Police and Crime Commissioner absolute farce.
Discussion
Paul Dishman said:
La Liga said:
Paul Dishman said:
Whoever was in charge at Heavitree at the time should take responsibility and resign
So someone who had nothing to do with the incident and who had no control over it. Thankfully the real world isn't that irrational.
The negative implications are pretty obvious if you think about them for a few minutes.
Do the police carry a level of responsibility within the organisation or is each officer autonomous? I'm not suggesting foul play, but the fact remains that people have died in custody. Perhaps we haven't moved far from the days when the response to the Birmingham pub bombings was to arrest the nearest half-dozen Irishmen and fit them up.
He was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. Why would he resign after being acquitted? He may have done everything right and according to his training.
As I wrote, people can die in custody without anyone doing anything wrong. The police deal with some of the most vulnerable and unhealthy people in society. Sometimes some of them die.
La Liga said:
he Sergeant was in charge of the custody suite.
He was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. Why would he resign after being acquitted? He may have done everything right and according to his training.
As I wrote, people can die in custody without anyone doing anything wrong. The police deal with some of the most vulnerable and unhealthy people in society. Sometimes some of them die.
People don't just die, there is always a reason. The police are all too happy to patronise members of the public, but weasel out of responsibility themselves. Nobody in a real profession could honourably do that.He was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. Why would he resign after being acquitted? He may have done everything right and according to his training.
As I wrote, people can die in custody without anyone doing anything wrong. The police deal with some of the most vulnerable and unhealthy people in society. Sometimes some of them die.
Paul Dishman said:
People don't just die, there is always a reason.
Yep, and that doesn't mean the reason/s amount to a crime / misconduct for the individuals involved in the arrest etc. Paul Dishman said:
The police are all too happy to patronise members of the public, but weasel out of responsibility themselves. Nobody in a real profession could honourably do that.
What responsibility should which person resign over? Don't just parrot simplistic useless generalisations, 'because someone died' and the 'person in charge'.
Be specific. Like you have to be in the real world.
Paul Dishman said:
La Liga said:
he Sergeant was in charge of the custody suite.
He was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. Why would he resign after being acquitted? He may have done everything right and according to his training.
As I wrote, people can die in custody without anyone doing anything wrong. The police deal with some of the most vulnerable and unhealthy people in society. Sometimes some of them die.
People don't just die, there is always a reason. The police are all too happy to patronise members of the public, but weasel out of responsibility themselves. Nobody in a real profession could honourably do that.He was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. Why would he resign after being acquitted? He may have done everything right and according to his training.
As I wrote, people can die in custody without anyone doing anything wrong. The police deal with some of the most vulnerable and unhealthy people in society. Sometimes some of them die.
BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
I agree, cowardice is an easy concept to grasp..BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
People should be punished when it can be proven they've done something wrong.
A punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated).
Why would any serving police officer, who wishes to participate openly on a forum, use their real name?
Is there a risk you'll spend time thinking about anything on this thread with any degree of depth?
A punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated).
Paul Dishman said:
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
I agree, cowardice is an easy concept to grasp..BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Is there a risk you'll spend time thinking about anything on this thread with any degree of depth?
La Liga said:
hy would any serving police officer, who wishes to participate openly on a forum, use their real name?
Is there a risk you'll spend time thinking about anything on this thread with any degree of depth?
More insults.Is there a risk you'll spend time thinking about anything on this thread with any degree of depth?
Aren't we constantly told that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? Other people on here use their real names, or pseudonyms that can be easily traced.
There have been enough threads on here about police misconduct, there's one on this page running currently. It's an absolute fact that the leadership of the police in this country is institutionally dishonest.
From Operation Countryman, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Steven Lawrence, Jean Charles de Menezes, Operation Midland and so on and on, just how many more examples do you want? No responsibility is ever taken, its just weasel words- "words of advice" "retraining will be given" again and again, before retirement after thirty years on a fat pension.
La Liga said:
People should be punished when it can be proven they've done something wrong.
A punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/10/peter-carrington-lord-carrington-obituaryA punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated
Lord Carrington was an honourable man who took responsibility for the failures of the organisation that he was in charge of. That is what a professional person would do, not hide or make excuses.
Paul Dishman said:
More insults.
Physician heal thyself! Paul Dishman said:
I agree, cowardice is an easy concept to grasp.
Paul Dishman said:
Aren't we constantly told that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? Other people on here use their real names, or pseudonyms that can be easily traced.
Who cares? If someone doesn't want to use their real name it's none of your business. The vast majority of participants on PH choose not to, so it's hardly atypical.
Paul Dishman said:
There have been enough threads on here about police misconduct, there's one on this page running currently. It's an absolute fact that the leadership of the police in this country is institutionally dishonest.
Which has no relevance to the case under discussion. Paul Dishman said:
From Operation Countryman, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Steven Lawrence, Jean Charles de Menezes, Operation Midland and so on and on, just how many more examples do you want? No responsibility is ever taken, its just weasel words- "words of advice" "retraining will be given" again and again, before retirement after thirty years on a fat pension.
Which have no relevance to the case under discussion. You're having to do the red herring fallacy because you don't know what you're talking about and can't go beyond, 'There was a death therefore someone should resign'.
Paul Dishman said:
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
I agree, cowardice is an easy concept to grasp..BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Paul Dishman said:
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
I agree, cowardice is an easy concept to grasp..BTW, my previous comment is pointing out how utterly narrow minded and predictable you are. I don't use my real name like many people on here because I want to retain some anonymity. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
How about answering the first part of my post then tough guy?
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 7th July 17:23
I've already given Peter Carrington 's resignation from the Foreign Office as an example, he took responsibility for the failures of his subordinates. Taking responsibility is key to leadership, we don't see that in public life nowadays.
Wasn't Cressida Dick in command during Operation Midland and when De Menezes was killed?
She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
Wasn't Cressida Dick in command during Operation Midland and when De Menezes was killed?
She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
Paul Dishman said:
I've already given Peter Carrington 's resignation from the Foreign Office as an example, he took responsibility for the failures of his subordinates. Taking responsibility is key to leadership, we don't see that in public life nowadays.
Wasn't Cressida Dick in command during Operation Midland and when De Menezes was killed?
She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
Still not answering my question. Wasn't Cressida Dick in command during Operation Midland and when De Menezes was killed?
She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
Paul Dishman said:
La Liga said:
People should be punished when it can be proven they've done something wrong.
A punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/10/peter-carrington-lord-carrington-obituaryA punishment based on chance is clearly stupid and there's clear psychological evidence of the risks that possesses for individual and organisational decision-making and risk-management (but let's not get too complicated
Lord Carrington was an honourable man who took responsibility for the failures of the organisation that he was in charge of. That is what a professional person would do, not hide or make excuses.
Lord Carrington judged that he had failed to anticipate the invasion.
Please tell me how the unspecified, make-it-up-as-you-go-along person you want to resign is the same as that.
Secondly, a bad outcome doesn't mean there's necessarily a failure. It's a bad outcome to shoot dead terrorists, but that's not a failure. It's a bad outcome for someone to die in custody, but that doesn't mean it's a failure of the process that has the highest probability of that outcome not occurring.
In the world of risk the judgment needs to be focused on process because it's the process that leads to outcomes.
Paul Dishman said:
Taking responsibility is key to leadership, we don't see that in public life nowadays.
Which doesn't mean resigning for things out of your control or being a part of a culture which expects that. Paul Dishman said:
Wasn't Cressida Dick in command during Operation Midland and when De Menezes was killed?
She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
She was in charge. It wasn't Op Midland. She's since been promoted, which tells it all.
A jury (you don't seem a fan of their judgements) found she had no culpability and if you read Stockwell 1 you may learn about process vs outcomes and controllables vs uncontrollables.
Paul Dishman said:
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
That question? The police have a duty of care, don't they? If that is satisfied, then the answer is obvious.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 7th July 18:08
La Liga said:
Secondly, a bad outcome doesn't mean there's necessarily a failure. It's a bad outcome to shoot dead terrorists, but that's not a failure. It's a bad outcome for someone to die in custody, but that doesn't mean it's a failure of the process that has the highest probability of that outcome not occurring.
In the world of risk the judgment needs to be focused on process because it's the process that leads to outcomes.
I don't see how you can unlink outcome from process in those examples. If you get a bad outcome, then the process has to in question, otherwise you're shrugging your shoulders and blaming the system. So who takes responsibility for systemic failures?In the world of risk the judgment needs to be focused on process because it's the process that leads to outcomes.
Paul Dishman said:
Taking responsibility is key to leadership, we don't see that in public life nowadays.
Which doesn't mean resigning for things out of your control or being a part of a culture which expects that. Edited by Paul Dishman on Tuesday 7th July 18:12
Greendubber said:
Paul Dishman said:
Greendubber said:
What if that reason is nothing to do with that person being in custody?
That question? The police have a duty of care, don't they? If that is satisfied, then the answer is obvious.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 7th July 18:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff