Cressida Dick is the new Met commissioner
Discussion
Whether he was here illegally or not doesn't matter.
Having read everything available about the matter, you'll need to point me in the direction of which allows you to conclude it 'wasn't really a full and open investigation' and 'a bit of a white wash'.
Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
El stovey said:
La Liga said:
Don't come here with your investigations / facts / objective & critical look at matters / jury decisions.
Looked like a bit of a whitewash really. I know it was difficult circumstances but it wasn't really a full and open investigation. Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
TTwiggy said:
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.
Then 'most reasonable people' would be wrong. The matter has been sufficiently investigated to allow a person to draw the relevant conclusions as to what occurred and what didn't. La Liga said:
Whether he was here illegally or not doesn't matter.
Having read everything available about the matter, you'll need to point me in the direction of which allows you to conclude it 'wasn't really a full and open investigation' and 'a bit of a white wash'.
Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
You're in the police also presumably? As I said, I tend to support the police, just that, as many threads have shown, it's largely pointless to enter into discussing police cover ups on a public forum with members of the police. El stovey said:
La Liga said:
Don't come here with your investigations / facts / objective & critical look at matters / jury decisions.
Looked like a bit of a whitewash really. I know it was difficult circumstances but it wasn't really a full and open investigation. Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
El stovey said:
La Liga said:
Whether he was here illegally or not doesn't matter.
Having read everything available about the matter, you'll need to point me in the direction of which allows you to conclude it 'wasn't really a full and open investigation' and 'a bit of a white wash'.
Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
You're in the police also presumably? As I said, I tend to support the police, just that, as many threads have shown, it's largely pointless to enter into discussing police cover ups on a public forum with members of the police. El stovey said:
La Liga said:
Don't come here with your investigations / facts / objective & critical look at matters / jury decisions.
Looked like a bit of a whitewash really. I know it was difficult circumstances but it wasn't really a full and open investigation. Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
There is no point attempting a discussion with either a class 1 or a class 5.
El stovey said:
You're in the police also presumably? As I said, I tend to support the police, just that, as many threads have shown, it's largely pointless to enter into discussing police cover ups on a public forum with members of the police.
Sorry to be blunt, but that reads to me as if you mean you've not read the investigations and public material relating to all the aspects I mentioned and are unable to point to anything that supports what you've claimed. Instead you are using some vague diversion about not being able to debate the matter with police officers. rohrl said:
Es class 1 meets Es class 2
There is no point attempting a discussion with either a class 1 or a class 5.
I'm not sure what this class business is about (it sounds rather close to attacking the poster rather than their content), but this is one of the most comprehensively investigated police incidents in which there are comprehensive reports in the public domain. There is no point attempting a discussion with either a class 1 or a class 5.
If people wish to draw conclusions there is ample information to either support or counter those conclusions given what is available.
La Liga said:
Whether he was here illegally or not doesn't matter.
Having read everything available about the matter, you'll need to point me in the direction of which allows you to conclude it 'wasn't really a full and open investigation' and 'a bit of a white wash'.
Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
Were you a contributor to the (very long) thread on SP&L at the time? Do you remember a poster called 'Brother Mycroft'? He seemed to be quite well informed and had a very interesting take on the final moments before the tragic shooting.El stovey said:
La Liga said:
Don't come here with your investigations / facts / objective & critical look at matters / jury decisions.
Looked like a bit of a whitewash really. I know it was difficult circumstances but it wasn't really a full and open investigation. Which parts from Stockwell 1 and 2, the inquest, the H&S prosecution, the appeals and HRA case are missing to allow you to draw those conclusions?
Have you read Stockwell 1? I doubt it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...
TTwiggy said:
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.
Then 'most reasonable people' would be wrong. The matter has been sufficiently investigated to allow a person to draw the relevant conclusions as to what occurred and what didn't. La Liga said:
TTwiggy said:
Were you a contributor to the (very long) thread on SP&L at the time? Do you remember a poster called 'Brother Mycroft'? He seemed to be quite well informed and had a very interesting take on the final moments before the tragic shooting.
I expect I contributed to it, but I don't recall anyone's posts specifically. I'd need to read his comments again but I think I'd add more weight to the formal investigations rather than some unknown person on a forum. The crux of his point was that the officer following De Menezes was probably the person in the 'bulky clothes' seen jumping the barriers. He also claimed that this officer was dark skinned and may have been concerned that the armed response unit would be likely to pick him out as the target rather than De Menezes.
Edited to add: Your reply seems to have disappeared!
I pressed post before I had finished so deleted it to finish and re-post.
It's perceived by some, who coincidentally don't take the time to read anything comprehensive about the matter, to be prudent and savvy to 'not trust the system' and propose more 'sexier' explanations, but the reality is much more boring and plain.
The simple reality is that a combination of small errors, unfortunate coincidences / timings (within the context of the time near 7/7) can lead a process comprising of many people and pieces to a bad outcome where no one is individually criminally culpable or blameworthy.
People are incapable of compartmentalising the matter and separating the outcome from process and individual involvement.
TTwiggy said:
Were you a contributor to the (very long) thread on SP&L at the time? Do you remember a poster called 'Brother Mycroft'? He seemed to be quite well informed and had a very interesting take on the final moments before the tragic shooting.
I expect I contributed to it, but I don't recall anyone's posts specifically. I'd need to read his comments again but I think I'd add more weight to the formal investigations rather than some unknown person on a forum. It's perceived by some, who coincidentally don't take the time to read anything comprehensive about the matter, to be prudent and savvy to 'not trust the system' and propose more 'sexier' explanations, but the reality is much more boring and plain.
The simple reality is that a combination of small errors, unfortunate coincidences / timings (within the context of the time near 7/7) can lead a process comprising of many people and pieces to a bad outcome where no one is individually criminally culpable or blameworthy.
People are incapable of compartmentalising the matter and separating the outcome from process and individual involvement.
La Liga said:
People are incapable of compartmentalising the matter and separating the outcome from process and individual involvement.
Given the outcome is a result of the process and the individuals involved are best placed to change it I'm not sure that's entirely unreasonable.Anyway, I for one am glad the best candidate got the job. I dread to think what disasters the other candidates must have found themselves involved in.
0000 said:
Given the outcome is a result of the process and the individuals involved are best placed to change it I'm not sure that's entirely unreasonable.
It is unreasonable when you're trying to make an objective assessment as to what someone did and did not do in the circumstances they faced. For example, people may not appreciate what the surveillance officers did because in hindsight there was no threat. Whereas someone capable of compartmentalise the manner could think about what they believed i.e. they were sat on a bus a few days after the London bombings with someone who may be a suicide bomber in the process of travelling to detonate, then you realise they're actually rather brave.
TTwiggy said:
The crux of his point was that the officer following De Menezes was probably the person in the 'bulky clothes' seen jumping the barriers.
The stressful circumstances (for the public) likely led them to tell the media it was Menezes who was running / vaulting and wearing a bulky jacket when it was probably a police officer. This was explored by the IPCC and is nothing that is unknown. TTwiggy said:
He also claimed that this officer was dark skinned and may have been concerned that the armed response unit would be likely to pick him out as the target rather than De Menezes.
No idea where he's got that from. La Liga said:
The simple reality is that a combination of small errors, unfortunate coincidences / timings (within the context of the time near 7/7) can lead a process comprising of many people and pieces to a bad outcome where no one is individually criminally culpable or blameworthy.
Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
El stovey said:
Unfortunately these small errors and coincidences are the things the police should be addressing as known variables, it's all stuff like, humanfactors, training, open reporting and investigation culture, quality of employees, command structures, decision making models, communication etc etc.
Thanks for that. If only the police thought of managing high-risk, dynamic incidents as a continuous learning process. If only they had something like a 'College of policing' which takes the best practices from around the country and world and works with academic leaders in each relevant field to continuously develop processes and review and improve. Perhaps there could also be people of ACPO rank responsible for an individual portfolio to manage the strategic aspects, too.In the absence of such, it must just be coincidence we have moved on from giving Detectives revolvers who would stand in their suits and smoke at an incident which required firearms in the 1970s.
El stovey said:
Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
Of course, me using terms like that give you insight into the whole process and allow you to make a comprehensive statement comparing to other industries. It sounds a similar level of evidence you used to conclude it was a 'whitewash'. I wasn't aware root causes couldn't be, 'small errors and unfortunate coincidences'. Do they not occur in 'industry', or is there some corporate language used to mean the same thing? Our armed deployment process and risk-management around firearms matters allows us to have the only (with comparable countries) routinely unarmed police in the world. Its one of the reasons most countries have come over to look at what we do and how we resolve so many dangerous situations without discharging firearms.
There are around 13,000 armed incidents, with millions of armed officer patrol time per year. Over time there have been very few discharges where an innocent person has been shot. The outcome data, of a significant sample over a significant time period from all different forces (some have still never shot anyone) grossly undermines your implication it's a poor process.
El stovey said:
Unfortunately these small errors and coincidences are the things the police should be addressing as known variables, it's all stuff like, humanfactors, training, open reporting and investigation culture, quality of employees, command structures, decision making models, communication etc etc,
Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
I left the service 12 years ago. The systems have changed out of all recognition. There is continual improvement. Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
There is also continual change forced on the service by governments in the main that are 'unhelpful' and the service has to come up with compromises to cope.
A variable is a variable. Most spontaneous incidents are led by offenders to an extent, which is also a variable. People are not easily predictable. People under stress are all but impossible to predict to a useful degree. Further, most serious offenders are to a greater or lesser extent, suffering from a mental problem.
You have no idea of the training that those who are called on in such situations have to go through.
Yu suggest that the police thinking in such matters is decades behind other industries. Policing operational incidents is not an industry and few have the restrictions imposed on the service.
You have no idea.
brenflys777 said:
Hindsight. A wonderful thing, later of course away from any risk except RSI whilst mashing the keyboard in outrage.
I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
I don't believe there was either, however there seemed to be a deliberate PR campaign launched immediately. The "terrorist" wearing a big puffer jacket in the middle of summer running through the ticket hall and jumping the barriers chased by the brave police officers trying to prevent a suicide bomber.I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
It took a long time to show the cctv of a man in a t-shirt casually walking through the hall and barriers. At that point the correction was shown the heat seemed to have been considerably taken off the cock up. Who faced charges for misleading and lying to the public?
cb31 said:
brenflys777 said:
Hindsight. A wonderful thing, later of course away from any risk except RSI whilst mashing the keyboard in outrage.
I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
I don't believe there was either, however there seemed to be a deliberate PR campaign launched immediately. The "terrorist" wearing a big puffer jacket in the middle of summer running through the ticket hall and jumping the barriers chased by the brave police officers trying to prevent a suicide bomber.I don't think there was a reckless or deliberate effort to kill an innocent man and neither did the inquiry.
It took a long time to show the cctv of a man in a t-shirt casually walking through the hall and barriers. At that point the correction was shown the heat seemed to have been considerably taken off the cock up. Who faced charges for misleading and lying to the public?
Here's the investigation around the media releases: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug/ipcc-menez...
El stovey said:
La Liga said:
The simple reality is that a combination of small errors, unfortunate coincidences / timings (within the context of the time near 7/7) can lead a process comprising of many people and pieces to a bad outcome where no one is individually criminally culpable or blameworthy.
Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
When I left the Police 18 years ago the aviation industry came as a bit of a shock. The no blame culture which allows pilots, crew, engineers, ATCOs, ramp staff etc to come forward without fear was a massive improvement on the way investigations into the Police were carried out. The Police seem to have started improving investigations but they are limited by political restrictions.
Regrettably I think in the 16 years I've flown jets the aviation industry has become less willing to accept that small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement in difficult situations can be a root cause without demanding that they were the result of recklessness or deliberate failings.
On this thread it seems to me that those who haven't read the Stockwell reports, the ECHR summary etc but who are convinced it was a whitewash would be the equivalent of someone looking at the Kegworth crash and demanding that the pilots be charged with murder. Small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement under pressure leading to injuries or fatalities, are not confined to Police.
brenflys777 said:
Earlier you mentioned the aviation industry.
When I left the Police 18 years ago the aviation industry came as a bit of a shock. The no blame culture which allows pilots, crew, engineers, ATCOs, ramp staff etc to come forward without fear was a massive improvement on the way investigations into the Police were carried out. The Police seem to have started improving investigations but they are limited by political restrictions.
Regrettably I think in the 16 years I've flown jets the aviation industry has become less willing to accept that small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement in difficult situations can be a root cause without demanding that they were the result of recklessness or deliberate failings.
On this thread it seems to me that those who haven't read the Stockwell reports, the ECHR summary etc but who are convinced it was a whitewash would be the equivalent of someone looking at the Kegworth crash and demanding that the pilots be charged with murder. Small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement under pressure leading to injuries or fatalities, are not confined to Police.
I think you've put your finger on the main problems with the police culture, and (perhaps as a cause?) the discipline procedure and the IPCC.When I left the Police 18 years ago the aviation industry came as a bit of a shock. The no blame culture which allows pilots, crew, engineers, ATCOs, ramp staff etc to come forward without fear was a massive improvement on the way investigations into the Police were carried out. The Police seem to have started improving investigations but they are limited by political restrictions.
Regrettably I think in the 16 years I've flown jets the aviation industry has become less willing to accept that small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement in difficult situations can be a root cause without demanding that they were the result of recklessness or deliberate failings.
On this thread it seems to me that those who haven't read the Stockwell reports, the ECHR summary etc but who are convinced it was a whitewash would be the equivalent of someone looking at the Kegworth crash and demanding that the pilots be charged with murder. Small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement under pressure leading to injuries or fatalities, are not confined to Police.
I worked with BAA and I was impressed by their attitude to 'problems'. Despite it being used as a stick to beat the police, they ran with 'how can we improve performance' every time. Blame was awarded but not necessarily with intent to punish but to identify 'training needs'. In the bits I was involved with there was the intent to normalise as soon as possible but without investigations being unduly compromised.
They weren't limited by the regulations of the police, only by the need to make a profit and due diligence.
I was invited - I was a witness - to a debrief of an accident where damage was caused, amounting to a couple of grand or so. The 'offender' was asked how 'we' could ensure that such an incident did not happen again. He was no mug and came up with three main ideas, all too technical for me. They were put to the two departments which would need to be involved and they came to a decision there and then.
It is fair to say that the offender did receive punishment. He was demoted a pay grade sort of thing as he had to undergo some training.
I had a few chats with various AAIB blokes over various incidents. There was punishment awarded on a couple of incidents, but these were where airlines had deliberately misled the AAIB in one case, and in the second (look away now nervous flyers) had tried to hide the loss of a leading edge slot that had fallen off during landing.
The AAIB grounded the airplane once it landed in New York. It then had a full investigation as to standards, and more. The AAIB were miffed. There was discipline against the pilot(s) but that was left to the Yanks to progress.
I remember thinking after one airside ground incident that was dealt with efficiently and effectively if only the police were allowed to act similarly. But, of course, if someone made a mistake they must be punished. If they weren't, there'd be a few on here demanding that they should be sacked. The de Menzes shooting gave rise to one of the most expensive investigations into police actions ever, and perhaps quite rightly. But what a waste. They could have just asked Rovingtroll to tell them what was wrong and saved so much.
brenflys777 said:
El stovey said:
La Liga said:
The simple reality is that a combination of small errors, unfortunate coincidences / timings (within the context of the time near 7/7) can lead a process comprising of many people and pieces to a bad outcome where no one is individually criminally culpable or blameworthy.
Labelling root causes in unfavourable outcomes as "small errors and unfortunate coincidences" is actually the problem here. It's a very backward way of thinking and decades behind many other industries.
When I left the Police 18 years ago the aviation industry came as a bit of a shock. The no blame culture which allows pilots, crew, engineers, ATCOs, ramp staff etc to come forward without fear was a massive improvement on the way investigations into the Police were carried out. The Police seem to have started improving investigations but they are limited by political restrictions.
Regrettably I think in the 16 years I've flown jets the aviation industry has become less willing to accept that small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement in difficult situations can be a root cause without demanding that they were the result of recklessness or deliberate failings.
On this thread it seems to me that those who haven't read the Stockwell reports, the ECHR summary etc but who are convinced it was a whitewash would be the equivalent of someone looking at the Kegworth crash and demanding that the pilots be charged with murder. Small errors, coincidences and lapses of judgement under pressure leading to injuries or fatalities, are not confined to Police.
It's not just the open reporting culture though, it's the recurrent training and evidence based ATQP simulator sessions we have now, the on going training and proficiency checking is also very different as is the task management and descision making models and procedures.
Even one friend who was an ex cabin crew member thought his airline training was far superior and left him more blue to do his job than his initial police training. That's just cabin crew training, not even pilot training.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff