You're right, Stu, I would probably be pretty pissed off if it was a member of my family. I would be more pissed off, however, if Jean Charles had been a terrorist, the police had done nothing about it, and a member of my family was on the tube. It really annoys me when people do nothing but criticise the police and emergency services. These people risk their lives to protect us, and do a tremendous job, yet the level of ingratitude is astonishing.
I said it in my last post, and I'll say it again - let's not forget who the real bad guys are. The police are doing their best to prevent us from disaster - that being people who want to injure or kill as many people as possible. How about we get on the police's side for once?
Resignation & Responsibility
I don't want to crtiticise the Police. We are very, very lucky to live in a percieved democratic society, alot more so than many others.all new Phil wrote:The police are doing their best to prevent us from disaster - that being people who want to injure or kill as many people as possible. How about we get on the police's side for once?
We can always question whether Jean Charles could have been a terroririst - or indeed my next door neighbour on a shopping trip to London. If we excuse ill-recognised terrorists as legitimate targets for summary execution then we are no better than the form of totalitarian regimes that were ended by the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Jean Charles' death was a mistake. The fact that no one faces criminal charges is a tragedy in itself. A token by the Commissioner is the last that can be asked really! I don't see how he can stand before the public and claim anything else.
There are indeed alot of bad guys out there, and they do want to injure innocent civilians. We cannot allow them to win by turning this nation into the sort of Police State that they envisage for themselves as an idealistic existence. By allowing innocent people to be killed by our own law enforcers without recourse to justice we are simply doing the job of the terrorists in turning our country into what they desire.
User removed
The least that can be asked, and indeed the most responsible action, is to put mechanisms in place that ensure this never happens again. A token resignation just makes the organisation lose its chief when what it needs is good leadership.
Knight knight
The fact that it needs mechanisms to be put in place to prevent this happening again means that there has been a distinct lack of effective leadership. When someone keeps crashing the car you don't leave them in the driving seat in the vain hope that one day they will learn how to steer it properly.
User removed
Are you aware of additional scandals? Anyway, that analogy's rubbish too. It's more like arresting the car's owner because his chauffeur crashed it.StuartPlymouth wrote: When someone keeps crashing the car you don't leave them in the driving seat in the vain hope that one day they will learn how to steer it properly.
Knight knight
On that basis Adolf Hitler was an innocent man because he never actually shot anyone during the Second World War. It was always someone else!Sput wrote:Are you aware of additional scandals? Anyway, that analogy's rubbish too. It's more like arresting the car's owner because his chauffeur crashed it.
The whole point is that the head of any organisation ultimately accepts the responsibility for its actions. If you are saying that Sir Ian Blair has no responsibility for what the Met do then what is the purpose of his job, and why is he drawing an extraordinarily large salary for it?
User removed
Hitler can be directly linked to those actions time and time again. The same can't be said of Blair. I don't mind admitting I'm not sure what Blair is actually for, but I suspect his job description doesn't include "fall guy".StuartPlymouth wrote:On that basis Adolf Hitler was an innocent man because he never actually shot anyone during the Second World War. It was always someone else!Sput wrote:Are you aware of additional scandals? Anyway, that analogy's rubbish too. It's more like arresting the car's owner because his chauffeur crashed it.
The whole point is that the head of any organisation ultimately accepts the responsibility for its actions. If you are saying that Sir Ian Blair has no responsibility for what the Met do then what is the purpose of his job, and why is he drawing an extraordinarily large salary for it?
Knight knight
....and quite clearly his terms of reference don't include the word "responsibility" either.Sput wrote:I don't mind admitting I'm not sure what Blair is actually for, but I suspect his job description doesn't include "fall guy".
User removed
That's pretty patronising of you to assume and it's based entirely on your lack of knowledge about who's accountable to whom in the police force. You've failed comprehensively to explain why he's responsible. I'd have thought it's quite hard to be responsible for something that was kept from you and didn't involve you in any way.StuartPlymouth wrote:....and quite clearly his terms of reference don't include the word "responsibility" either.Sput wrote:I don't mind admitting I'm not sure what Blair is actually for, but I suspect his job description doesn't include "fall guy".
Knight knight
That response makes a mockery of your earlier statement.Sput wrote:You've failed comprehensively to explain why he's responsible. I'd have thought it's quite hard to be responsible for something that was kept from you and didn't involve you in any way.
If he knew nothing about the incident and he wasn't involved in anyway then he has failed to provide effective leadership.Sput wrote:A token resignation just makes the organisation lose its chief when what it needs is good leadership.
The "it wasn't me, it was him!" attitude doesn't work when you are the head of the organisation.
User removed