Unprofessional bellends at it again

[Derek Flint]

7 minutes ago, code99 said:

Thank you, Derek, for the reply.

You will probably be aware that in the UK recent investigations into the Metropolitan Police Service identified a number of shortcomings in their recruitment process – especially where psychological profiling failed to filter out unsuitable candidates, such as: bullies, misogynists, homophobes, racists, etc. What do we do here in this regard, or are suitable new recruits so hard to find that we accept almost everyone who applies?

FTIW, I think that if the two girls who found themselves in distress were two young boys or two transgender persons, the outcome would have been the same. These officers would have slagged them off on social media, something which in itself is an extremely toxic stuff. They should be severely reprimanded for doing that - humiliating private citizens on social media. Being humiliated on social media, the digital ‘home’ for many young people, by someone in authority could potentially be emotionally devastating and make the whole trauma for the two victims even worse. The rates of mental illness in young people are increasing and suicides as a result of being bullied on Internet are not uncommon.  

Before contacting my MHK, I just want to clarify something else. Are you saying that the IOM Constabulary does not have sufficient public funding to conduct regular professional development training courses for all officers, training courses on such topics as; diversity, racism, bullying, social media, etc? And also, has the funding dried up suddenly or has there been a gradual decline over several years?

Psychological profiling does not feature in UK police recruitment. 

In answer to your last paragraph it has been woefully underfunded for many years. Read back on the annual reports. Gary mentioned it more than once.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

7 hours ago, HeteroErectus said:

Just stay at home so we don't have to do our job"

They seem to prefer the "put hats on drunk tourists for photos" side of their work. So much so that they resent their main function.

They should change their name from the emergency services to the advisory services. They clearly don’t want to be inconvenienced by doing their job protecting the public. Anything happens now and it’s a warning to us all to “Stay at home” and if we don’t do as instructed it’s our fault that they have to do something to justify their wages. I’m sure covid has a lot to do with it as they got away with telling us to stay at home then to and promptly arrested and imprisoned anyone who didn’t. 

[Ringy Rose]

12 hours ago, HeliX said:

If I made that mistake in my job, I'd lose my job. As would most of the private sector.

Would you shite. The private sector is full of “mistakes” like this- nobody loses their job.

[Ringy Rose]

8 hours ago, HeteroErectus said:

"Just stay at home so we don't have to do our job"

And if those halfwits by the cenotaph had been washed into the sea, it’d be the police, RNLI and coastguard having to put their lives on the line to save them. Perfectly reasonable request by the police for people not to be utter morons.

I’m no fan of the police generally, but the criticism of this is utterly stupid.

[Two-lane]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Derek Flint emphasises the need to communicate with the public - that vague concepts such as "public relations" are the highest priority - well, so does the IoM gov. and they are pretty useless at it too.

Here are a couple of examples of how a photographic image can convey a message.

This is one of Don McCullin's from Vietnam. There was no Art Director, no makeup artist, no lighting man and definitely no catering. I have not seen any comments anywhere that McCullin staged the shot:

 

This is a photo shoot for an Expendables film. There was undoubtedly the full hit including catering:

 

This is the photo shoot for a UK TV "reality" show:

 

When I see images such as the last one, sometimes I laugh and sometimes I despair.

These people are definitely in the ppp category (pretentious, posing, pricks).

[Newbie]

1 hour ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Anything happens now and it’s a warning to us all to “Stay at home” and if we don’t do as instructed it’s our fault

If you put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, despite being warned, and something happens that requires the intervention of the emergency services, who's fault is it then? 

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Newbie said:

If you put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, despite being warned, and something happens that requires the intervention of the emergency services, who's fault is it then? 

It may be your fault that you’re in danger. But if they don’t respond to your call, at all, then they are at fault.

It’s a complex moral maze.

And anyone who thinks that calls to the Emergency Services Joint Control Room aren’t filtered and triaged is just naive.

From “which service?” To assessing the seriousness, what needs despatching, or can you be signposted.

And they get the lot, from hoax to nuisance to serious to life threatening.

The fault in this case was to write in belittling terms and too much detail. And to assume the girls had gone out for a jolly in the storm.

[Newbie]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It may be your fault that you’re in danger. But if they don’t respond to your call, at all, then they are at fault.

It’s a complex moral maze.

And anyone who thinks that calls to the Emergency Services Joint Control Room aren’t filtered and triaged is just naive.

From “which service?” To assessing the seriousness, what needs despatching, or can you be signposted.

And they get the lot, from hoax to nuisance to serious to life threatening.

The fault in this case was to write in belittling terms and too much detail. And to assume the girls had gone out for a jolly in the storm.

I wouldn't argue with that. I was responding more to the comment about the Police moving people on from the War Memorial because of the weather, and the idea that their actions were just designed to shift the blame onto individuals, rather than the initial issue with the two teenage girls. In my book, if an individual is warned not to do something because it is potentially dangerous, but they choose to do it anyway, the fault for any adverse outcome (including potential harm to rescuers/responders) lies firmly with that individual. People should take responsibility for their own actions.

However, that wasn't the situation (as far as I am aware) with the two teenage girls, as I don't believe they deliberately put themselves in a risky situation despite being warned. Clearly the response from the Police was inadequate, and the subsequent social media post was misguided in the extreme. The fact that the person posting seemingly couldn't forsee the backlash is also concerning.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

50 minutes ago, Newbie said:

If you put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, despite being warned, and something happens that requires the intervention of the emergency services, who's fault is it then? 

Where do you draw the line?. Watching the TT is quite dangerous you could get killed or maimed like the people at the bottom of Bray Hill years ago. Will the police be issuing “Stay at home” warnings for all motorsport events in future as we can’t have people doing potentially dangerous things? I can’t see what’s wrong with going to the prom to watch the waves or driving when it’s a bit windy either. But they're ridiculing people for that now. Maybe like lockdowns we should all just stay at home permanently so that the emergency services can do bugger all but get paid as there will be no accidents, no crimes, no fires and nothing to do but post crap on Twitter about the fact that you should stay at home.

[Newbie]

6 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Where do you draw the line?. Watching the TT is quite dangerous you could get killed or maimed like the people at the bottom of Bray Hill years ago. Will the police be issuing “Stay at home” warnings for all motorsport events in future as we can’t have people doing potentially dangerous things? I can’t see what’s wrong with going to the prom to watch the waves or driving when it’s a bit windy either. But they're ridiculing people for that now. Maybe like lockdowns we should all just stay at home permanently so that the emergency services can do bugger all but get paid as there will be no accidents, no crimes, no fires and nothing to do but post crap on Twitter about the fact that you should stay at home.

Let me be clear, the Police ridiculing people for whatever reason isn't acceptable. I didn't say it was. However your comparison with the TT isn't giving the full picture . The TT Organizers do assess risk to spectators are far as it is possible to do so, and as a result they make certain areas restricted or prohibited. If a spectator stands in one of those areas even though they have been warned about the dangers, and they get injured, surely they would have to take responsibility for that? If you think that warning people about the potential dangers of certain activities is the same thing as telling everyone to stay at home the whole time, I am not sure that we will ever agree.

[Fred the shred]

John is absolutely correct in his summing up of the situation.    My take is this cocky, condescending attitude has been building up on the police site for a good while now and perhaps now the proverbial has hit the fan the attitude will change. Warnings are good and by most people appreciated but there is a way of communicating and anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise this.    The police work hard at keeping a friendly relationship with the public which is beneficial to both parties and some stupid idiot destroys this in one fell swoop.   There has been mention of the elusive Chief Constable on various social media platforms does he even exist ?   Helix is correct in the private sector it would be whoosh……

[Amadeus]

2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

And if those halfwits by the cenotaph had been washed into the sea, it’d be the police, RNLI and coastguard having to put their lives on the line to save them. Perfectly reasonable request by the police for people not to be utter morons.

I’m no fan of the police generally, but the criticism of this is utterly stupid.

Might have been the same cops who stopped by the terminus and made sarcastic remarks about people watching from there (me included). “So if you get hit by rocks I don’t have to call an ambulance right?” Felt a bit unprofessional especially as we were on the terminus side and nowhere near the pavement or railings on the other side. At the same time cars and buses still drove past. If there’s a danger to the public close the road but don’t roll by making snarly remarks. Found that really weird. 

[Roxanne]

31 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

My take is this cocky, condescending attitude has been building up on the police site for a good while now and perhaps now the proverbial has hit the fan the attitude will change.

I sincerely hope you are right. It's not the first time they have 'whipped' the public up in a manner such as earlier this week. Remember the foreigners who walked on the road TT week? By the time the IOM constabulary social media had finished, thousands of people were baying for their blood. It's dangerous, it's irresponsible, and one day it will seriously come back to bite them on the ass. Give facts, keep people informed, but keep your opinions to yourself and certainly don't try and turn your audience against people for whom, the whole story has not yet been told. For an organisation who state at every given opportunity, 'don't speculate', it's time they heeded their own warning.

I'm not a police knocker. Yes, they are the ones I would call if I needed help. I think they do a marvellous job despite doing it with reduced numbers and budgets. Yes, I think there are some dicks in the Police but I think they are he minority. However, they need to get the drama queens off their socials and leave it to level headed professionals. If they don't, one day they could influenece people to take things into their own hands with potentially dangerous consequences. They are there to keep the peace, not to wind things up.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

It may be your fault that you’re in danger. But if they don’t respond to your call, at all, then they are at fault.

It’s a complex moral maze.

And anyone who thinks that calls to the Emergency Services Joint Control Room aren’t filtered and triaged is just naive.

From “which service?” To assessing the seriousness, what needs despatching, or can you be signposted.

And they get the lot, from hoax to nuisance to serious to life threatening.

The fault in this case was to write in belittling terms and too much detail. And to assume the girls had gone out for a jolly in the storm.

Not sure that I agree with the fault being  the social media aspect.  Seems more in the decision-making process or triaging that led to a no-response outcome.  Where the final decision was between 999, the JCR, and the police I don't know, but the police were aware of the call hence the social media post. 

So, the situation is pretty simple - bad weather, weather warnings and dangerous driving conditions.  You get a call from two girls worried their car may be blown over the cliff.   Who along the line makes the judgement that this does not need a call out?   At what point is it dismissed, despite the girls being in fear, no matter how groundless their fears may be or how stupid you may think they are for getting themselves into that predicament in the first place? 

The decision to launch an ill-advised social media post is a separate issue IMO.  If the decision was to attend, you can bet the SM post would have looked very different,  praising the police for assisting the two young damsels, but probably still making the point that venturing out in that weather was not a good idea, but all's well that ends well. 

 

 

[La Colombe]

24 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

biting out the dangers is their job. 

Eh?