Explation from serving officer

[Derek Smith]

Is there anyone who could explain what a 'a student officer for Cheshire police' is?

[Derek Smith]

Thanks, guys. I was wondering if it was another bit of interference from the HO. I see it is an exercise in renaming to show that the bosses are on the ball.

[Derek Smith]

Greendubber said:

Used to be 'maker of the tea' or 'one who holds the kettle'

Now it's probably means the most experienced bobby on the response shift.

It's rather apposite that May is being left all on her own to manage.

[Derek Smith]

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.

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]

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.