Cressida Dick is the new Met commissioner
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
Rovinghawk said:
brenflys777 said:
The Menendes inquiry resulted in no blame being attached to her
Of course not. Nobody got any blame.
Perhaps he she got her bangers out on live TV, she could take over from the Queen when she pegs it.
I'd like to suggest ONLY in the public sector something like this would be allowed to happen, but I'd suggest it is ONLY in the police it could happen. Incredible
s3fella said:
Rovinghawk said:
brenflys777 said:
The Menendes inquiry resulted in no blame being attached to her
Of course not. Nobody got any blame.Perhaps he she got her bangers out on live TV, she could take over from the Queen when she pegs it.
I'd like to suggest ONLY in the public sector something like this would be allowed to happen, but I'd suggest it is ONLY in the police it could happen. Incredible
Derek Smith said:
As I say, it takes a certain maturity to accept facts, especially so when they contradict one's prejudices.
Fact- they killed an innocent man. Prejudice- shooting people for no reason is wrong.Derek Smith said:
lessons are learned.
That old chestnut.Derek Smith said:
The police in England/Wales are, by international standards, at the top level when dealing with spontaneous incidents.
This operation was an unmitigated cock up, however you try to spin it.Derek Smith said:
Lessons were learned
That old chestnut again.Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
As I say, it takes a certain maturity to accept facts, especially so when they contradict one's prejudices.
Fact- they killed an innocent man. Prejudice- shooting people for no reason is wrong.Derek Smith said:
lessons are learned.
That old chestnut.Derek Smith said:
The police in England/Wales are, by international standards, at the top level when dealing with spontaneous incidents.
This operation was an unmitigated cock up, however you try to spin it.Derek Smith said:
Lessons were learned
That old chestnut again.As this thread has shown, whenever these police incidents that go wrong are discussed on here we get pretty much 5 types of poster
1. People who slavishly support the police
2 People who look at the facts and tend to support the police
3. People who look at each event individually
4. People who look at the facts and tend to not support the police
5 People who slavishly never support the police,
I'm usually publicly in group 2 as I've got a few friends in the police and I'm a bit biased towards them.
Coming from an aviation background though, generally their systems of training, decision making, risk mitigation and reviewing events seems very backward at times. There have been numerous events where police friends have openly discussed aspects which have been kept out of public records and official reports. I've certainly had police acquaintances offer to do things which are against the law. A friend of mine divorced a member of the police and their life became rather unpleasant for a while.
As I said, I'm in support of the police and recognise they have a hard job to do with decreasing resources and decreasing pay and conditions but pretending it's all good won't help anyone and won't lead to improvements. Whitewashing inquests and blindly accepting the results will simply result in more of these mistakes happening.
1. People who slavishly support the police
2 People who look at the facts and tend to support the police
3. People who look at each event individually
4. People who look at the facts and tend to not support the police
5 People who slavishly never support the police,
I'm usually publicly in group 2 as I've got a few friends in the police and I'm a bit biased towards them.
Coming from an aviation background though, generally their systems of training, decision making, risk mitigation and reviewing events seems very backward at times. There have been numerous events where police friends have openly discussed aspects which have been kept out of public records and official reports. I've certainly had police acquaintances offer to do things which are against the law. A friend of mine divorced a member of the police and their life became rather unpleasant for a while.
As I said, I'm in support of the police and recognise they have a hard job to do with decreasing resources and decreasing pay and conditions but pretending it's all good won't help anyone and won't lead to improvements. Whitewashing inquests and blindly accepting the results will simply result in more of these mistakes happening.
For me, one of the most shameful aspects of the Stockwell shooting was the smearing of De Menezes in the immediate aftermath. You probably won't have to search hard to find people who will still claim he jumped the barriers and was an illegal immigrant. No suggestion that Dick was involved in that, but whoever was should be out of a job at the very least and arguably facing criminal charges.
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
There it is. An inquest has told us what to think.I'm not sure we should always automatically accept the results and findings of an inquest though? Some of them look a bit like whitewashes, there was The Hutton (David Kelly's death) enquiry perhaps. How about the Goddard (child abuse) inquiry?
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
You presumably trust them. Having seen whitewashes I'm not so sure.Greendubber said:
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
You presumably trust them. Having seen whitewashes I'm not so sure.El stovey said:
Greendubber said:
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
You presumably trust them. Having seen whitewashes I'm not so sure.Greendubber said:
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
You presumably trust them. Having seen whitewashes I'm not so sure.rohrl said:
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Fact - an inquest reviewed all available evidence and disagrees with you.
You presumably trust them. Having seen whitewashes I'm not so sure.I suppose this is what the speed plod and the law forum is like.
TTwiggy said:
For me, one of the most shameful aspects of the Stockwell shooting was the smearing of De Menezes in the immediate aftermath. You probably won't have to search hard to find people who will still claim he jumped the barriers and was an illegal immigrant. No suggestion that Dick was involved in that, but whoever was should be out of a job at the very least and arguably facing criminal charges.
Point of order.He was in the country illegally, on an expired visa.
I agree with the rest of your post, however.
El stovey said:
Quite,
I suppose this is what the speed plod and the law forum is like.
I remember the original thread on SP&L. It was, of course, a pointless entrenched battle between your class 1s and class 5s. Neither group shower themselves in glory I think, and most reasonable people - who occupy your 2-4 positions - would probably agree that the 'truth' behind the Stockwell shooting most likely lies in shades of grey. I suppose this is what the speed plod and the law forum is like.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff