Explation from serving officer
Discussion
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.
Indeed. It takes a lot of good sense and a certain amount of bravery. So much easier to blame. 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.
I can't accept your private sector comparisons. The topic about this in NP&E told me this sort of thing doesn't happen in the private sector. 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.
In all seriousness, thanks for the expansion. The issue here is because there was a such a bad outcome i.e. a 13 year old was raped, it makes people bring the pitch folks out, rather than rationally assessing the situation.
The other issues I touched on in the NP&E topic was one of culture. I'll copy and paste a bit of that rather than re-writing it:
Regarding the IOPC (or IPCC as they were), my experiences with them indicate they'll have no hesitation in putting someone through misconduct proceedings if the evidence is there. They've were at the forefront in pushing for reforming in this area e.g. misconduct hearings in public, greater powers like compelling police officers to attend a criminal interview (which applies to no one else) etc. Internal police investigators tend to be more skilled investigators, which isn't a surprise given who they place within those departments. Which is why I think it was a mistake for the IOPC to declare they wanted fewer ex-police officers, but that's a side issue.
Generally speaking, the police have moved and are moving away from 'punishment and discipline' to 'learning and development' within their organisational culture when appropriate. This places mindset in a different context. Mistakes / accidents are dramatically different from negligence / intention.
If you theoretically have someone with 20 years of unblemished, distinctive service who has accidentally placed the suspect's last name in the CC box which has auto filled, what are people expecting to happen? Them to be sacked? People make mistakes at work all the time. Yes, this one had a bad outcome (him attempting to destroy evidence), but that's the nature of the business rather than gravity of the mistake.
In terms of vetting. The people involved from top to bottom have probably done their best to create a strategy / policy that minimises the chances of unsuitable candidates entering the police. It so happens an extreme person in highly specific circumstances exposed a flaw. What are people expecting to happen with X or Y individual involved at some point in the vetting process? Get sacked?
People mistake 'accountability' with scapegoating.
A constructive approach, where possible, is much better for an organisation than a big stick. If people involved a complex project and implementation see that people have been disciplined etc around a gap in vetting, then what sort of approach do you think they'll take? An overly cautious, bureaucratic and risk-averse one. There's ample evidence to conclude that the more scrutiny you place risk-based decision-makers under, the more risk-averse they become.
Not a culture we want in something as important as policing.
If someone's conduct reaches a misconduct / criminal threshold then hammer them. If not, then approach the matter in as constructive and-as-developmental-a-manner as possible. There's no need for people to be punished to make an organisation better.
If you theoretically have someone with 20 years of unblemished, distinctive service who has accidentally placed the suspect's last name in the CC box which has auto filled, what are people expecting to happen? Them to be sacked? People make mistakes at work all the time. Yes, this one had a bad outcome (him attempting to destroy evidence), but that's the nature of the business rather than gravity of the mistake.
Bigends said:
Perhaps a monthly follow up PNC check on each pending candidate on the waiting list until they're finally appointed.
That'd work. I'd go for a bit less and just do a PNC check before they start training. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff