You might also be interested in
Replies (12)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
False premise?
I may be utterly wrong here, but I was under the impression that Huntley did not work at the school that his victims went to. They went to St Andrew's Primary. His then girfriend worked there and that is how he came to know the two girls. He was "site manager" at Soham Village College.
The best database in the world could not have prevented this, short of locking him up without actually being convicted of a crime.
I rather think that the failures of the police and the Home Office are actually not realy contributory factors here. There are problems that need to be addressed, but even if the systems had been perfect, it does not seem to me that the murders would have been prevented.
More faces than BIg Ben
Blunkett is only reading from Blair's script. This government has matered the art of saying one thing, doing another and making everyone else accountable except itself. We voted with our feet a long time ago and left the country. Many of those we see coming to live here share a sense of outrage at what appears to be a government drunk with power, obsessed with economics but with no meangingful agenda for social justice.
Avoiding blame takes precedence over common sense
Your comments, David, emphasise again how little has been achieved in spite of advances in technology. The simple fact is that most really creative and innovative work is achieved by small companies that do not get a look in when the big projects are handed out. These go to the large amorphous consultancies that are rarely innovative when it comes to software solutions. It becomes a case of enormous fees which often deliver little, slowly and painfully. Despite their claims, small companies continue to be ignored.
That such a tragedy should result, and then have the blame passed away from the centre, is itself criminal. That is what risk management is becoming - self preservation at all costs.
But the failure to deal with the Police database issue is also a classic example of not tackling the underlying IT problem correctly. If the problem had been given to smaller companies to find a solution, I think it could have been solved quickly and without recourse to costly, lengthy processes that frequently under perform. A committee solution driven by consultants rarely delivers, let alone on time.
I am sure there are a number of smaller companies – we are one - that could accelerate solutions cost-effectively to what are perceived to be big challenges if only they were allowed a window of opportunity. There are many organisations with legacy databases that require similar integration without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This applies to businesses, central and local government alike.
How can we persuade those who have the power to change things, to listen?
non-accountability endemic in civil service
I agree with David Carter that there is a need for SOMEBODY TO BE IN CHARGE... to be allocated authourity and to accept responsibility. But any hopes of this happening have been dashed by the Butler Report, which concluded that although there had been a number of fundamental failures in the intelligence system, no-one should be held accountable due to the supposed "principle of collective responsibility".
The scary part of this is that Butler's views derive from his many years as a senior civil servant, so presumably reflect the culture of those who run our affairs and spend our taxes.
Scary
It is a scary society when my clients can be late with filing a piece of paper by one day, and they are punished by automatic penalties and such like. In addition I can 'turn a blind eye' to a trivial crime with proceeds of 1p or more and I am held liable to prosecution with a 5 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine hanging over my head.
Yet top civil servants and the prime minister can screw up information and send a whole nation to war on this pretence, killing hundreds (maybe thousands) of people, and we seem to have a culture of "Oh well, we screwed up but never mind - eh"!!!
Those in charge are accountable, be they senior civil servants or senior politicians.
It is now time for change in our outlook and attitudes.
Systematic Failure and Mendacity
Why does systematic failure in a Police force require the head of the force to resign when it was a ministerial failing, whereas a systematic failure in the intelligence service gets the head of the service promoted, even though the failure was ultimately at ministerial level? Do you have to be involved in a case where there are more deaths, or is a more seniour minister the key... or both?
Management by consensus for a national system?
The need for a national intelligence database was identified and the project approved in 1994. In 2000, we are told, the project was abandoned because the 43 police forces couldn't agree.
Neil, if your " management by consensus" approach is allowed to continue, we shall continue to see an endless series of government IT disasters as reported in the computer press. The whole point is that to build a national IT system of anything, there has to be someone IN CHARGE at a national level.
The only people capable of taking on this role are the civil servants, because they are permanent officials and can see a long-term project through.
I think John is wrong to blame Mr Blunkett. This lets the civil servants off the hook yet again. They have responsibilities and must be accountable for failure to discharge them. It is the permanent secretary of the Home Office who should be sacked.
The buck stops with Blunckett
If a ship flounders on the rocks, who is it who takes ultimate responsibility for the error? Is it the engineers, the mates or the crew? No, it is the skipper.
I fail to understand how Blunckett has the gall to demand the suspension of subordinates, when the debate should be centered around his own resignation!!
Management by consensus
The Public Sector does not work like a business, however. There are few clear lines of responsibility and there is a high degree of autonomous action. Ministers may have to resort to the courts to enforce policy decisions. Who ever heard of a board of directors using the courts as a managemnt tool?
The private sector uses varying degrees of carrot and stick to ensure that staff toe the company line. Where's the carrot in the public sector? And the stick is such a blunt instrument that it's difficult to wield with any degree of precision.
You end up with a form of management by consensus, persuading people to come to some form of compromise, at least on the surface. When compromise fails, as it has here, an impass results. You can blame the minister at the top, as you would blame the chairman of a plc, but the reality of the systems of control and policy formulation are very different.
Who was responsible
Your predicate is flawed. What would have happened in the real commercial world is that the person on £70K p.a. who hired the bloke without pbothering to make one phone call to inquire about the job applicant would have been fired.
In this case, that was the Headmaster in charge of the hiring
David
I'm not advocating management by consensus, in fact it's one of my daily bugbears, working in the public sector as I do.
Never the less, if the Home Secretary has to get a Court Injunction to enforce his clearly identified legal powers, then overturning this embedded culture will be a long process.