Cressida Dick is the new Met commissioner
Discussion
brenflys777 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Lessons will be learned?
This 'danger' that all the chaps were running towards- it didn't actually exist. I feel that this is quite relevant.
In precis- she ordered the death of an innocent man on the basis of nothing substantial yet has been promoted to the top job. I'm not proud of / impressed by the system.
Hindsight. A wonderful thing, later of course away from any risk except RSI whilst mashing the keyboard in outrage.This 'danger' that all the chaps were running towards- it didn't actually exist. I feel that this is quite relevant.
In precis- she ordered the death of an innocent man on the basis of nothing substantial yet has been promoted to the top job. I'm not proud of / impressed by the system.
I disagree with your simplistic appraisal of her actions, but if things are going to be simplistically put, sometimes when real people do jobs where they have huge responsibility in a time critical and potentially life threatening situation - s
t happens.It's no comfort to his family or the dead man, but I'm glad these Officers do the job they do. I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
brenflys777 said:
Hindsight.
Here's some foresight/knowledge at the time- they didn't have a clue who he was and he'd done nothing to cause any form of suspicion.brenflys777 said:
sometimes when real people do jobs where they have huge responsibility in a time critical and potentially life threatening situation - st happens.
She had huge responsibility, st happens.t did happen and look- she gets away scot free & a big promotion. So much for responsibility.brenflys777 said:
I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
Not reckless? They killed someone for no substantial reason; they didn't know who he was, where he was going, what he was doing but nevertheless killed him because she decided it was the right thing to do based on zero evidence.I'm curious how bad the clusterf
k would have to be before you'd consider it reckless.Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
He's a regular coulda-shoulda-woulda arm chair expert, applying hindsight to police situations he couldnt even comprehend dealing with.
Deal with the subject and leave out the personal insults. This presumes you have a worthwhile debating position.You'd be moaning if he had gone and blown a train load of commuters up.
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
no idea how an operation like that is conducted.
I'm not the one that ballsed it up. Greendubber said:
You'd be moaning if he had gone and blown a train load of commuters up.
Let's talk about what did happen rather than what didn't.A jury found her to have no culpability. Anyone who reads (it's likely no one using the red herring has) Stockwell 1 - the IPCC report - will see her decision-making based on the information she had was sound.
If people can't get their head around that then it doesn't really matter. The decision-makers clearly could.
If people can't get their head around that then it doesn't really matter. The decision-makers clearly could.
Mmm wonder what she did at the Foreign Office?
This is from 2015.....
SECRECY SHROUDS UNKNOWN ROLE OF TOP UK GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
This is from 2015.....
SECRECY SHROUDS UNKNOWN ROLE OF TOP UK GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
article said:
The British government is refusing to disclose the job title and taxpayer-funded salary of one of the most senior law enforcement officials in the United Kingdom, claiming the details have to be kept a secret for security reasons.
article said:
.In response to Freedom of Information Act requests from this reporter, the Foreign Office has repeatedly declined to disclose even the most basic details about Dick’s position.
Government officials handling the requests say that members of the public are not entitled to know anything about Dick’s job title, role and responsibilities, or the amount of money she is earning – despite the fact that specific salaries earned by senior Foreign Office officials, as well as their job titles, are usually routinely made available online.
In two separate refusal letters issued in February and March, the Foreign Office said that it would not hand over the information because it relates to “bodies dealing with security matters,” and so the government was “not obliged to consider the public interest in disclosure.” It would acknowledge only that Dick has been appointed in a “director general” position.
Government officials handling the requests say that members of the public are not entitled to know anything about Dick’s job title, role and responsibilities, or the amount of money she is earning – despite the fact that specific salaries earned by senior Foreign Office officials, as well as their job titles, are usually routinely made available online.
In two separate refusal letters issued in February and March, the Foreign Office said that it would not hand over the information because it relates to “bodies dealing with security matters,” and so the government was “not obliged to consider the public interest in disclosure.” It would acknowledge only that Dick has been appointed in a “director general” position.
Rovinghawk said:
Not reckless? They killed someone for no substantial reason; they didn't know who he was, where he was going, what he was doing but nevertheless killed him because she decided it was the right thing to do based on zero evidence.
I'm curious how bad the clusterf
k would have to be before you'd consider it reckless.A small extract from it, based as it was on evidence rather than opinion:
'The trial jury’s rider had specifically said that no blame should attach to the most senior officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick. '
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
A jury found her to have no culpability.
Nobody did anything wrong. She did a superb job. She deserves promotion, maybe even canonisation. Hurray for Cressida.Just because you think something does not make it so, something you seem to struggle with.
Why not educate yourself and read the link posted.
Edited by Greendubber on Thursday 23 February 00:25
The de menezes case wasn't the first time there has been a shocking and catastrophic error of mistaken identity by armed police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_...
Eerily similar circumstances and cock ups.
What was that about lessons being learned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_...
Eerily similar circumstances and cock ups.
What was that about lessons being learned?
Edited by audidoody on Thursday 23 February 01:10
audidoody said:
The de menezes case wasn't the first time there has been a shocking and catastrophic error of mistaken identity by armed police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_...
Eerily similar circumstances and cock ups.
What was that about lessons being learned?
Around 13,000 armed deployments per year. I think you need some perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_...
Eerily similar circumstances and cock ups.
What was that about lessons being learned?
Edited by audidoody on Thursday 23 February 01:10
It takes a certain maturity to accept that life will never be perfect. All that can be hoped for is that mistakes and accidents can be minimised.
A person in operational command of a fast moving incident will make a number of critical decisions, normally with less than total information. Sometimes there is incorrect information and at other times information which contradicts other information.
When there is a time limit to make critical decisions then decisions have to be made regardless of other considerations.
Mistakes will, of course, be made, and quite frequently. There must be other systems to check decisions made by others.
As pointed out, there is a considerable number of armed deployments of officers in England/Wales, as I believe the figure relates to. Dick's job was to make critical decisions on information received. This, according to the enquiry, she did as required.
Compare England/Wales' performance to that of other similar forces on such incidents.
Count the number of incidents that have gone very badly since 2005. Then work out the percentage against 12 x 13,000.
As I say, it takes a certain maturity to accept facts, especially so when they contradict one's prejudices.
Whatever your point of view, look at the statistics, compare to that of other countries, and then remember that when things do go wrong in this country's operations, such incidents are treated with due diligence and lessons are learned.
The police in England/Wales are, by international standards, at the top level when dealing with spontaneous incidents.
I was in initial operation command of a highjacking of an aircraft in the late 90s. For some time after I received phone calls from my opposite numbers in various forces across the country asking questions. There were high level meetings as to how the incident was run. There were a number of debriefs. Lessons were learned yet the incident ran well and was successful.
A person in operational command of a fast moving incident will make a number of critical decisions, normally with less than total information. Sometimes there is incorrect information and at other times information which contradicts other information.
When there is a time limit to make critical decisions then decisions have to be made regardless of other considerations.
Mistakes will, of course, be made, and quite frequently. There must be other systems to check decisions made by others.
As pointed out, there is a considerable number of armed deployments of officers in England/Wales, as I believe the figure relates to. Dick's job was to make critical decisions on information received. This, according to the enquiry, she did as required.
Compare England/Wales' performance to that of other similar forces on such incidents.
Count the number of incidents that have gone very badly since 2005. Then work out the percentage against 12 x 13,000.
As I say, it takes a certain maturity to accept facts, especially so when they contradict one's prejudices.
Whatever your point of view, look at the statistics, compare to that of other countries, and then remember that when things do go wrong in this country's operations, such incidents are treated with due diligence and lessons are learned.
The police in England/Wales are, by international standards, at the top level when dealing with spontaneous incidents.
I was in initial operation command of a highjacking of an aircraft in the late 90s. For some time after I received phone calls from my opposite numbers in various forces across the country asking questions. There were high level meetings as to how the incident was run. There were a number of debriefs. Lessons were learned yet the incident ran well and was successful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff