Originally Posted by
pulse1
I am nearly through this excellent book and one of the main points of it seems to be that, above a certain rank, the responsible individuals do not have to represent themselves in court. Their involvement is frequently covered up by omissions and lies. The farce of a trial of Martin Baker is a classic example.
The book also exposes the truth that many safety issues are not "subject to extraordinary levels of scrutiny by people with s lot of experience. It appears that we cannot afford them any more.
The idea that the VSOs responsible do not willingly come to court to explain their policies and actions seems extraordinary. Surely if they are truly leaders they should be be proud of what they do and what they stand for, happy to defend their behaviours. To do otherwise lets the whole organisation down, doesn't it? Certainly not much of a match with the blurbs on their website.
'Cannot afford them' (experience safety people.) Really? That is back to the old saying " If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident."