Norfolk Cop Fall: Media Hype or Another UK #Police #Fail

You could be forgiven for thinking the story about a cop suing a burglary victim, after she tripped and hurt her leg at the scene of the crime, was an April fools’ joke…

Apart from the fact the story actually hit the media at the end of March (as far as I can ascertain) and despite the time of release, it’s actually one of ten silly stories that are actually true. Given my time with the Police Federation and my Health & Safety background I simply couldn’t resist commenting on the story (see below).

A police officer is suing a petrol station owner after apparently tripping on a kerb on his property when called to reports of a suspected break-in…(bbc.co.uk)

But despite all the astonishment and mirth generated by the story; should a police officer be allowed (or willing) to make a claim for injuries received whilst at work?

It’s not common, I appreciate that, but the claim has come in and we’ve honoured the officer’s wishes by putting it through to the solicitor…(Paul Ridgway – Chairman, Norfolk Police Federation)

The chief constable of Norfolk Constabulary said he was ”disappointed” that one of his officers is pursuing a claim and obviously, the owner of the petrol station isn’t too happy about the situation either.

Chief moves to reassure public: This type of claim does not represent the approach and attitude of the overwhelming majority of our staff who understand and accept the risks inherent in policing and which they willingly confront to keep the public they serve safe..(Chief Constable Phil Gormley)

With the backlash of adverse public opinion and levels of media interest, it’s hardly surprising the Chief was quick to condemn the actions of his officer. It really doesn’t fit what the public (rightly or wrongly) expect of their police service, does it?

Now, less than 48hrs after the story broke, and was almost instrumental in a social and regular media meltdown, it now transpires the officer intends to withdraw her claim against the garage owner (see here). Speaking to The Mirror, Mr Danny Harle, the officer’s father was quoted as saying…

She’s being treated like a criminal but actually she’s the opposite – a single mum who looks after two daughters as well as working. Kelly wants to drop the claim to prove she is not a money grabber, not because she feels she’s done anything wrong…(Danny Harle)

Irrespective of all the contrived hype and opinionated comment in the media about this story; what about the facts of this incident?

1. Since the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, all police officers are defined as being ‘employees’ and ‘at work’ while on duty and consequently, they are (rightly) protected, just like all other employees, under current Health & Safety legislation.
2. The Police (Health and Safety) Regulations 1999 applies the provisions of all existing health and safety regulations to police officers.
3. The officer involved was at work when she was injured. The officer was injured whilst carrying out a task on behalf of her employer. An employee is owed a duty of care by his/her employer.
4. The owner of the garage may have a duty of care to anyone entering their premises however; that duty is based around the management of reasonably foreseeable risk and the application of reasonable control measures to prevent any injury being caused i.e sensible (and effective) risk management.
5. The injury suffered by the officer has (possibly) caused her financial hardship.

It’s a well-known fact in the world of Health & Safety: slips, trips and falls combined account for ”more than half of all reported major injuries” and “almost a third of over-3-day injuries” to employees at work (source HSE).

The officer couldn’t just write off the accident as an insignificant incident: Due to the circumstances surrounding the officer’s injury, she (and her employer) were (at the time of the accident), legally required to make a report about the accident. This is a provision contained within the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

Health & Safety Law: The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is criminal law aimed at protecting employees and others who may be affected by work activities. Health and safety legislation does not, in general, impose duties upon someone who is not an employer, self-employed or an employee (e.g. the garage owner). It is not possible to sue for damages under the HSW Act itself however; a breach of health and safety regulations may be cited as part of a civil claim for compensation based on a breach of statutory duty.

Duty of Care under Civil Law: Under the common law, all individuals (not just employers) have a duty of care to each other and to others who may be affected by their activities. Where something goes wrong, individuals may, in some cases, sue for damages using the civil law if they are injured as a result of another person’s negligence.

Note: for a negligence claim to succeed, the injured person must show that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care towards them, and they have suffered the injury through a breach of that duty. The injured person must also show that the type of loss or injury for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the duty breach.

My personal views and observations:

This incident was an easy bandwagon for the media to climb aboard, especially given the (apparent) April Fools’ opportunity. It was also one which was bound to accelerate at a phenomenal rate, given the propensity for police and/or Elf ‘n’ Safety bashing, so often favoured by our media.

In the majority of articles that I saw (and the subsequent comments); there was hardly any coverage about the legalities involved in the incident. When there was, we were subjected to numerous assumptions of guilt, in relation to both the garage owner and (sadly) on behalf of the officer. Nearly all of that coverage was (a)  either intentionally only partly right or simply ill-informed and (b) were presumptions about the (desired) outcomes from a court of law; always assuming that the case actually arrived at court in the first place.

Do I think the officer was right to pursue a claim? No, but I can fully understand her possible difficulties, especially if she had suffered financially because of an injury received at work. But it is always difficult striking a balance between operational and Health & Safety duty.

Do I believe that the garage owner (or her employer) were legally responsible for the officer’s injuries? No, I couldn’t (hopefully) envisage any court of law establishing that either party had breached their statutory duty of care, to an individual or to an employee.

Do I think the garage owner should have better managed the ‘risk’ ? No, as far as I can ascertain, there would have been little if anything he could have done to prevent the officer falling. He might have placed floodlights around all of his garage premises during the night, he could have placed trip hazard warning signs all over the place and he could have painted all of the curbs with black/yellow hazard hatching marks. Would that have been reasonable? Probably not and would certainly have been expensive. Would those actions have fitted within the principles of sensible risk management? Again I would say, probably not.

As one commentator to an article I saw wrote; “why wasn’t she watching where she was going and/or carrying a torch?” Perhaps the only duty of care breached here was the one that the officer owed to herself?

All that being said, when attempting to effectively manage risk one should always remember; preventing accidents usually also requires that you should try to manage human failures. You need to understand the risk management principles; never ignore the inherent human factors involved e.g. possible fatigue, one often experienced by shift workers, as in this case however; the majority of this type of risk management is morstly within the remit of the employer, as opposed to the garage owner.

Fatigue results in slower reactions, reduced ability to process information, memory lapses, absent-mindedness, decreased awareness, lack of attention, underestimation of risk, reduced coordination etc…(Source HSE)

Thankfully some elements of the media machine actually managed a somewhat less damaging and little more satirical viewpoint on the matter…

Were you injured and would like to claim compensation? Get over it! – If you ask me, the story of the policewoman who, called to investigate a suspected burglary, fell over an on-site kerb and is currently suing the owner of the property, certainly adds to the impression we are now a nation drowning in absurd lawsuits brought about by stupid, greedy people with no sense of personal responsibility and, in some instances, a passion for bogus whiplash…(Deborah Ross – The Independent)

Like Ms Ross (and undoubtedly many others), “I am as fearful of all this litigation as anyone” else; the inherent greed in much of our society tends to be the fuel that ignites the misapplication of Health & Safety legislation and guidance. I think her idea about trying to balance it all with a new company called, Stuff Happens So Get Over It, is a great idea and one that has a good chance of rapid expansion… Any chance of a job Deborah?

Related articles

• She should have carried a torch! Dismay of petrol station owner sued by fall PC (telegraph.co.uk)
• Kerb fall WPC sues 999 caller (thesun.co.uk)
• Policewoman sues man who dialled 999 during ‘burglary’ after tripping over petrol garage kerb (mirror.co.uk)
• Chief disappointed at PC legal claim (bbc.co.uk)
• Report: Police officer drops claim against burglary victim (itv.com)
• British Police (Unfit For) Service! (dickiebo.wordpress.com)

How come there’s all this bullshit when I’ve only got two cows?

The now familiar “You have two cows“ jokes were originally a parody of the typical educational examples used in introductory-level economics course material.

A typical example is: “You have two cows; you want chickens; you set out to find another farmer who has chickens and wants a cow”.

