Good work Police Scotland
Discussion
techiedave said:
Do you think that there are many mistakes made in call handling that affect the outcomes of investigations ?
In my experience its the grading of the call that I often noticed was wrong.Sometimes a job would be an immediate response when it didn't need to be and stuff could be a routine or early response when it should have been an immediate.
Ordinarily you could see the rationale behind the decision when you read the full incident log that's created by the call taker before being switched over to the controllers who dispatch crews etc but sometimes you would be scratching your head.
With regard to this, who knows why a log wasn't created and passed over for allocation to a unit. Im sure the person responsible wouldn't have done it intentionally but its bloody tragic and will be a quite a burden to wear.
Greendubber said:
In my experience its the grading of the call that I often noticed was wrong.
Sometimes a job would be an immediate response when it didn't need to be and stuff could be a routine or early response when it should have been an immediate.
Ordinarily you could see the rationale behind the decision when you read the full incident log that's created by the call taker before being switched over to the controllers who dispatch crews etc but sometimes you would be scratching your head.
With regard to this, who knows why a log wasn't created and passed over for allocation to a unit. Im sure the person responsible wouldn't have done it intentionally but its bloody tragic and will be a quite a burden to wear.
I agree. Mistakes are made, were made when I ran a shift in the FCR call taking and control room. I don't know if it has since changed, but we were always informed of any error. The general direction after such a mistake is to move the line so call takers will be obliged to err one way or the other. Then we got the situation, rather like the bible, where there was contradictory directions, which meant that a controller was wrong whatever he or she did.Sometimes a job would be an immediate response when it didn't need to be and stuff could be a routine or early response when it should have been an immediate.
Ordinarily you could see the rationale behind the decision when you read the full incident log that's created by the call taker before being switched over to the controllers who dispatch crews etc but sometimes you would be scratching your head.
With regard to this, who knows why a log wasn't created and passed over for allocation to a unit. Im sure the person responsible wouldn't have done it intentionally but its bloody tragic and will be a quite a burden to wear.
Mistakes though will be made. The 'clever' bit is how these are dealt with at the time. When I ran a major incident, my sergeant's role was to check that I hadn't missed something or made a mistake. One way of doing this was to list the decisions made for the hand-over to a command officer.
The thing is though that a decision made at one time which was praised could, when made in identical circumstances at another time, be criticised. Someone sitting in a plush office, coming in after a great night's sleep, and consoled by Axminster, will say: 'But it is obvious: common sense.'
Makes them feel good of course.
Scrubs said:
Disgrace of a situation.
Police Scotland were maybe too busy trying to Police 'thought crimes' on Twitter:
Clapton knows I'm no supporter of the police, but even I struggle to find any tenable connection between "police Scotland are an unpleasant band of overly PC aPolice Scotland were maybe too busy trying to Police 'thought crimes' on Twitter:
holes" and "an underpaid twonk in a call centre fked up."johnxjsc1985 said:
Is it true the poor girl has died now?.
yeshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33497318
gowmonster said:
How sad and how awful to think of her in that car for three days. Not sure an apology will be much consolation for her family.johnxjsc1985 said:
gowmonster said:
How sad and how awful to think of her in that car for three days. Not sure an apology will be much consolation for her family.johnxjsc1985 said:
Is it true the poor girl has died now?.
as stated a few posts ago. Beati Dogu said:
Lamara Bell, the lady who was found alive in the car, has now sadly died in hospital.
Apart from her crash injuries, she'd been suffering from severe dehydration due to the length of time she'd been ignored.
Apart from her crash injuries, she'd been suffering from severe dehydration due to the length of time she'd been ignored.
La Liga said:
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.
A call centre can hardly be described as efficient if it fails to prevent a fatality.
It's easier for Common Purpose future leaders to hijack a Scottish national police service than it is when they're little local independent Scottish constabularies.
They've been owned by this foul up and owned by Common Purpose.
Will there be an Inquiry of that Gas Fitter that they killed too?
They've been owned by this foul up and owned by Common Purpose.
Will there be an Inquiry of that Gas Fitter that they killed too?
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
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?
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.
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$hit' and defended them. All your nonsense about the 'process of assessment' is a smoke screen. A call was NOT acted on, someone fcked up big time.
Some of us may have had cause to ring the Emergency Services, they are pretty thourough in the questions they ask, annoyingly so at the time. Do you really think the call was "I've just seen a car that appears to have gone off the Motorway" - "OK thanks mate, bye". Of course not, the caller would be asked for where?the time? the colour of the car? etc etc, and the call is logged, all calls are logged.
All an inquiry needs to do is find out is where in the chain of communication
WHO failed to act on the call. The fact is, they cocked up BIG time, no excuses.
+1 Some of us may have had cause to ring the Emergency Services, they are pretty thourough in the questions they ask, annoyingly so at the time. Do you really think the call was "I've just seen a car that appears to have gone off the Motorway" - "OK thanks mate, bye". Of course not, the caller would be asked for where?the time? the colour of the car? etc etc, and the call is logged, all calls are logged.
All an inquiry needs to do is find out is where in the chain of communication
WHO failed to act on the call. The fact is, they cocked up BIG time, no excuses.
I'm a bit surprised there has not been more said about who called it in. It seems the clio was travelling at speed into trees - surely itwas obvious this was serious. Why not stop and see, but just call? At the end of the day, without that call, there would beno discussion. What responsibility does the caller carry, especially as it seems it was likely that it would occur to the caller that the crashed car would not be visible?
JensenA said:
We knew enough facts from the outset, that's why the story made the national news. A call had been made to the police/Emergency Serivces and it was NOT acted on. As a result of that a woman died. All you have done is spout 'corporate bull$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.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.
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.johnxjsc1985 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.
+1 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.
///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 Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff