Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
La Liga said:
he most surprising thing for me (perhaps because I never knew about it before) was the 'joke' from Lord Stuart-Smith about 'Liverpool fans being late' when he went to meet them.
Appalling. The irony being that many were inside the building waiting for him as he was late.Then his refusal to consider redacted statements as new evidence.
La Liga said:
he most surprising thing for me (perhaps because I never knew about it before) was the 'joke' from Lord Stuart-Smith about 'Liverpool fans being late' when he went to meet them.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said there was no new evidence to justify reopening the Hillsborough inquiry.Funny that - I would have thought that police officers coming forward and telling him, in no uncertain terms, that their statements had been "sanitized"/ altered/ had evidence removed would warrant some kind of further investigation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hil...
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your obsession with post dissection is causing you to miss several key points, this is an endemic problem with managers who feel that they must have control over detail yet miss the bigger, more important picture. Good box tickers but poor performers.
A logical extrapolation, those who reply to specific points in forums (the most common form of reply) are naturally managers whom don't see the bigger picture... What can you extrapolate and generalise about people whom ignore repeated questions because they, presumably, don't like them? Endemic in unaccountable managers; Why did you think the GMP were the source of Copley's investigation?
V8 Fettler said:
I've already covered the ambush, but here we go again in more detail: if the primary cause of Copley's removal after one day as CC was the status of the inquiry into her activities and those of her team at GMP then it's likely that the ambush was by omission (failure to flag concerns as the inquiry proceeded) and commission (flagging concerns at a late date). In the absence of a national management structure, one of the local forces should have managed and coordinated the inquiry into Copley; the logical choice being GMP.
You've not 'covered' anything. You're purely speculating and filling in the unknowns by making things up as you go along.Can you not see the difference?
You use the word 'likely', I'd speculate it's more likely there were no status changes in the investigation that changed the risk, or needed 'flagging' as the GMP were in possession of nearly all the information when they decided to back Copley to apply for the DCC role. Although you may not see the probability of that, as that's actually thinking about the circumstances rather than making it all up.
V8 Fettler said:
Crompton won't receive another contract because it's convenient for the SYP and the SYP PCC for Crompton to retire at 52.
I expect he wouldn't ever receive one primarily because it was more likely he was never going to apply for another once and he knew this to be the case when he became the CC. V8 Fettler said:
This whole sorry saga features knee-jerk flailing management by several parties primarily as a result of incompetence.
You have no idea whether or not it's all the PCC or whether it's shared by a greater number of people. V8 Fettler said:
I've stated that the inquiry into Copley centred around her employment at GMP, you've responded that I'm preaching about things I know nothing about. Was the inquiry into Copley about her employment elsewhere then?
Nice try, except this is the full quote I made that comment about. You're preaching about 'how things should be' without any idea as to whether or not they occurred. I thought you didn't like key points to be missed:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Again, the primary responsibility for ensuring that SYP and the SYP PCC were frequently updated re the status of the investigation into Copley should have sat with GMP; the complaint centred around Copley's employment by GMP, therefore the risks arising from that complaint should have been managed effectively by GMP.
Perhaps they did. Do you know otherwise? Perhaps it's just the fact there's an investigation per se that has caused the issue for the PCC - do you know otherwise?No, you're preaching about things you have no idea whether or not they occurred.
V8 Fettler said:
How do you know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP?
We have to work with the best information we have. Or in your case, if the information's not there, just make it up. V8 Fettler said:
Either way, the PCC's competence has be to questioned. If he knew of the inquiry into Copley then he should have ensured that this did not interfere with risk management and damage limitation arising from the Hillsborough inquest, he failed. If he didn't know of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment then he also failed.
A politician directly in charge for you. Although you’re doing a good job of mimicking politicians by ignoring the question about how you knew the source were the GMP.
You appear to be agitated, it's only a forum where people post differing views; you would probably feel the benefit if you took a step back and calmed down a bit.
We've been here before; you prefer to deal with 100% certainties without considering likelihoods and possibilities; that doesn't work in the real world and leads to catastrophic failures which could be avoided by considering likelihoods and possibilities.
You initially used the word "source", not me.
It's clear that you have an issue with posts that don't meet with your approval. I've taken a logical view on the sorry mess, it might not agree with your view, but there we are.
If the status of the investigation into Copley didn't change over time then why was she considered for the post of SYP CC? Unless Kent/GMP didn't flag any concerns at any time to SYP and the SYP PCC, which would be bizarre.
We are agreed that there is no statutory obstacle to Crompton continuing to serve the public for several more years.
Whole sorry saga refers to the subject of this thread: Hillsborough.
You've stated that you don't know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP. Are you not therefore taking a view with the information available? You've used the word "we", are there more than one of you?
As a taxpaying punter, I have little interest in who is in charge of the police, as long as it works. Why does one part of the public sector frequently resort to blaming another part of the public sector instead of working efficiently as a team to the benefit of the taxpayer? "It's them lot over there, they're the ones to blame".
JNW1 said:
An interesting documentary last night. The potted version appears to be SYP had the wrong man in charge of policing at Hillsborough on the day, he got some key decisions wrong and rather than admit it he lied and SYP then embarked on a truly remarkable cover-up to try to absolve him and themselves from any blame.
Remember it's only another opinion 
iplayer link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07bgnkn/hill...
It describes the item as
Hillsborough
Documentary on the Hillsborough disaster. Witness interviews show the horror of the day and expose the failures of the police and press in the wake of the tragedy.
Can we focus on the media for a bit?
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 10th May 07:58
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
The most surprising thing for me (perhaps because I never knew about it before) was the 'joke' from Lord Stuart-Smith about 'Liverpool fans being late' when he went to meet them.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said there was no new evidence to justify reopening the Hillsborough inquiry.Funny that - I would have thought that police officers coming forward and telling him, in no uncertain terms, that their statements had been "sanitized"/ altered/ had evidence removed would warrant some kind of further investigation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hil...
V8 Fettler said:
You appear to be agitated, it's only a forum where people post differing views; you would probably feel the benefit if you took a step back and calmed down a bit.
Smoke and mirrors. V8 Fettler said:
You initially used the word "source", not me.
Because that's what it's called. Mistaking the GMP for one started you digging the 'ambush' hole you got yourself into though just making things up as you went along. V8 Fettler said:
We've been here before; you prefer to deal with 100% certainties without considering likelihoods and possibilities; that doesn't work in the real world and leads to catastrophic failures which could be avoided by considering likelihoods and possibilities.
People who talk about "likeliness", "probabilities" and "risk" always think in absolutes... For example: La Liga previously said:
You use the word 'likely', I'd speculate it's more likely there were no status changes in the investigation that changed the risk, or needed 'flagging' as the GMP were in possession of nearly all the information when they decided to back Copley to apply for the DCC role. Although you may not see the probability of that, as that's actually thinking about the circumstances rather than making it all up.
V8 Fettler said:
It's clear that you have an issue with posts that don't meet with your approval. I've taken a logical view on the sorry mess, it might not agree with your view, but there we are.
You confuse logical with making things up and taking information voids and filling them up with whatever you want. V8 Fettler said:
If the status of the investigation into Copley didn't change over time then why was she considered for the post of SYP CC?
La Liga previously said:
Ultimately, an assessment as to how likely any positive outcome would be could be made prior to any moves since Manchester would know pretty much all there is to know about the matter.
La Liga previously said:
They'll have all the information they need to make an assessment as to whether or not there's any realistic misconduct risk.
La Liga previously said:
In any event, the GMP were in a strong position to make any kind of assessment as to the likelihood of any positive outcome given they investigated the accuser and have all the information to hand.
La Liga previously said:
Because complaints are frequent (confrontational job, you see) and often take some time to resolve - especially when there are criminal matters first. How do you know a 'reality check' hasn't been completed i.e. an assessment as to the probability of the complaint being upheld prior to her moving? You don't, but write like you do.
V8 Fettler said:
We are agreed that there is no statutory obstacle to Crompton continuing to serve the public for several more years.
Just a minor contractual one, though. V8 Fettler said:
You've stated that you don't know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP. Are you not therefore taking a view with the information available?
I can just go from the best information available i.e. the direct quote from the PCC. So unless he's lying (which I have no evidence to suggest is the case), then I am happy to work from that. You may want to worm away from it with 'you can't know for certain', but it's rather closer to certainty than you making everything up. V8 Fettler said:
As a taxpaying punter, I have little interest in who is in charge of the police, as long as it works. Why does one part of the public sector frequently resort to blaming another part of the public sector instead of working efficiently as a team to the benefit of the taxpayer? "It's them lot over there, they're the ones to blame".
There's this thing called 'politics'. Sometimes, in 'politics', things are a little more complicated and there are political decisions vs the right ones. saaby93 said:
JNW1 said:
An interesting documentary last night. The potted version appears to be SYP had the wrong man in charge of policing at Hillsborough on the day, he got some key decisions wrong and rather than admit it he lied and SYP then embarked on a truly remarkable cover-up to try to absolve him and themselves from any blame.
Remember it's only another opinion iplayer link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07bgnkn/hill...
It describes the item as
Hillsborough
Documentary on the Hillsborough disaster. Witness interviews show the horror of the day and expose the failures of the police and press in the wake of the tragedy.
Can we focus on the media for a bit?
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 10th May 07:58
Jockman said:
Some media ran with the narrative but others were more cautious. Good journalists have analytical minds.
I've not followed it as closely as some over the last 27 years but I don't remember many in the National media questioning the official line too hard in the two or three years immediately after the disaster (which was probably when the real challenge should have taken place).JNW1 said:
Jockman said:
Some media ran with the narrative but others were more cautious. Good journalists have analytical minds.
I've not followed it as closely as some over the last 27 years but I don't remember many in the National media questioning the official line too hard in the two or three years immediately after the disaster (which was probably when the real challenge should have taken place).JNW1 said:
I've not followed it as closely as some over the last 27 years but I don't remember many in the National media questioning the official line too hard in the two or three years immediately after the disaster (which was probably when the real challenge should have taken place).
Re-watching some of the footage from the match and that night's MOTD, there was a marked difference between John Motson and Des Lynam on the day.La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
You appear to be agitated, it's only a forum where people post differing views; you would probably feel the benefit if you took a step back and calmed down a bit.
Smoke and mirrors. V8 Fettler said:
You initially used the word "source", not me.
Because that's what it's called. Mistaking the GMP for one started you digging the 'ambush' hole you got yourself into though just making things up as you went along. V8 Fettler said:
We've been here before; you prefer to deal with 100% certainties without considering likelihoods and possibilities; that doesn't work in the real world and leads to catastrophic failures which could be avoided by considering likelihoods and possibilities.
People who talk about "likeliness", "probabilities" and "risk" always think in absolutes... For example: La Liga previously said:
You use the word 'likely', I'd speculate it's more likely there were no status changes in the investigation that changed the risk, or needed 'flagging' as the GMP were in possession of nearly all the information when they decided to back Copley to apply for the DCC role. Although you may not see the probability of that, as that's actually thinking about the circumstances rather than making it all up.
V8 Fettler said:
It's clear that you have an issue with posts that don't meet with your approval. I've taken a logical view on the sorry mess, it might not agree with your view, but there we are.
You confuse logical with making things up and taking information voids and filling them up with whatever you want. V8 Fettler said:
If the status of the investigation into Copley didn't change over time then why was she considered for the post of SYP CC?
La Liga previously said:
Ultimately, an assessment as to how likely any positive outcome would be could be made prior to any moves since Manchester would know pretty much all there is to know about the matter.
La Liga previously said:
They'll have all the information they need to make an assessment as to whether or not there's any realistic misconduct risk.
La Liga previously said:
In any event, the GMP were in a strong position to make any kind of assessment as to the likelihood of any positive outcome given they investigated the accuser and have all the information to hand.
La Liga previously said:
Because complaints are frequent (confrontational job, you see) and often take some time to resolve - especially when there are criminal matters first. How do you know a 'reality check' hasn't been completed i.e. an assessment as to the probability of the complaint being upheld prior to her moving? You don't, but write like you do.
V8 Fettler said:
We are agreed that there is no statutory obstacle to Crompton continuing to serve the public for several more years.
Just a minor contractual one, though. V8 Fettler said:
You've stated that you don't know with absolute certainty whether the SYP PCC was aware of the inquiry into Copley at the time of Copley's appointment to SYP. Are you not therefore taking a view with the information available?
I can just go from the best information available i.e. the direct quote from the PCC. So unless he's lying (which I have no evidence to suggest is the case), then I am happy to work from that. You may want to worm away from it with 'you can't know for certain', but it's rather closer to certainty than you making everything up. V8 Fettler said:
As a taxpaying punter, I have little interest in who is in charge of the police, as long as it works. Why does one part of the public sector frequently resort to blaming another part of the public sector instead of working efficiently as a team to the benefit of the taxpayer? "It's them lot over there, they're the ones to blame".
There's this thing called 'politics'. Sometimes, in 'politics', things are a little more complicated and there are political decisions vs the right ones. Where have I used the word "source"?
Whenever you're ready, feel free to respond logically to the logical approach I've taken, for example: who do you think should have managed the inquiry into Copley to ensure that the inquiry did not unduly affect damage limitation at SYP and the SYP PCC following the inquest? Did anybody manage that aspect? The facts suggest not.
You're taking a view from the information you have available. It may be a different view to mine, but it's still only a view, and that's what happens in real life away from the command bunker.
Contractual issues can be resolved providing that is the intent of all parties. Again, it's more convenient for Crompton to retire.
Unfortunately, political and personal ambitions within the public sector frequently take priority over providing good, efficient public service to the taxpayers who pay for the whole thing.
V8 Fettler said:
Where have I used the word "source"?
Where did I say you had? V8 Fettler said:
Whenever you're ready, feel free to respond logically to the logical approach I've taken, for example: who do you think should have managed the inquiry into Copley to ensure that the inquiry did not unduly affect damage limitation at SYP and the SYP PCC following the inquest? Did anybody manage that aspect? The facts suggest not.
The 'logical' approach you've taken is to make things up and make unfounded assumptions. For example: V8 Fettler previously said:
Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
You write as if you know there weren't any updates rather than realise you're not in a position to possibly know. The PCC was happy for her to transfer knowing she was investigated (according to his quote). From that moment on he should have had contingencies and plans in place depending on different outcomes.
I'd speculate he didn't because he didn't envisage suspending Crompton until the short-term political pressure mounted. That then led to 'on-the-fly' decisions being made during the immediate Hillsborough inquest aftermath. Never a good recipe for quality decision-making.
V8 Fettler said:
You're taking a view from the information you have available. It may be a different view to mine, but it's still only a view, and that's what happens in real life away from the command bunker.
Yes, forming a view based on the information and evidence available as opposed to making things up (see your quote above). Not all views are equal. V8 Fettler said:
Contractual issues can be resolved providing that is the intent of all parties. Again, it's more convenient for Crompton to retire.
Ultimately he'd arranged to retire in November so it's irrelevant in any event. V8 Fettler said:
Unfortunately, political and personal ambitions within the public sector frequently take priority over providing good, efficient public service to the taxpayers who pay for the whole thing.
The internal politics are no different from large private organisations. It's external politics that create issues for the public sector. Both centrally, and in this case, locally. Often because of the 4-year cycle where 'something must be done' and which restricts quality long-term thinking. I have to say that the documentary on Sunday informed me a lot better than I had previously been. I was only 14 at the time it happened and haven't really looked into the detail
I was disgusted at the cover up as well as the treatment of some of the rank and file officers, and moved by some of the images which I don't recall having seen previously. I do feel that the behaviour of football fans (in general) can be said to be a cause but it definitely swayed my viewpoint with regards to behaviour on the day itself (ignorance on my part)
I would also have to say that it changed my view with regards to Andy Burnham and his involvement. He appeared in front of the kop that day looking very much like a political stooge, and it appeared to me that his view and stance changed as he stood there and listened to the singing for justice. My feeling that the accusations of political grandstanding that some have accused him of (and I put my hands up to this) are unjust in this case and I think that a labour opposition with him at its helm would be a much more palatable proposal than Mr Corbyn
I was disgusted at the cover up as well as the treatment of some of the rank and file officers, and moved by some of the images which I don't recall having seen previously. I do feel that the behaviour of football fans (in general) can be said to be a cause but it definitely swayed my viewpoint with regards to behaviour on the day itself (ignorance on my part)
I would also have to say that it changed my view with regards to Andy Burnham and his involvement. He appeared in front of the kop that day looking very much like a political stooge, and it appeared to me that his view and stance changed as he stood there and listened to the singing for justice. My feeling that the accusations of political grandstanding that some have accused him of (and I put my hands up to this) are unjust in this case and I think that a labour opposition with him at its helm would be a much more palatable proposal than Mr Corbyn
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Where have I used the word "source"?
Where did I say you had? V8 Fettler said:
Whenever you're ready, feel free to respond logically to the logical approach I've taken, for example: who do you think should have managed the inquiry into Copley to ensure that the inquiry did not unduly affect damage limitation at SYP and the SYP PCC following the inquest? Did anybody manage that aspect? The facts suggest not.
The 'logical' approach you've taken is to make things up and make unfounded assumptions. For example: V8 Fettler previously said:
Therefore, were not SYP and the SYP PCC ambushed by GMP's failure to provide regular, confidential updates on the process of the investigation into Copley? Has this not resulted in SYP and the SYP PCC being ambushed by the investigation report?
You write as if you know there weren't any updates rather than realise you're not in a position to possibly know. The PCC was happy for her to transfer knowing she was investigated (according to his quote). From that moment on he should have had contingencies and plans in place depending on different outcomes.
I'd speculate he didn't because he didn't envisage suspending Crompton until the short-term political pressure mounted. That then led to 'on-the-fly' decisions being made during the immediate Hillsborough inquest aftermath. Never a good recipe for quality decision-making.
V8 Fettler said:
You're taking a view from the information you have available. It may be a different view to mine, but it's still only a view, and that's what happens in real life away from the command bunker.
Yes, forming a view based on the information and evidence available as opposed to making things up (see your quote above). Not all views are equal. V8 Fettler said:
Contractual issues can be resolved providing that is the intent of all parties. Again, it's more convenient for Crompton to retire.
Ultimately he'd arranged to retire in November so it's irrelevant in any event. V8 Fettler said:
Unfortunately, political and personal ambitions within the public sector frequently take priority over providing good, efficient public service to the taxpayers who pay for the whole thing.
The internal politics are no different from large private organisations. It's external politics that create issues for the public sector. Both centrally, and in this case, locally. Often because of the 4-year cycle where 'something must be done' and which restricts quality long-term thinking. You're confusing questions with statements. If there were updates then why did Copley only last one day in the CC position? A logical question from a logical viewpoint.
You're correct re the importance of contingencies and plans, developed by people taking views based on possibilities, probabilities and likelihoods. A vital part of risk management which was sadly lacking in many aspects of Hillsborough.
On PH, all contributors can have a view (within PH rules), who is to say which view is more valid? There are some contributors who find this difficult to accept.
Crompton is retiring because he can, not because of any statutory requirement, have we not got that straight yet? He and his current employer have the opportunity to agree for Crompton to provide another few years of service to the public, but it won't happen because that would be inconvenient.
The internal politics of the public sector can be very different to large private sector organisations e.g. failure within the private sector (in a capitalist society) ultimately leads to failure of the organisation, additionally the consumer in a free market has a choice which is not typically available to the taxpayer when funding the public sector. The end result is that those within the public sector can frequently operate with a taxpayer-funded safety net that permits scuttling.
Again, as a taxpayer who pays for the whole thing, I can see fault on both "sides" (SYP and SYP PCC). But then why should I see any "sides"?
You still haven't provided some background to your use of the word "we" in your earlier post. Is there more than one La Liga, or is it some sort of royalty thing?
V8 Fettler said:
Are we therefore agreed that the use of the word "source" is your spin?
If you give me a carrot and I call it a carrot it's not spin, is it? It's defining something. You assumed the GMP were the source and got it wrong. V8 Fettler said:
I can probably see why you're becoming agitated: your perception is that an ambush in this context requires specific intent, that's not always the case. An ambush can result from a flawed management process or unintentional failure to follow a management process.
All your 'ambush' babble is pure speculation. You're simply making it all up. V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing questions with statements. If there were updates then why did Copley only last one day in the CC position? A logical question from a logical viewpoint.
See previously reply to the previous question. V8 Fettler said:
You're correct re the importance of contingencies and plans, developed by people taking views based on possibilities, probabilities and likelihoods. A vital part of risk management which was sadly lacking in many aspects of Hillsborough.
Agreed. V8 Fettler said:
On PH, all contributors can have a view (within PH rules), who is to say which view is more valid? There are some contributors who find this difficult to accept.
It's a flimsy to say 'all views are equally valid'. Clearly that's not the case. Views formed on the basis of the best available information generally trump those formed from speculation. V8 Fettler said:
Crompton is retiring because he can, not because of any statutory requirement, have we not got that straight yet? He and his current employer have the opportunity to agree for Crompton to provide another few years of service to the public, but it won't happen because that would be inconvenient.
Yes, he could have another contract if everyone agreed, but that wouldn't happen so nothing else is relevant. V8 Fettler said:
The internal politics of the public sector can be very different to large private sector organisations e.g. failure within the private sector (in a capitalist society) ultimately leads to failure of the organisation
The banks being an excellent example. Perhaps not. At least the tax payer can be rest-assured the public sector won't cause a world recession as . Human nature generally dictates the behaviours that cause there to be organisational politics, so there's heavy overlap. That's the view taken by the consultants whom I have met who have worked with all sorts of organisation.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Are we therefore agreed that the use of the word "source" is your spin?
If you give me a carrot and I call it a carrot it's not spin, is it? It's defining something. You assumed the GMP were the source and got it wrong. V8 Fettler said:
I can probably see why you're becoming agitated: your perception is that an ambush in this context requires specific intent, that's not always the case. An ambush can result from a flawed management process or unintentional failure to follow a management process.
All your 'ambush' babble is pure speculation. You're simply making it all up. V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing questions with statements. If there were updates then why did Copley only last one day in the CC position? A logical question from a logical viewpoint.
See previously reply to the previous question. V8 Fettler said:
You're correct re the importance of contingencies and plans, developed by people taking views based on possibilities, probabilities and likelihoods. A vital part of risk management which was sadly lacking in many aspects of Hillsborough.
Agreed. V8 Fettler said:
On PH, all contributors can have a view (within PH rules), who is to say which view is more valid? There are some contributors who find this difficult to accept.
It's a flimsy to say 'all views are equally valid'. Clearly that's not the case. Views formed on the basis of the best available information generally trump those formed from speculation. V8 Fettler said:
Crompton is retiring because he can, not because of any statutory requirement, have we not got that straight yet? He and his current employer have the opportunity to agree for Crompton to provide another few years of service to the public, but it won't happen because that would be inconvenient.
Yes, he could have another contract if everyone agreed, but that wouldn't happen so nothing else is relevant. V8 Fettler said:
The internal politics of the public sector can be very different to large private sector organisations e.g. failure within the private sector (in a capitalist society) ultimately leads to failure of the organisation
The banks being an excellent example. Perhaps not. At least the tax payer can be rest-assured the public sector won't cause a world recession as . Human nature generally dictates the behaviours that cause there to be organisational politics, so there's heavy overlap. That's the view taken by the consultants whom I have met who have worked with all sorts of organisation.
You may well exist in a professional environment where ambushes never occur, unfortunately the real world is different.
You're avoiding the point re who is to say which view is more valid on PH.
We are agreed that the only obstacle to Crompton continuing to provide a few more years service to the public is the failure of the parties to agree a contract. That's it. The most relevant part is the waste of taxpayer's money.
You're now diverting to the financial sector's cash flow crisis of 2008, more scatter gun. I won't defend the financial services industry but - as an observation - banks such as RBS went through major structural and cultural changes very swiftly following the cash flow crisis, including a change of ownership. I don't see SYP going through major structural and cultural changes.
You're struggling if you have to support your argument by relying on your conversations with consultants who may have worked in different sectors; perhaps you could get out of the command bunker and try working in different sectors?
V8 Fettler said:
If there was no ambush then how do you explain Copley only remaining in the CC post for one day? Was her short tenure planned as such? I very much doubt it. Therefore the SYP PCC and SYP were most likely ambushed.
Or most likely the PCC didn't plan for it correctly. I don't think you have a good grasp of assessing probabilities and how things are more probable to work. Can you stretch the 'ambush' waffle any wider? V8 Fettler said:
Again, where have I used the word "source"?
La Liga previously said:
Where did I say you had?
V8 Fettler said:
You're now diverting to the financial sector's cash flow crisis of 2008, more scatter gun.
It was an example which demonstrated your idealistic positive generalisation of the private sector was flawed. V8 Fettler said:
You're struggling if you have to support your argument by relying on your conversations with consultants who may have worked in different sectors; perhaps you could get out of the command bunker and try working in different sectors?
I'll change career just for that point. Such a suggestions sums up your grasp on reality. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
If there was no ambush then how do you explain Copley only remaining in the CC post for one day? Was her short tenure planned as such? I very much doubt it. Therefore the SYP PCC and SYP were most likely ambushed.
Or most likely the PCC didn't plan for it correctly. I don't think you have a good grasp of assessing probabilities and how things are more probable to work. Can you stretch the 'ambush' waffle any wider? V8 Fettler said:
Again, where have I used the word "source"?
La Liga previously said:
Where did I say you had?
V8 Fettler said:
You're now diverting to the financial sector's cash flow crisis of 2008, more scatter gun.
It was an example which demonstrated your idealistic positive generalisation of the private sector was flawed. V8 Fettler said:
You're struggling if you have to support your argument by relying on your conversations with consultants who may have worked in different sectors; perhaps you could get out of the command bunker and try working in different sectors?
I'll change career just for that point. Such a suggestions sums up your grasp on reality. We are agreed that I haven't used the word "source". Are you going to enlighten me about your use of the word "we" when referring to La Liga?
I am far too long in the tooth and cynical to have any idealistic views about the private or public sectors, but the principle remains: in a capitalist free market, an organisation's failure to perform should result in failure of the organisation.
You're clearly very suited to your role in the command bunker.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
If there was no ambush then how do you explain Copley only remaining in the CC post for one day? Was her short tenure planned as such? I very much doubt it. Therefore the SYP PCC and SYP were most likely ambushed.
Or most likely the PCC didn't plan for it correctly. I don't think you have a good grasp of assessing probabilities and how things are more probable to work. Can you stretch the 'ambush' waffle any wider? V8 Fettler said:
Again, where have I used the word "source"?
La Liga previously said:
Where did I say you had?
V8 Fettler said:
You're now diverting to the financial sector's cash flow crisis of 2008, more scatter gun.
It was an example which demonstrated your idealistic positive generalisation of the private sector was flawed. V8 Fettler said:
You're struggling if you have to support your argument by relying on your conversations with consultants who may have worked in different sectors; perhaps you could get out of the command bunker and try working in different sectors?
I'll change career just for that point. Such a suggestions sums up your grasp on reality. We are agreed that I haven't used the word "source". Are you going to enlighten me about your use of the word "we" when referring to La Liga?
I am far too long in the tooth and cynical to have any idealistic views about the private or public sectors, but the principle remains: in a capitalist free market, an organisation's failure to perform should result in failure of the organisation.
You're clearly very suited to your role in the command bunker.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff