PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
BrabusMog said:
But they didn't. so it would be good to know what they propose to do to prevent this from happening again. Or, if someone dropped the ball, that they receive appropriate disciplinary action. I suspect all we will hear is that lessons have been learned. Again, apologies if I've missed a statement, but I don't think I have.
But as several posters have tried to explain - it is exceptionally unlikely that one person has "dropped the ball" on this. A serious situation has happened because a process, procedure or policy has been written by several people, checked by others, implemented successfully for x years without anyone ever falling through the gap, until this person. Yes, someone could have said "Hold on a sec guys, what if someone has been convicted after we have done their checks?" but nobody has.
Aren't lessons always learned? Processes improved to reflect new information that impacts what previously worked before.
But if in future, they don't make these changes, and it happens again, it would be clear lessons were not learned.
What I suspect though is that they'll implement these changes, and then the next time something else goes wrong, which has never gone wrong before, people will try to refer back to previous individual instances where a process was successfully changed to never happen again, as saying "they always just say lessons will be learned" because people assume it is a throwaway cliche.
Shakermaker said:
What I suspect though is that they'll implement these changes, and then the next time something else goes wrong, which has never gone wrong before, people will try to refer back to previous individual instances where a process was successfully changed to never happen again, as saying "they always just say lessons will be learned" because people assume it is a throwaway cliche.
It's a fair point and I really don't want to be too critical of La Liga who makes a lot of pertinent points BUT we also have a situation where someone made a critical error during the investigation and it's seen as a simple error worthy only of "words of advice".Which is why many people think corruption is endemic within the force and the whatever the complaints body is called this year.
Shakermaker said:
BrabusMog said:
But they didn't. so it would be good to know what they propose to do to prevent this from happening again. Or, if someone dropped the ball, that they receive appropriate disciplinary action. I suspect all we will hear is that lessons have been learned. Again, apologies if I've missed a statement, but I don't think I have.
But as several posters have tried to explain - it is exceptionally unlikely that one person has "dropped the ball" on this. A serious situation has happened because a process, procedure or policy has been written by several people, checked by others, implemented successfully for x years without anyone ever falling through the gap, until this person. Yes, someone could have said "Hold on a sec guys, what if someone has been convicted after we have done their checks?" but nobody has.
Aren't lessons always learned? Processes improved to reflect new information that impacts what previously worked before.
But if in future, they don't make these changes, and it happens again, it would be clear lessons were not learned.
What I suspect though is that they'll implement these changes, and then the next time something else goes wrong, which has never gone wrong before, people will try to refer back to previous individual instances where a process was successfully changed to never happen again, as saying "they always just say lessons will be learned" because people assume it is a throwaway cliche.
Edited by BrabusMog on Friday 16th November 12:46
BrabusMog said:
And as I have intimated but will now explicitly state - I don't understand how such an important part of the procedure can have failed so spectacularly, hence me stating it would be good to know exactly what they are going to do in the future. Maybe it's me being a bit pedantic as part of my job is to look at procedures, realise potential failings and recommend changes to improve the process. This failing has caused something terrible to happen, it's not unreasonable to be told how they intend for it to not happen again.
You're quite right, and let's hope they do - but I very much doubt that one person was responsible for this who can be identified and "hung out to dry" for their error Shakermaker said:
BrabusMog said:
And as I have intimated but will now explicitly state - I don't understand how such an important part of the procedure can have failed so spectacularly, hence me stating it would be good to know exactly what they are going to do in the future. Maybe it's me being a bit pedantic as part of my job is to look at procedures, realise potential failings and recommend changes to improve the process. This failing has caused something terrible to happen, it's not unreasonable to be told how they intend for it to not happen again.
You're quite right, and let's hope they do - but I very much doubt that one person was responsible for this who can be identified and "hung out to dry" for their error BrabusMog said:
Shakermaker said:
BrabusMog said:
And as I have intimated but will now explicitly state - I don't understand how such an important part of the procedure can have failed so spectacularly, hence me stating it would be good to know exactly what they are going to do in the future. Maybe it's me being a bit pedantic as part of my job is to look at procedures, realise potential failings and recommend changes to improve the process. This failing has caused something terrible to happen, it's not unreasonable to be told how they intend for it to not happen again.
You're quite right, and let's hope they do - but I very much doubt that one person was responsible for this who can be identified and "hung out to dry" for their error The most successful 'discipline' procedures I know of are those instigated after aircrashes.
If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
Derek Smith said:
The most successful 'discipline' procedures I know of are those instigated after aircrashes.
If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
With respect, we aren't discussing a plane crash, we are discussing an administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. It is not unreasonable to expect anyone who made a procedural error to be disciplined (after a thorough investigation) and that doesn't necessarily mean their head/heads rolling. And if everyone followed the procedure to the letter, then it is not unreasonable to expect to be informed of changes to said procedure to ensure it doesn't happen again. Also, I haven't read anything on this thread that said nobody gets punished.If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
Derek Smith said:
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished.
Freddy Patel never got punished- nor did the man who appointed him to do the job he botched. Harwood never got punished.Nobody was ever found to have ordered the killing of de Menezes- it 'just happened'. Nobody was responsible.
The policeman driving at ridiculous speeds 'because he was unfamiliar with the car' never got punished.
Nobody involved with the Hillsborough cover-ups & PtCoJ ever got punished.
Nobody involved with covering up the Rotherham abuse ever got punished.
Nobody was responsible for doing nothing over Thwaites Brewery.
Nobody was responsible for ignoring Cromer being trashed over a weekend by pikescum.
et cetera.
It's not been suggested that nobody ever gets punished, it's been suggested that the frequency of getting away with it is excessive.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 16th November 13:27
BrabusMog said:
With respect, we aren't discussing a plane crash, we are discussing an administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. It is not unreasonable to expect anyone who made a procedural error to be disciplined (after a thorough investigation) and that doesn't necessarily mean their head/heads rolling. And if everyone followed the procedure to the letter, then it is not unreasonable to expect to be informed of changes to said procedure to ensure it doesn't happen again. Also, I haven't read anything on this thread that said nobody gets punished.
Don't you really see? A thorough investigation by all means, but it should be to ensure the incident does not happen again. The norm is that in a procedural matter, there is always, but always, a number of reasons why it failed.
Here's a simple question, and one that is on many a management course: should a person who was doing his best be disciplined if he was wrong?
Derek Smith said:
The most successful 'discipline' procedures I know of are those instigated after aircrashes.
If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
Aviation is a shining example of why a no-blame culture is essential to dealing with human error. If there's criminal behaviour, they will support it. However, if there's an act by somone who is inept they will ask why that person was in a position to have such an influence.
They fight off the reactionary brave on keyboards, nutters who want 'heads to roll', and go after improving safety. Sacking someone who is doing their best is a recipe for no change. No lessons will be learned and such incidents will be repeated until pressure of good sense will cause procedural changes.
There was on aircrash where it was clear from the start that the captain was at fault. No problem there, blame the bloke and everyone is happy, especially those who know that this is the only way to proceed. However, the investigating team were made of more sensible stuff and asked why this highly experienced bloke got it so wrong.
It was one of the most fascinating investigations I've read about, and at one time it was my job to read up on them.
Once it was found why various safety systems did not click, procedures were changed, lessons being taught one could suggest, You, and, most importantly, me, are now safer when flying due to the sensible response to an aircrash. The desire of the investigating team was to ensure such a situation did not arise again, this despite there being a number of fatalities and serious injuries.
Or they could have wrapped up the investigation within a few days, blaming one person, and then going down the pub, until the next crash, which would be sooner as they hadn't done anything useful.
Thank heavens the idiots are not in charge of aircrash investigation.
What is also irritating is the suggestion that no one ever gets punished. This is transparently nonsense and shows the weakness of an argument to a much greater degree than a personal attack.
That's about all for the moment.
Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
Derek Smith said:
Here's a simple question, and one that is on many a management course: should a person who was doing his best be disciplined if he was wrong?
Here's an alternative question- will people work their best if they realise that there is no penalty for laziness or incompetence? Derek Smith said:
Don't you really see?
A thorough investigation by all means, but it should be to ensure the incident does not happen again. The norm is that in a procedural matter, there is always, but always, a number of reasons why it failed.
Here's a simple question, and one that is on many a management course: should a person who was doing his best be disciplined if he was wrong?
Derek - given the fact this lad had an error in his favour on the way in, had a helping hand when he was getting investigated and the general sA thorough investigation by all means, but it should be to ensure the incident does not happen again. The norm is that in a procedural matter, there is always, but always, a number of reasons why it failed.
Here's a simple question, and one that is on many a management course: should a person who was doing his best be disciplined if he was wrong?
t show that has been the force's handling of various sex abuse scandals can you not see why plenty of people are a bit cynical about these matters now?Derek Smith said:
BrabusMog said:
With respect, we aren't discussing a plane crash, we are discussing an administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. It is not unreasonable to expect anyone who made a procedural error to be disciplined (after a thorough investigation) and that doesn't necessarily mean their head/heads rolling. And if everyone followed the procedure to the letter, then it is not unreasonable to expect to be informed of changes to said procedure to ensure it doesn't happen again. Also, I haven't read anything on this thread that said nobody gets punished.
Don't you really see? A thorough investigation by all means, but it should be to ensure the incident does not happen again. The norm is that in a procedural matter, there is always, but always, a number of reasons why it failed.
Here's a simple question, and one that is on many a management course: should a person who was doing his best be disciplined if he was wrong?
esxste said:
Aviation is a shining example of why a no-blame culture is essential to dealing with human error.
Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
And it works because everyone wants to find the truth.Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
It's pretty easy to cover up stuff if no one is looking for it.
desolate said:
If something similar happened in my working environment the person would be dismissed.
edited to add a bit of nuance: that is unless the person involved was one of my mates or someone I had a connection with - I'd let them off then.
Had I made that same mistake I wouldn't be surprised if I was interviewed under caution.
What is your working environment? Are you subject to the Police disciplinary system?edited to add a bit of nuance: that is unless the person involved was one of my mates or someone I had a connection with - I'd let them off then.
Had I made that same mistake I wouldn't be surprised if I was interviewed under caution.
XCP said:
What is your working environment? Are you subject to the Police disciplinary system?
No. I was unemployable so had to give myself a job.As an analogy if one of my employees sent my IP on an email to a competitor I'd sack them from gross misconduct.
Unless he or she was a mate in which case I'd make them but me a couple of pints and ask them to try not to do it again.
Rovinghawk said:
Here's an alternative question- will people work their best if they realise that there is no penalty for laziness or incompetence?
Simple incompetence comes down to either a lack of appropriate training, or lack of suitability for the job. Both are the responsibility of the employer in that you ask : "why wasn't appropriate training given" or "how did you hire someone unsuitable"Laziness is a result of poor motivation. Unmotivated workers are the result of poor leadership and management.
People never work their best under fear of punishment. Never.
People work their best when they are inspired by the work, believe in what they are doing, and are committed to the cause.
Edited by esxste on Friday 16th November 13:57
Edited by esxste on Friday 16th November 13:58
esxste said:
Aviation is a shining example of why a no-blame culture is essential to dealing with human error.
Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
I agree.Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
However, I'm not suggesting that there should be no blame, but that any investigation should work from the basis of why, which the AAIB does magnificently, rather than who. If the investigation covers inept behaviour, they will then move on to why a person who was inept was placed in such a postion rather than just throw the book at them.
Their system isn't perfect - but then I wouldn't blame them for that as some on here would - but it is the best I know of and it is being tweaked continually. Lessons being learned in other words.
With the police discipline procedure there is, even in those who are not corrupt, a reluctance to answer every question fully. An admission of a minor error can result in all blame being focused one way. I'm told it has changed a bit but then it was from a very low base.
There are so many lives that have been saved by the AAIB that they all should be knighted. There must be thousands. It is even possible that if past methods of enquiry had not been focused on blaming someone, perhaps a 12-year-old would not have been raped. We'll never know.
Why rather than who is by far the best basis for an inquiry into an incident.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff