Explation from serving officer
Discussion
La Liga said:
If you’re taking about the Ian Naude matter that’s not true. He wasn’t under investigation when he passed his vetting.
The issue were unknown allegations being made about him after his vetting.
Indeed. Having read further the problem came from the vetting code of practice which meant he wasn't re-vetted. Cheshire Constabulary have now enhanced their vetting and selection procedures so the same situation shouldn't happen again. This situation was hardly unique to Cheshire though as most forces carried out/are carrying out retrospective vetting of officers and staff to the latest standards. The issue were unknown allegations being made about him after his vetting.
ElectricPics said:
La Liga said:
If you’re taking about the Ian Naude matter that’s not true. He wasn’t under investigation when he passed his vetting.
The issue were unknown allegations being made about him after his vetting.
Indeed. Having read further the problem came from the vetting code of practice which meant he wasn't re-vetted. Cheshire Constabulary have now enhanced their vetting and selection procedures so the same situation shouldn't happen again. This situation was hardly unique to Cheshire though as most forces carried out/are carrying out retrospective vetting of officers and staff to the latest standards. The issue were unknown allegations being made about him after his vetting.
La Liga said:
ne of those things that's requires real world 'stress testing' to uncover. Although that's beyond most in the NP&E topic to understand.
Sorry I really don’t think it is beyond the wit of man to think these things through. Just a stupid process that is badly designed. I think criticism of some of these processes is entirely fair, and the people who put them in place are fair game to be criticized.
There have been 10s, if not hundreds of thousands (including re-vetting / higher level etc) of vetting under the current codes of practice. Such a sound sample size indicates it’s a pretty sound process. An extreme criminal who managed to bring together a load of improbable sequences and luckily weave between small gaps couldn’t, in my view, reasonably have been reasonably anticipated.
The IOPC also appear to agree with my view.
The best outcomes are the one we’ve seen. No scapegoating and plugging the gap.
The IOPC also appear to agree with my view.
The best outcomes are the one we’ve seen. No scapegoating and plugging the gap.
Gargamel said:
Sorry I really don’t think it is beyond the wit of man to think these things through. Just a stupid process that is badly designed.
I think criticism of some of these processes is entirely fair, and the people who put them in place are fair game to be criticized.
You seem to believe that there can be perfect systems. That's a reassuring thought, but it is incorrect.I think criticism of some of these processes is entirely fair, and the people who put them in place are fair game to be criticized.
It might seem to be an excuse to suggest that no one can think of everything, but it is true. There are limitations.
In a perfect world the police/support staff could perform door-to-door enquiries, check through all records – but not those banned by law of course, and then have someone go through all FaceBook posts, peruse Twitter and so on, and so on, and so on.
It’s not a perfect world. There are limitations.
You suggest it is a stupid process. However, what you should remember is that it has worked in the vast majority of cases so stupid is a stupid word to use to describe it. Not perfect then, that I’ll go along with but now this hole has been filled, I expect, indeed know, that it is not a perfect system still.
We could, of course, sack the person who sent the email to the offender. That’d sort the problem in no time, right up until the next person does the same thing because there’s been no change. How much better it would be to find out what the basic cause of the error was. There’s lack of training, hardly the sender’s fault. Possibly poor arrangement of documentation, so we can sack the person who designed the documentation. Or it might be, of course, that the name of the offender was kept from the clerk whose job it was to send these emails. The DPA is quite specific in such matters.
Sack the whole department or just the one whose percentage error was the highest?
I think La Liga's option of an investigation to discover why the error occurred will ensure that it cannot happen again, at least as far as possible.
If it is down to a criminal act, then the person should be dealt with.
Derek Smith said:
How much better it would be to find out what the basic cause of the error was. There’s lack of training, hardly the sender’s fault. Possibly poor arrangement of documentation, so we can sack the person who designed the documentation. Or it might be, of course, that the name of the offender was kept from the clerk whose job it was to send these emails. The DPA is quite specific in such matters.
There's always the possibility of rank incompetence; I'm surprised you forgot to include that.La Liga has the right response.
Every process starts in a basic initial structure and form. Hopefully put together after the right people design it. The design part is a huge factor in starting it off in a reasonably good form.
It is highly unlikely that any process will cover EVERY scenario to give a 100% perfect result. So, as a fault is found it needs investigating to find the cause and hence a solution.
It is really basic Quality Management that is applied to a non manufacturing business.
Unless you are in a situation where 100% perfection is a necessity then the degree of conformity is less. 95% is a commonly used acceptability level. Jet engine turbine blades are the opposite....every one is tested and certified.
So I have no real issue with the SMALL numbers that escape the vetting as it is being adressed.
You want 100% certainty?
Throw a huge amount of money/resources at it.
Every process starts in a basic initial structure and form. Hopefully put together after the right people design it. The design part is a huge factor in starting it off in a reasonably good form.
It is highly unlikely that any process will cover EVERY scenario to give a 100% perfect result. So, as a fault is found it needs investigating to find the cause and hence a solution.
It is really basic Quality Management that is applied to a non manufacturing business.
Unless you are in a situation where 100% perfection is a necessity then the degree of conformity is less. 95% is a commonly used acceptability level. Jet engine turbine blades are the opposite....every one is tested and certified.
So I have no real issue with the SMALL numbers that escape the vetting as it is being adressed.
You want 100% certainty?
Throw a huge amount of money/resources at it.
sospan said:
La Liga has the right response.
Every process starts in a basic initial structure and form. Hopefully put together after the right people design it. The design part is a huge factor in starting it off in a reasonably good form.
It is highly unlikely that any process will cover EVERY scenario to give a 100% perfect result. So, as a fault is found it needs investigating to find the cause and hence a solution.
It is really basic Quality Management that is applied to a non manufacturing business.
Unless you are in a situation where 100% perfection is a necessity then the degree of conformity is less. 95% is a commonly used acceptability level. Jet engine turbine blades are the opposite....every one is tested and certified.
So I have no real issue with the SMALL numbers that escape the vetting as it is being adressed.
You want 100% certainty?
Throw a huge amount of money/resources at it.
Perhaps a monthly follow up PNC check on each pending candidate on the waiting list until theyre finally appointed.Every process starts in a basic initial structure and form. Hopefully put together after the right people design it. The design part is a huge factor in starting it off in a reasonably good form.
It is highly unlikely that any process will cover EVERY scenario to give a 100% perfect result. So, as a fault is found it needs investigating to find the cause and hence a solution.
It is really basic Quality Management that is applied to a non manufacturing business.
Unless you are in a situation where 100% perfection is a necessity then the degree of conformity is less. 95% is a commonly used acceptability level. Jet engine turbine blades are the opposite....every one is tested and certified.
So I have no real issue with the SMALL numbers that escape the vetting as it is being adressed.
You want 100% certainty?
Throw a huge amount of money/resources at it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff