the public, and all those who have rightly expressed concern, that the mistakes made in not responding to the call from a member of the public on Sunday 5th July arose because the information received was not entered onto our systems.
"We know that just prior to 11.30am on Sunday 5th July 2015 a member of the public contacted Police Scotland via the 101 system to report that they could see a vehicle down an embankment near the M9 slip road at Bannockburn.
All callers to 101 receive an electronic options menu. This call was answered within 6 seconds following that message by an experienced officer and the relevant details were given by the caller.
For reasons yet to be established this call was not entered onto our police systems and not actioned out to operational teams in the Stirling area to respond and trace the vehicle.
Shortly before 10am on 8 July, 2015 a second call was made to Police Scotland via the 101 system. This call was answered, recorded and allocated to operational teams who located Mr Yuill and Ms Bell within their car.
Police Scotland are legally constrained from giving any detail into an incident if it is referred to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), as this incident rightly was.
As the public would expect the police must remain independent of this investigation which will be carried out by the PIRC under the direction of the Crown.
All further detail going forward will therefore be a matter for the Crown Office and the PIRC."
1 The Anthony Blunt excuse There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security prevents its disclosure
2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit
3 The Concorde excuse It was a worthwhile experiment now abandoned, but not before it provided much valuable data and considerable employment
4 The Munich Agreement excuse It occurred before important facts were known, and cannot happen again (The important facts in question were that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. This was actually known; but not to the Foreign Office, of course)
5 The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures.
Excuses 2 & 5 seem most useful for this instance.
2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit
3 The Concorde excuse It was a worthwhile experiment now abandoned, but not before it provided much valuable data and considerable employment
4 The Munich Agreement excuse It occurred before important facts were known, and cannot happen again (The important facts in question were that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. This was actually known; but not to the Foreign Office, of course)
5 The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures.
Excuses 2 & 5 seem most useful for this instance.
I suspect it will either be they were so busy that the call handler got sidetracked or the call handler was lazy and forgot to put it on the system.
I would have thought they have a system that at the least requires them to create a record whilst the call takes place so it probably didn't get passed further onwards properly.
I would have thought they have a system that at the least requires them to create a record whilst the call takes place so it probably didn't get passed further onwards properly.
La Liga said:
It does appear to be call-handling error, that the call was received but not entered on to the system:
Whilst most people in this discussion have quite rightly criticised the police for an obvious error, in which a call to the emergency services was not acted on for 3 days. You posted lengthy contributions defending the police, telling us we are all wrong for saying how awful this was that the Police took no action for 3 days. Telling us we were all wrong, and should wait until the facts are established. You now grace us with your superior wisdom and make a single sentence post, expressing no opinion, no criticism, simply stating exactly what we have been saying all along, "The police cocked up" drivetrain said:
No doubt La Liga or Elroy Blue will trot along soon with sundry excuses, staffing shortages due to government cuts bla bla bla ad infinitum.
I'm well known for blaming mistakes / errors on staff shortages and cuts etc. The last sentence isn't true. JensenA said:
Whilst most people in this discussion have quite rightly criticised the police for an obvious error, in which a call to the emergency services was not acted on for 3 days. You posted lengthy contributions defending the police, telling us we are all wrong for saying how awful this was that the Police took no action for 3 days. Telling us we were all wrong, and should wait until the facts are established. You now grace us with your superior wisdom and make a single sentence post, expressing no opinion, no criticism, simply stating exactly what we have been saying all along, "The police cocked up"
That's wrong, actually. I'd suggest the next part is a subtle difference, but I'd be lying. I was actually defending the process of thinking and reaching a conclusion. Do you really think I'm going to position myself from the start as saying it may or may not be a mistake and we need further information, then tell people it wasn't which would mean I am doing the same thing I am suggesting not to do? That'd work well for me. When we had few details both possibilities were possible i.e. it could have been a mistake, and it may not have been. It's a little bit easier for me to imagine as I have seen so many calls reach the emergency services where the actual incident / event is significantly different. 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 also wrote this in my first post, which is clearly some defending.
La Liga said:
It's perfectly possible it's a balls-up from the call handler (or someone else) in terms of recording, categorising and grading the incident. If so, it's rare given the above strict criteria they're trained in, but either way, let's wait until we have more than a few words about it first before we make any conclusions.
La Liga said:
I'm not justifying anything other than there's too little information to conclude whether or not they've made an error. I was explaining how the circumstances MAY have amounted to a resource legitimately not being dispatched.
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.
Translation: "Lessons will be learned"We have not heard the side from the cop that alledgedly messed up or any of his colleagues. Might be that it was common practice not to report these things.
Or he might have f
ked up.
Also waiting to see if the man died instantly or of dehydration/ exsanguination whatever sone time after the crash.
Or he might have f
ked up.Also waiting to see if the man died instantly or of dehydration/ exsanguination whatever sone time after the crash.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Translation: "Lessons will be learned"Should they not take appropriate action against the individual? Should they not look to make sure it doesn't occur again?
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Translation: "Lessons will be learned"Should they not take appropriate action against the individual? Should they not look to make sure it doesn't occur again?
t bingo.Yes they should take action and improve- I have little faith that they will, though.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Translation: "Lessons will be learned"Should they not take appropriate action against the individual? Should they not look to make sure it doesn't occur again?
t bingo.Yes they should take action and improve- I have little faith that they will, though.
ked up, somewhere along the line. It's hard to imagine what could be changed to stop someone cocking up again in the future. I'm sure whoever it was didn't do it out of misunderstanding.
Rovinghawk said:
That was more a comment on your bullst bingo.
Where I said someone should be held to account and it measures put in place to minimise it occurring again? t bingo.Rovinghawk said:
Yes they should take action and improve- I have little faith that they will, though.
Because you have no idea what you're talking about. V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
It does appear to be call-handling error, that the call was received but not entered on to the system:
Who designed a system that permits that to occur? Receipt of call should automatically instigate a process that cannot be cancelled by the call handler.We have to allow humans a degree of responsibility, especially when the overall accuracy is so high. Knee-jerk responses to an improbable but high impact event are to add more bureaucracy and layers. This is a response which shows a lack of perspective and the skill to assess the cost / benefits of such changes. There's always a balance between human judgement and discretion and automation and rigidity.
When there is an error revealed, especially one of a systems failure, lessons are indeed learned in the police in a certain manner.
If we work on the premise that the call-taker made an error of judgement, then there will be changes to the systems imposed from above. It is likely/probable that the call-taker will be disciplined.
Whilst I do not expect to convince those who are committed to blame, there will be steps taken to try and ensure that similar circumstances do not result in tragedy in the future.
If an enquiry discovers that systems need to be changed or that directions to call takers need to be modified then the conclusion is obvious.
Another thing to consider is that call-takers can take more than 30 calls an hour. Performance is monitored all the and stats are available to supervisors so there is pressure, a demand in fact, to be better than average. So decisions are made in short time: <2 minutes on average at times.
There's a certain skill required to be able to do this. Although some will say, especially those willing to sit in front of their computers and sit in judgement of those who do the work, that it is only picking up a phone, but this is obviously silly.
As we have seen in this thread, decisions of life and death are made by these controllers.
As La Liga says, this appears to be an error by the call taker. Without knowing the circumstances, especially of what was said by the informant, we have no idea of why s/he decided not to open a record. If it is bleedin' obvious to those who have read the reported details that a message should be opened then that leads to the question that if a keyboard warrior who has not ideas of the systems, rules and guidelines of the role, they know that a report should have been opened then there is every possibility that the call-taker had other information which convinced him/her that it was not necessary to open one.
No excuses can be made for the call-taker because we are unaware of any of the circumstances. In the same way we cannot condemn, at least any reasonable person cannot.
This is a terrible tragedy. Two dead, one at least of whom, it would appear, could have been saved. Terrible for family and friends of course, but especially so if, as it seems, she might have been conscious and awaiting help.
It doesn't make it any better for those involved, despite how good in makes one feel, to condemn without evidence of wrongdoing.
After 30 years in the Job I have never known of a similar incident. I know of one case where a passenger was thrown from a stolen car, landing on the roof of a garage. Officers who turned up at the scene were informed that there was just one person in the car and he was dead at scene. In the morning the householder saw, out through a stair window, the deceased passenger on the roof.
There was a or a pair of shoes in the footwell but as the car had folded into two these were not found until the car was forced open for the coroner.
The senior officer at the scene was demoted. A PC was 'put back' for promotion.
I don't expect to convince those who want to attack the police at every opportunity, but I can assure those who have an open mind that the matter will be treated seriously. If the call taker is at fault then there is the possibility not only of discipline but of prosecution.
My experience would suggest that the police are more likely to be prosecuted than any other job.
If we work on the premise that the call-taker made an error of judgement, then there will be changes to the systems imposed from above. It is likely/probable that the call-taker will be disciplined.
Whilst I do not expect to convince those who are committed to blame, there will be steps taken to try and ensure that similar circumstances do not result in tragedy in the future.
If an enquiry discovers that systems need to be changed or that directions to call takers need to be modified then the conclusion is obvious.
Another thing to consider is that call-takers can take more than 30 calls an hour. Performance is monitored all the and stats are available to supervisors so there is pressure, a demand in fact, to be better than average. So decisions are made in short time: <2 minutes on average at times.
There's a certain skill required to be able to do this. Although some will say, especially those willing to sit in front of their computers and sit in judgement of those who do the work, that it is only picking up a phone, but this is obviously silly.
As we have seen in this thread, decisions of life and death are made by these controllers.
As La Liga says, this appears to be an error by the call taker. Without knowing the circumstances, especially of what was said by the informant, we have no idea of why s/he decided not to open a record. If it is bleedin' obvious to those who have read the reported details that a message should be opened then that leads to the question that if a keyboard warrior who has not ideas of the systems, rules and guidelines of the role, they know that a report should have been opened then there is every possibility that the call-taker had other information which convinced him/her that it was not necessary to open one.
No excuses can be made for the call-taker because we are unaware of any of the circumstances. In the same way we cannot condemn, at least any reasonable person cannot.
This is a terrible tragedy. Two dead, one at least of whom, it would appear, could have been saved. Terrible for family and friends of course, but especially so if, as it seems, she might have been conscious and awaiting help.
It doesn't make it any better for those involved, despite how good in makes one feel, to condemn without evidence of wrongdoing.
After 30 years in the Job I have never known of a similar incident. I know of one case where a passenger was thrown from a stolen car, landing on the roof of a garage. Officers who turned up at the scene were informed that there was just one person in the car and he was dead at scene. In the morning the householder saw, out through a stair window, the deceased passenger on the roof.
There was a or a pair of shoes in the footwell but as the car had folded into two these were not found until the car was forced open for the coroner.
The senior officer at the scene was demoted. A PC was 'put back' for promotion.
I don't expect to convince those who want to attack the police at every opportunity, but I can assure those who have an open mind that the matter will be treated seriously. If the call taker is at fault then there is the possibility not only of discipline but of prosecution.
My experience would suggest that the police are more likely to be prosecuted than any other job.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff