Saturday, March 27, 2004
...and this time it's a lu-lu.
The head of a probation service that was blamed for failing properly to monitor a drug addict who killed a policeman while out of prison on licence said yesterday that he took full responsibility for its errors.
You just know there's a BUT coming, right ?
But David Hancock, the chief officer of Nottinghamshire Probation Area, said he would not be disciplining any of the staff involved and would not be resigning
So, their incompetence led to an unnecessary death, but hey ? That's hardly a serious matter - action's only required where someone's told the one about Elton John going through Customs.
Then again, as ever, it turns out that everyone else is to blame:
He blamed the failures that allowed David Parfitt to be free when he killed Pc Ged Walker on his staff's heavy workload.
Jarvis should use that next time there's a rail crash. After all, it seems to work for all the beardy-wasters in our public non-services.
It gets worse:
[The Inquiry] ruled that Parfitt should have been returned to prison long before the incident which resulted in Pc Walker's death. In the weeks following his release in September 2002, Parfitt regularly breached his licence conditions by failing 10 drugs tests and missing a number of appointments.
His probation officer failed to report him or recommend that his licence be revoked because she was unaware of what she was meant to do.
So, in what sense is the stupid slag not completely incompetent. Her complete inability to do the job for which she's paid led to the loss of an innocent life - what would be serious misconduct ? And what's with this anonymity anyway ? If cops who tell naughty jokes can be torn apart by media witch hunters, we surely deserve to know just who this disgusting waste of skin is, who draws a salary paid for by our taxes.
[Hancock] said Parfitt's original probation officer had been adequately briefed on national guidelines to deal with his drug testing programme, but she had "failed to absorb" the finer detail of the requirements.
Maybe people who get busted for running over pedestrians could try that ? 'I'm sorry, but I failed to absorb the finer details of which colour means "stop" and which means "go" ' Nope, sorry, you've got to be a scum-sucking, Marxist, piece of filth, public sector slimeball before you can kill with impunity.
[Mr Hancock]refused to say why feeling ill after taking heroin was deemed an acceptable excuse not to turn up for a drugs test, or why the officer was allowed for so long to apply her own criteria as to what constituted a breach of licence.
'I'm sorry, I couldn't attend my drugs test because I was too stoned. ' It'd be a great joke, if the punchline didn't feature a dead cop. But, still - you expect him to answer questions ? To be accountable ? What do you think he is ? Some kind of public servant ? And a vote of thanks too to our MPs, too busy dragging in the CEOs of private companies, to serve as patsies for their carefully contrived soundbite-a-thons, to make time to find out why some semi-literate, soap-dodging sixties reject, who uses money extorted out of security guards and bar maids to fund a lifestyle far in excess of his talents, feels he can tell the Great British Public to shove it when they ask how he discharges the duties for which he is paid.
What that squeak from TINO land ? Something like 'they're not all that bad'. Puuleaze - do you see any of the supposedly professional majority disowning this scumbag ? Or calling for the bitch in question to be named and shamed ? Nope - they're perfectly happy to have these people represent them, so it seems like they must be pretty representative.
Still, we now have another barometer of Liberal humbug - the people who claim that massive incompetence leading to the loss of innocent life is a private matter for the Libocracy are the self-same ones who babble about corporate manslaughter charges and billion pound lawsuits when it's the private sector under fire.
As ever, it's different for Liberals.