Posted By Pete48
I would like to applaud the article from the Chief Constable.
It is a well written and informative piece that deserved, and should have received from all other professionals, a full read beyond the sensationalising of one phrase that was used as a headline.
Given the recent use of HASAWA to prosecute the police, it gives an excellent perspective of the very real problems faced by our services. A perspective that is not often reflected in this forum.
For those who choose to criticise others or cry unfair about the perceived degradation of safety, I ask how do you think your responses have improved that situation?
I say we should be supporting this guy with every ounce of effort we can muster. He is one of the sensible and pragmatic people. This is not about stereotypes of any ilk, it is about the very real issues that face both those doing this sort of work and those who try to guide and assist them.
Try answering the question he poses; as a senior police officer; then as if you were responding to him as his safety adviser; then as his legal adviser. What would you say and do in each case?

Posted By Jay Joshi
Now that the IPCC report is available in full, and that there were comments by the judge regarding the trial, I find it incredulous to continue the assumption that there was nothing else they could have done on that day that led to the shooting of an innocent person.

If any of the contributors have indeed taken the trouble of reading the main points from the report.

The IPCC report has identified momentous blunders in the planning and resourcing of an operation to keep under surveillance and also stop potential suicide bombers from leaving the property in question.

Yes, there were under huge pressure, but how does that justify permitting a suspect to actually use public transport when the bus was being used. So, at that time, was he not a risk?? Why stop him there?

I will be upfront, but it scares me that just because I am an Asian and can behave as most London commuters do, I can be mistaken for a terrorist when there was so much uncertainty in the identification. So, this means if you simply look/are Asian, you should not be carrying anything such as a rucksack or a briefcase, do not take an alternative means of transport if a tube station is closed and when there are delays in public transport, do not use a mobile phone to inform your contact that you will be late for an appointment.


There can be uncertainty in identification, but then the obvious action would be to either intercept the suspect before they boarded any means of public transport, including the bus.


The IPCC investigation and also the case has made it clear that the suspect was never running away-he only stood up at the last few seconds --so all the lies that were in the media that he ran to the coaches is not true.
It was the armed police that ran!


Why was there a need to keep the IPCC out if there was nothing to hide??

It appears that there indeed was a blunder, but rather than accepting it as such and apologising immediately, instead a spin was spun to give an impression that the suspect acted suspiciously etc.

So, how come that the Gold Commander was went to the wrong room when the briefing was being carried out for an operation that was to apprehend terrorists and nobody thought there is a thing called a mobile phone to contact her??

On our site, where we even do not have a manufactuiring facility, but R & D labs handling chemicals, in event of an incident, as much as possible communication is logged and recorded, primarily for learning from how the incident was managed, but also as evidence.


I leave it to the contributors of the this thread to come to their own conclusions after reading the IPCC report.

The first line personnel were only doing their best, but what occurred in context of planning and resourcing an operation of such magnitude in context of anti -terrorist operations was Ameteurish.


The health and safety prosecustion was brought as it was expedient to do so and be seen as doing something about it rather than alloctiong responsibility on those who were responsible for the lack of resourcing and planning ( to the extent possible!!)

I accept that there will be times when real time decisions ahve to be made, but in this case, even the Gold commander apered to be under the impression that her order to stop did not mmean to


When interviewed she was asked to explain the word “Stop” and her response was that “Stop” is a common word in policing terms and it was
meant as “stop and detain”. This opinion is supported by DCI C and Trojan 80 and 84.

Posted By Colin Stapleton
Couple of points to Jay

First IPCC has the luxury of hindsight - if you examine the minutia of any incident it will flag up all manner of failures, improper actions etc.

Second, I once did a tour in Northern Ireland where I went on a training course, there was an exercise where you had an actual modified compressed air powered rifle in front of a projection screen showing a film of various scenarios. Without commands or prompting, you were to observe and take action as the film progressed, if you shot at the screen, your hit would be registered with a red dot on the screen where the bullet would have gone.

My daily job was handling weapons so my actions were highly tuned, but in this scenario, as soon as I realised the situation was 'hot' and that I had to fire - I couldn't even cock the rifle properly, let alone take aim and fire, by which time the 'shooting terrorists' were driving away! Of the three of us doing the exercise one shot the sky and two shot into a vehicle driving away.

Many acts were quoted on that course, the HASAWA 1974 was not mentioned once.

I do feel for the guys on the ground, they probably have trouble sleeping for a while. I feel for the HQ staff as well, think of what they were actually trying to achieve - saving the lives of the general public in a situation that was 'at large' - not murder one man.

Surely there was a better act to use than the HASAWA, after all the prevention of terrorism has little resemblance to H&S at Work.

Posted By Tom100
To come back to the original question, yes that is indeed the way the general public perceive the industry. And they are not wrong to do so.

Whilst there are a lot of very competent health and safety professionals, there are far too many other wasters bringing the "profession" into disrepute. Some of them are like religious zealots, believing only their view of the world is acceptable and going around telling other people they are stupid and need to be protected from their own stupidity. Others seem to feel a need to justify their existence by finding silly "risks" to be addressed that make them a laughing stock. Neither of these groups earn any respect from the public.

These people may be in a minority, but until the rest of the industry takes charge and roots them out their antics will continue to be the public face of of the industry. Treat the public with respect and you will be respected reciprocally.

Posted By Tom100
Bringing charges under HASAWA was a bit like prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion. There was a feeling that 'something must be done' and this was something that could be done, so it was.

Posted By Pete48
Jay, I have read both Stockwell 1 and 2 in detail and disagree with your conclusions. I do agree that what happened should not have happened. However, I think we must consider the context of the time and the organisational failures that subsequently occurred in those unprecedented times.
The Stockwell 1 report contains many pieces of data to illustrate the unusual nature of those times. Close study of the timeline brings the actual time frame into sharp focus. With the benefit of time and hindsight we can clearly see the critical decision points and maybe reflect on some that look awry. In the real time situation, it is neither easy nor indeed possible sometimes to deflect from a chosen path.
I repeat my earlier questions in other threads. How do we prevent such tragedies from repeating? And the answer is not prepare and train. Why? because all the officers involved in this event are highly trained and professional people following what were thought to be robust procedures making valid decisions at the time. Lessons will be learnt, of course, and no doubt some changes will be made. Then we will have what everyone will consider the best plan until....?

Posted By Barrie Roberts
Taliban actually translates to 'student'.

Not much else to contribute except that I am presently learning all I can on H & S to make a difference in my own worplace, maybe I can use the designation TALIBAN after my name.

However, my eternal gratitude goes out to all the CFIOSH & CMIOSH tutors who I have had the pleasure of being taught by so far.

In my opinion, a highly professional organisation. Thank you

Posted By RobAnybody
I have read the posts since Merv Newman signed of to watch Carol Vordeman (you ole rascal you) & I feel that there is a point to be made.

What happened to discussing the valid point of view of a senior policeman? It would now appear that the comments made by a senior policeman would naturaly lead to a single minded disection of the unfortunate (to say the least) shooting of JC de M.

If we are to get away from the types of tag that we get then we need to concentrate on the issues in hand. If the general public feels we are as welcome as the Stazi we need to listen to them & address the issues raised, not go off on a tangent.

I would encourage you all to read the comments & respond to the comments & ONLY the comments.

Come on, are we professionals who can concentrate on the issues that face us or are we cats?

http://www.yorkshirepost...lice-officers.3450691.jp

Rob

Posted By J Knight
Tom100,

Eh? Greater love hath no man than this, that he lays down another's life for poorly thought out reasons based on faulty intelligence.

This wasn't about heroism in the face of adversity, it was about a reasonably badly bungled police operation leading to an Innocent and quite harmless person being shot. Now, if he'd been guilty, I still don't think he should have been shot; if he'd been a serious risk then shooting might have been the only available option.

Still don't think the use of HASAWA was the way to go, but this was a seriously misjudged operation, and some sort of trial was needed,

John

Posted By J Knight
Tom100,

Fair comment, sorry about that. As for the CPOs comments, I find them fairly typical of a particular loaded politically inspired opinion common in certain sectors, and they seem to me to be a partial truth at best. If this man knew H&S law at all he would have understood that H&S laws have a very limited application in situations where life is at risk; pursuit of a 'miscreant' across the rooftops is not the same as acting bravely to save a life; I can see the difference, and so should the CPO of West Yorkshire Police,

John

Posted By Merv Newman
Oh dear. I didn't expect to come back to this one. But I will.

A few points.

Could the word "Taliban", interpreted both as "students" and as "those learning by rote" apply to us (or at least some of us) and to the emergency services ? Blair was obviously using the extra connotation, applied by westerners, of "terrorists"

I'm trying not to be offensive here but we do ask our colleagues to learn and to follow written procedures. Don't we ?

As do the Taliban. As do the emergency services. (it's getting really philosophocical now)

I may be screwing a left-handed thread here, but is it worth risking my life running over the roofs just to catch a burglar ? NO. We'll get him another day.

Is it worth risking my (non-swimmer, untrained) life to dive into a flooded mineshaft to recover a probably dead body ? NO.

Should I kill someone who my superiors have identified as a probable suicide bomber, who could kill me and others just by putting his hand in his pocket ? TOO RIGHT.

The cluster that lead to that was higher up the chain which resulted in faulty identification and procedures. The boys on the ground got it right. For them and for us.

Those higher up the chain, responsible for the faulty identification, should be the ones who pay. That includes, especially, Blair. Even though I agree with his "Taliban" speech.

Now, to finish, a tricky one. The "competent swimmer" who dived off a canal bridge to save a suicide. Does he deserve a medal or was he just doing the job for which he was trained and competent to do ?

My opinion : (if you are interested) No medal but free beer for life.

Sorry, but I've never been in any of the services so I don't really have a conception of what a medal means. Does it help to pay the gas bill when you are 99 years old ?

Again just my opinion, but a VC should mean that you never ever pay for anything again. For life. Or the life of your widow. Free housing, free car, free beer.

An OBE means 10% off at waitrose.

Going a bit further, and out of my usual "joking" mode, a squaddie declared to be 10% unfit or handicapped should have 10% of his continuing life expenses compensated by the war office. For ever.

Comments ?

Merv

Posted By George Wedgwood
Barrie is almost right in the meaning of 'Taliban'.

The word comes from the Afghanistan 'Pashto' dialect word of 'talib' meaning student, with the plural being 'taliban' or 'students'. The group were formed when many Afghans were disillusioned with the old official Afghan army in the mid '90s and were the students of the many madrassas (religious schools) of priest Mullah Omar. The rest is history as they say as the Taliban stuck to the basics of Islam and their strictness became legend.

Does IOSH have such strict advocates of H&S? Well, I suspect not as many would be out of a job quickly if 'rule of law' was demanded at every cut and turn! I do believe however, that there are (and will be) a few who do cite the law as a way of delivering their verdict on risk control. IOSH has wisely embarked on a strategy to counter that but, like religion, it will be a slow conversion and we simply must keep up our standards and learn more about managing within business to make a difference rather than to stifle its creation.

I always try to remember that despite all the lawyer and accountant jokes, and puerile remarks about those professions, they just laugh at it and continue to practice in a 'professional' way.