“Inter-disciplinary partnerships” and “collective responsibility” means no blame and apologies

This was posted to Daily Express (27/8/14) but not published
BBC North West reported on the abuse of a large number of children, whilst in care, in Rotherham.
They reported that there had been calls for the resignation of Rotherham’s Police Commissioner, who had been the Councillor in charge of such matters, at the time.
He rejected such calls, claiming “collective responsibility”.
I seem to have read of this excuse being used far too often, especially where “across-discipline partnerships” have been invoked as a ploy to share out blame and thereby dilute the penalties.
Why is this accepted as a defence for bureaucrats and politicians but not gangster’s.
It didn’t work for the slayers of Julius Caesar but it seems to be accepted in courts when some highly overpaid (because of their level of responsibility) Official is dismissed, without “proper procedures” being applied.
Surely if people are extremely well paid for taking on a responsibility, then any failure to meet their share of that responsibility should be sufficient grounds for summary dismissal.
Rotherham’s Police Commissioner is an elected official but, if he is aware of reports of abuse and hasn’t acted on them, in his new role, then he has failed to act responsibly in this post, also.
What is his function? What is his responsibility? Have such officials been created without any oversight, or Home Office control?
Advertisements

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: