Metropol

Perhaps I have been misinformed in the past, but I always believed that the hefty salaries paid to the heads of corporate or public service organisations received them on the basis that they were ultimately responsible for the actions of those under their control.

We know that the head of any organisation cannot be aware of every single action that is undertaken, but it is nonetheless done so with their nominal approval, unless they are drawing their salary under false pretences.

The damning crititicism of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a very clear case in point. How this man can cling to office doesn't just cast shame on his organisation, but on the integrity of him as a person. Of course he will go in the end, but rather than falling on his sword and accepting the ultimate responsibility he will be pushed onto it by public lack of trust and damage the reputation of the police even further.

But what the hell - think of the pension Sir Ian!

Responsibility for what, exactly?

Sput wrote:Responsibility for what, exactly?

I don't intend to repeat every point of the IPCC Report, but in essense:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission report into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has found that he was killed because of a series of avoidable errors and "should have been avoided."

It is largely irrelevant what those errors were, or who made them. They were however made by Metropolitan Police employees. The result was that an innocent man died needlessly and since nobody else within the organisation has been prepared to accept responsibility for taking the wrong decision then it must rest with the head of the organisation.

Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to bring corporate manslaughter charges against train company executives (who probably never go any where near a railway signalling point), but not take similar action against the nation's nominated law enforcement body? Unless of course they are exempt from the very laws they claim to enforce, which is a very dangerous position for them to attempt to take.

That's an awfully big leap from me asking what you mean! So is he off the hook for you if the tea lady resigns?

Sput wrote:That's an awfully big leap from me asking what you mean! So is he off the hook for you if the tea lady resigns?

Yes, I suspect his career would have greater longevity if said Tea Lady was either armed and on the tube firing the shots or commanding the officers from some position of responsibility behind the scenes.

But neither is the case. In the absence of any "buck-stopping" level between tea lady and Commissioner then the person with the ultimate responsibility must accept that role as his fate.

I guess the dilemma is that there's absolutely nothing to say he's to blame as it was a convoluted set of circumstances, and it's a matter of a technically appropriate response versus an ideological/emotional one. In that sense your train analogy doesn't really work, since maintaining tracks is something that's a lot more predictable and less time-sensitive in terms of keeping standards up. But I do see your point.

I don't understand how anybody can be held responsible for somebody else's reaction to a very extreme circumstance. The police officer acted in the matter he thought appropriate, in the heat of the moment. It's human nature, and nothing whatsoever could have realistically altered the outcome of the situation.

So no, I don't think Blair should resign over it. And for the record, I am getting absolutely sick to death of anti-war lefties jumping on the bandwagon of saying how this incident sums up how nasty and evil our government is, and how heads should roll. I'd love to know how they would have reacted in a similar situation. It was a very unfortunate loss of an innocent life, but at least there are people protecting us - let's not forget who the real bad guys are.

So, what we're saying here, if I'm reading the small print correctly, is that the sadministrator was totally responsible for anything said in another place, by anyone from west Wales, about anyone in the newsreading profession, about anything to do with any alledged white powder.

I think the sadministrator ought to resign with immediate effect.

StuartPlymouth wrote:Perhaps I have been misinformed in the past, but I always believed that the hefty salaries paid to the heads of corporate or public service organisations received them on the basis that they were ultimately responsible for the actions of those under their control.

We know that the head of any organisation cannot be aware of every single action that is undertaken, but it is nonetheless done so with their nominal approval, unless they are drawing their salary under false pretences.

The damning crititicism of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a very clear case in point. How this man can cling to office doesn't just cast shame on his organisation, but on the integrity of him as a person. Of course he will go in the end, but rather than falling on his sword and accepting the ultimate responsibility he will be pushed onto it by public lack of trust and damage the reputation of the police even further.

But what the hell - think of the pension Sir Ian!

Do you write the Daily Mail Comment ?

A certain newsreader looked as though he snorted the white stuff.

Although, he never seemed the ultra-confident zany personality on-air that the white stuff is meant to produce in someone who uses it.

For example, go on YouTube and watch Queen's set at Live Aid 1985. It's common knowledge that a certain moustached lead singer snorted a few lines of the white stuff before going on stage. That's the effect we should have been seeing on a certain news channel that rhymes with "Pie Blues".

all new Phil wrote:I don't understand how anybody can be held responsible for somebody else's reaction to a very extreme circumstance. The police officer acted in the matter he thought appropriate, in the heat of the moment. It's human nature, and nothing whatsoever could have realistically altered the outcome of the situation.

They are trained, at great expense to cope with such a situation. That's aside from the fact that proper planning and intelligence would have prevented them chasing the wrong person in the first place!

all new Phil wrote:I am getting absolutely sick to death of anti-war lefties jumping on the bandwagon of saying how this incident sums up how nasty and evil our government is, and how heads should roll.

My stance on this subject has nothing to do with my view on any war.

all new Phil wrote:I'd love to know how they would have reacted in a similar situation. It was a very unfortunate loss of an innocent life, but at least there are people protecting us - let's not forget who the real bad guys are.

I hope your family would feel the same support for the gung-ho police officers if you had been left dead on the floor of a tube train.

It's a strange paradox when innocent citizens are shot six times in the head in the name of protecting them.