Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 22:53:15 GMT -1
We've been tacitly avoiding talking about this, haven't we.
We're all old and ugly enough to know that planes rarely fall from the sky and that there's always going to be a back-story going on. Always, always a combination of adverse circumstances....I feel so very old saying that, somehow.
As it seems to be again in this case.
I really don't know where to put myself on this one. Much judgement in the media over whether this guy was fit to fly given his history but at the same time such awful stigmatisation of mental illness.
What does seem reasonably clear now is that the guy didnt disclose what was going on, healthwise. So clearly there has to be a case that when it comes to certain professions, medical confidentiality needs to be over-ridden so that docs can directly advise employers?
It's also clear that the practice of allowing one person to be left alone in the cockpit has to be changed.
In the olden days, I remember very well that it was usual to have pilot, first officer and navigator in the cockpit. Maybe economising by using computers in place of trained humans is coming back to bite us on the arse. Though some might argue its made us safer. Jurys out on that one.
Whatever it takes to mitigate the risk of this ever happening again. So fucking awful on every level.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Apr 1, 2015 1:47:01 GMT -1
terrible... are we getting too smart for our own good?
In the bad old days of the Connie or DC7 there were 2 pilots , flight engineer, navigator and wireless operator. Whittled down to 2 pilots. In US & Canada there is a requirement that there must alwqays be 2 crew on flight deck when a pilot went for a pee a hostie had to go in. This was brought in here immediately after terrible tragedy.(horses and stable doors)
One starts to wonder if rule book has overtaken common sense. the doctors should have been able to report without danger of being sued
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Apr 1, 2015 6:56:37 GMT -1
A person going to a hospital in UK with a gunshot wound is reported to Police. It is not the law but it is done. I wonder what would happen if he had gone to confession and told a priest he was going to do it? Probably the superstition would prevent the priest from telling the authorities?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 18:42:03 GMT -1
A person going to a hospital in UK with a gunshot wound is reported to Police. It is not the law but it is done. I wonder what would happen if he had gone to confession and told a priest he was going to do it? Probably the superstition would prevent the priest from telling the authorities? An interesting thought, Bormes. Confession is treated as confidential too, I think? Though I don't know if that rule gets broken in practice. Re mental illness, given that one in four will suffer from it at some time, it stands to reason those in responsible professions will be as vulnerable as anyone else. But it does seem this young pilot had deliberately concealed his recent distress, and we all know depressed people can appear to function in the eyes of eveyone around them. Partly, maybe, because mental distress IS so wrongly stigmatised. Difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of the losses but yet I do feel for the pilot's family. They lost their wee boy too. Not "evil" as the red tops would paint him, but clearly very disturbed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 18:54:42 GMT -1
terrible... are we getting too smart for our own good? In the bad old days of the Connie or DC7 there were 2 pilots , flight engineer, navigator and wireless operator. Whittled down to 2 pilots. In US & Canada there is a requirement that there must alwqays be 2 crew on flight deck when a pilot went for a pee a hostie had to go in. This was brought in here immediately after terrible tragedy.(horses and stable doors) One starts to wonder if rule book has overtaken common sense. the doctors should have been able to report without danger of being sued Several airlines here have also changed their policy too, Oz, though there are reports circulating that BA ( of all people!) are a bit resistant. On this issue the US is way ahead of UK and Europe. Perhaps they have good reason for introducing that. Many years ago, working on festival sites, it wasnt unusual for event controllers to be left alone monitoring security radio if the team were called on site to an incident. That risk was recognised and is unheard of now. Sometimes Health and Safety regs can feel like jumping through hoops but mainly I believe, its a good thing. I do agree 100% that docs should be able to advise employers under certain conditions, I hope sense prevails there.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Apr 1, 2015 19:02:28 GMT -1
Well now you have to apply at your own expense regularly for disclosure Scotland to teach. A good thing as children should not be taught by a Paedo. However it also means that a young man of thirty something who had a breach of the peace and an assault conviction fined £120 in total after a drunken football match spat. He had gone to college and got a higher national then got a job reaching a foremans place earning decent money. His conviction was when he was eighteen and in the times when the Police just lifted everyone around the scuffle and anyone on the ground, charged everyone and verballed anyone who plead not guilty. It was not legal but it WAS regularly done as a rule back then it was not seen as terribly. Unusual. He is now more senior and applied to teach aat a college that his son is now at. He was given the job. The week he was to start he was called and asked in to a meeting. I can not say too much yet as he is taking legal advice apparently but the gist is he had NOT told them of this conviction for breach and assault all these years ago. He genuinely thought that after a short number of years these things no longer were on your record, whereas serious crimes sexual assault and the likes are always on your record. Therefore he never mentioned it thinking it was a "spent conviction" It used to be BUT the law changed and nowadays EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DISCLOSED. They refused to give him the job under these circumstances. It makes me think that DISCRETION MUST be shown surely. I know this lad and am a good friend of his Mum and Dad and I never knew about this either and it makes no difference to me and I would not object to him teaching MY Grandson! Is this the PC stuff going too far?Again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 19:52:36 GMT -1
I employ 80+ freelance music tutors to work on our projects for young people, Bormes, so I am very used to Disclosure/PVG processes and have encountered exactly the situation your friend is in.
I also 100% get your point about minor crimes committed in a persons youth, and know quite a few great people with so much to offer who have fallen foul of Disclosure rules.
If its any help, I do know that 'not disclosing' even a spent conviction is treated as possible dishonesty on the part of the applicant. It usually isn't of course, we all know that.
But if someone slips through the net that hasnt ticked all the boxes, organisations are open to all manner of legal consequences if someone does harm to kids.
I sure hope your young friend's case will be appealed with legal help.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Apr 1, 2015 20:06:19 GMT -1
Regulations replace common sense, same here , people are scared of the legal ramifications for breaching regulations no matter how stupid they are.
Back to plane disaster.
Relatives of the Australian victims said they felt very deeply for the pilot's parents imagining how they felt even though it wasnt their fault.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Apr 1, 2015 20:21:33 GMT -1
Well now you have to apply at your own expense regularly for disclosure Scotland to teach. A good thing as children should not be taught by a Paedo. However it also means that a young man of thirty something who had a breach of the peace and an assault conviction fined £120 in total after a drunken football match spat. He had gone to college and got a higher national then got a job reaching a foremans place earning decent money. His conviction was when he was eighteen and in the times when the Police just lifted everyone around the scuffle and anyone on the ground, charged everyone and verballed anyone who plead not guilty. It was not legal but it WAS regularly done as a rule back then it was not seen as terribly. Unusual. He is now more senior and applied to teach aat a college that his son is now at. He was given the job. The week he was to start he was called and asked in to a meeting. I can not say too much yet as he is taking legal advice apparently but the gist is he had NOT told them of this conviction for breach and assault all these years ago. He genuinely thought that after a short number of years these things no longer were on your record, whereas serious crimes sexual assault and the likes are always on your record. Therefore he never mentioned it thinking it was a "spent conviction" It used to be BUT the law changed and nowadays EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DISCLOSED. They refused to give him the job under these circumstances. It makes me think that DISCRETION MUST be shown surely. I know this lad and am a good friend of his Mum and Dad and I never knew about this either and it makes no difference to me and I would not object to him teaching MY Grandson! Is this the PC stuff going too far?Again? I undertake Disclosure Scotland certification every time I change contract, it's only really valid for three months, its £14 for basic disclosure certification The problem with it is, is that it can only cover UK offences were the applicant has either been found or pled guilty, with the best will in the world it can't find out about criminals who haven't been caught yet. Like the government security rubbishs, DV or SC for example, it's advised that you admit to everything, no matter when it happened, as has been pointed out already, it can be assumed your lying. Having convictions in doesn't necessarily disqualify you from being passed If in doubt, declare it us the maxim
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Apr 1, 2015 20:30:20 GMT -1
Its the other way round here. When applying for a "sensitive"job I must sign an authority for a "police check" ie all convictions within Commonwealth of Australia will be disclosed. Always think my report is a bit insulting " Nothing Known" geees what am I under suspicion for? Why cant they say "Hes clean"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 23:42:05 GMT -1
Well now you have to apply at your own expense regularly for disclosure Scotland to teach. A good thing as children should not be taught by a Paedo. However it also means that a young man of thirty something who had a breach of the peace and an assault conviction fined £120 in total after a drunken football match spat. He had gone to college and got a higher national then got a job reaching a foremans place earning decent money. His conviction was when he was eighteen and in the times when the Police just lifted everyone around the scuffle and anyone on the ground, charged everyone and verballed anyone who plead not guilty. It was not legal but it WAS regularly done as a rule back then it was not seen as terribly. Unusual. He is now more senior and applied to teach aat a college that his son is now at. He was given the job. The week he was to start he was called and asked in to a meeting. I can not say too much yet as he is taking legal advice apparently but the gist is he had NOT told them of this conviction for breach and assault all these years ago. He genuinely thought that after a short number of years these things no longer were on your record, whereas serious crimes sexual assault and the likes are always on your record. Therefore he never mentioned it thinking it was a "spent conviction" It used to be BUT the law changed and nowadays EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DISCLOSED. They refused to give him the job under these circumstances. It makes me think that DISCRETION MUST be shown surely. I know this lad and am a good friend of his Mum and Dad and I never knew about this either and it makes no difference to me and I would not object to him teaching MY Grandson! Is this the PC stuff going too far?Again? I undertake Disclosure Scotland certification every time I change contract, it's only really valid for three months, its £14 for basic disclosure certification The problem with it is, is that it can only cover UK offences were the applicant has either been found or pled guilty, with the best will in the world it can't find out about criminals who haven't been caught yet. Like the government security rubbishs, DV or SC for example, it's advised that you admit to everything, no matter when it happened, as has been pointed out already, it can be assumed your lying. Having convictions in doesn't necessarily disqualify you from being passed If in doubt, declare it us the maxim Exactly, Nota. The rule seems to be that if you're honest about past minor convictions that indicates honesty and openness. But as you rightly say, there's a major flaw in Disclosure/PVG processes in that, well, how best to put it, dodgy people who haven't been convicted of a crime could and do, get their certificate. Its a feckin sorry state of affairs that good people are made to feel like they're on trial. But all our perceptions about the trustworthiness of people in so called authority are being seriously challenged, given the current investigations into insitutionalsed historical abuse at a high level. I hate that decent folks are required to prove their credentials just because of a few power crazed nutjobs worm their way into positions of power and influence. Psychopaths often present as decent folks that gain our trust, very often charming . And that's part of the problem, is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 23:52:20 GMT -1
Its the other way round here. When applying for a "sensitive"job I must sign an authority for a "police check" ie all convictions within Commonwealth of Australia will be disclosed. Always think my report is a bit insulting " Nothing Known" geees what am I under suspicion for? Why cant they say "Hes clean" Police checks are standard here when anyone appllies for Disclosure/PVG. That is how previous undisclosed convictions are brought to the attention of the employer, as has happened in Bormes friends case. Nothing Known is a get out clause. A disclaimer. Like Nota said, no past criminal charges does not imply good character. We're all guilty now, until proved innocent. Oh, the irony.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Apr 2, 2015 6:45:00 GMT -1
Pity our politicians are not checked too? How many of them have convictions of a sexual nature? People coming into our country from EU and other countries are NOT given criminal checks!!
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Apr 8, 2015 7:51:22 GMT -1
Questions for rolo, As she and I support the SNP, when are they, if ever going to bring back the idea of a local income tax instead of rates? Why has the SNP leadership not joined in on the demands about the cover up in Westminster about the paedos? Has there been any investigations in Scotland about paedo cover up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 19:16:33 GMT -1
Questions for rolo, As she and I support the SNP, when are they, if ever going to bring back the idea of a local income tax instead of rates? Why has the SNP leadership not joined in on the demands about the cover up in Westminster about the paedos? Has there been any investigations in Scotland about paedo cover up? Local income tax idea's never gone away, Bormes, I believe SNP and some other parties believe it would be a better and fairer way forward. SNP do have the ability to vary tax raising powers but these are highly restricted. I believe with full fiscal autonomy from Westminster Scotland would be in control of levering how best to manage our own tax affairs. As for the cover up. To be honest, I imagine the main focus of SNP at the moment is winning the majority of seats in the General Election, first and foremost. That way lies real power to influence policy at WM. I don't know of any active investigations in Scotland on the cover-up. But personally speaking I imagine this institutionalised HORROR was not confined to those and such as those south of the border. You'll get my drift.
|
|