Because the police put more effort into prosecuting the dad who got the CCTV footage rather than the guy who battered his son.
Fly-on-the-Wall Police TV Show
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Because the police put more effort into prosecuting the dad who got the CCTV footage rather than the guy who battered his son.
Sponsored Links
The way the father got the CCTV footage may have contravened the law about who has the right to obtain CCTV images from a third party.
D
Doggit
The CCTV footage is the property of the bar owner, if they are prepared to let the father look at it, that's their affair. The office got told off for interfering, so simple case of plod didn't like being shown up - end of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,083
- Reaction score
- 3,021
- Country
I have, but the police don't seem to have "a set of special skills" or if they do, are reluctant to use them.Have you not seen the film 'Taken'?
Will the towie people be playing at Valderrama too?
He got told off. Shocking. Is he ok now?
D
Doggit
Wrong attitude Noseall; plod doesn't like being shown up as being inept, so he was damn lucky that that's all they did. I'm sure they would have thrown a lot more at him if they could have. Hillsborough's a good example of how they carry on when they've got something to hide.
Like what?
I think people are making a fuss over nothing. The guy got told off and some people are trying to make out it's something more.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Take an analogy:
A doctor is treating a patient in a hospital.
Another different doctor thinks he can do better. He unilaterally takes over. The patient gets better. We do not know if the patient would have got better anyway, without anyone's intervention, or under the first doctor's care.
I suspect the hospital governing body would have some strong words with the interfering doctor's attitude and approach.
Another analogy:
You work for a large building company, and are dealing with a customer. A colleague comes along and muscles in, taking over the liaison. Would you think that is OK?
It is perfectly right and proper that the over-arching supervision does not allow staff to interfere in others' practices for obvious reasons.
A doctor is treating a patient in a hospital.
Another different doctor thinks he can do better. He unilaterally takes over. The patient gets better. We do not know if the patient would have got better anyway, without anyone's intervention, or under the first doctor's care.
I suspect the hospital governing body would have some strong words with the interfering doctor's attitude and approach.
Another analogy:
You work for a large building company, and are dealing with a customer. A colleague comes along and muscles in, taking over the liaison. Would you think that is OK?
It is perfectly right and proper that the over-arching supervision does not allow staff to interfere in others' practices for obvious reasons.
D
Doggit
Now lets adjust the analogy.
A doctor is treating a patient in a hospital
Another doctor sees that the first doctor isn't really bothering with the patient, and he's getting worse, so the second doctor steps in and helps the patient get better.
The first doctor then gets annoyed because he'd been shown to be incompetent , so complains to the hospital board, who regrettably back him up because the protocols are more important than getting the patient better.
But I'll agree with the second one, because that's got nothing to do with the police not bothering to do their job properly, and lying to cover the act that they obviously couldn't be bothered to investigate the case.
A doctor is treating a patient in a hospital
Another doctor sees that the first doctor isn't really bothering with the patient, and he's getting worse, so the second doctor steps in and helps the patient get better.
The first doctor then gets annoyed because he'd been shown to be incompetent , so complains to the hospital board, who regrettably back him up because the protocols are more important than getting the patient better.
But I'll agree with the second one, because that's got nothing to do with the police not bothering to do their job properly, and lying to cover the act that they obviously couldn't be bothered to investigate the case.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Sure you can adjust the analogy so that it suits Ian H's post. But it is only that post, and absolutely nothing else that caused you to adjust the analogy.
So your adjustment is skewed. My original analogy was unbiased and not based on someone's interpretation of events.
Again, you comment is based purely and simply on another poster's interpretation of events:
Irrespective, you have to have some sort of mutual respect, even etiquette, among professionals, otherwise it becomes a free for all, everyone messing in anyone else's case. That can cause all sorts of complications.
Occasionally it may appear to contravene common sense, but the etiquette must survive to avoid ridiculous situations in the future.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
It is professional etiquette. You agree to abide by the rules of your profession, or leave the profession.
You expect other similar professionals to also abide by the rules. Otherwise chaos would ensue.
Sponsored Links