The above example was used to show the limitations of the barter system, leading to the eventual introduction of currency and money. Some later examples of the jocular parody include…

• SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows. – You give one to your neighbour
• COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. – The State takes both and gives you some milk
• NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
• BUREAUCRACY: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
• CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
• RBS (VENTURE CAPITALISM): You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
• SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
• AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
• GREEK CORPORATION: You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds. You still only have two cows.
• FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
• JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.
• ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
• SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
• CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
• INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
• IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh1t out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
• BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad and, despite reading the label carefully, you find one of your cows is actually a horse.
  • WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive but more difficult to reach than your two sheep.
  • SCOTS CORPORATION: You have two cows. It’s open to debate as to whether or not you own your cows, or they’re just a constituent part of the greater British herd.
  • NORTHERN IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. After hundreds of years you still can’t decide if they are Nationalist or Republican cows… Oh Feck!
• AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for lunch and a few beers to celebrate!

I wonder how the ‘two cows’ illustration should be applied to the British Public Sector and in particular, the management of our Policing and other emergency services? Any ideas?

Hardeep do we understand things?

This morning I happened upon Hardeep Singh Kolhi on the radio. Nothing strange in that I suppose, I listen to BBC Radio Two most mornings.

Radio has always been my prefered media choice throughout life; it’s content can range from the inane and humorous to the serious and educational or newsworthy in an instant, with some light musical relaxation in between, by simply turning a dial or pressing a button. Radio, like a book, is strangely comforting but importantly, it can also be a great tool for inspiring thought and getting the old grey matter rumbling into action. And so begins today’s ramblings thoughts.

I’ve often thought that many of our social and business failures are simply the result of our self-importance and inherent insular methodologies in life. Today there is a predominance, especially but not exclusively amongst the younger generation, to live life in the here and now of their own (often virtual) microcosm.

As children we have simple needs, desires and thoughts, we are open to new and exciting experiences, we are learning about life. But as we age we tend to be less excited about or interested in the learning process. We stop ourselves from learning, we have a tendency to get stuck in our ways and beliefs; the factors that have honed our personal traits. Our beliefs and understanding of the world around us and the people in it tend to become fixated. We look at our world through the eyes and minds that were developed throughout our formative years and upbringing. Always assuming we were fortunate enough to have parents who had the desire (and ability) to guide our development.

I tread carefully into the quagmire that is religious belief. I would describe myself as a secular Sikh; most Sikhs I know would be described as such. That’s why, generally, Sikhs can travel the globe and find a niche for themselves in most communities and countries…(Hardeep Singh Kohli)

That’s not all really such a bad thing, it makes us who and what we are however; once we reach a point where we close our minds and lose interest in learning, we run the risk of becoming bigoted. Adopting an insular state where we refuse to try to understand the culture of and/or beliefs of others. And perish the thought that our own beliefs, standards and methods should be open to scrutiny or challenge by anyone outside our miniscule existence!

It is at that point that our development (and social worth) stagnates but more worryingly, we also run the risk of becoming less tolerant to those outside our personal bubbles.

But we all need to have a sense of belonging and a purpose in life; humans are both social and tribal animals, we have an in-built need to adhere to a framework which has a distinct hierarchy of status. The difficulty for most of us is actually finding our personal ‘happy place’ in that social pecking order.

Too many people believe that their inability to move around (generally up) the social (aka financial) ladder is usually the fault of others. In many cases this desire, although often based upon simple greed, is actually incorrect. Yes our initial personal circumstances may dictate our starting point on the ladder but we can all ‘better’ ourselves if we really want to. Our personal skills, capabilities, knowledge and social skills (in general) aren’t always dictated by our circumstances or by others. In short we are who we are and what we make of our lot however; things get more difficult when you’re starting out not knowing who you really are.

As a young child my sense of self was a cultural car crash, a collision between the values of my parents and the ridicule of the playground..(Hardeep Singh Kohli)

Kohli’s childhood predicament, especially in the working-class environment and relevent poverty of 1970′s Glasgow was, according to his writing, fairly difficult. I have no reason to disbelieve what he says, despite any poetic licence of an author. But Kohli’s early life experiences were before the true realisation of the diverse and multi-cultural society we see now. Would things be any easier, harder or different today?

Then or now, we have all faced predicaments in our formative years that we have found uncomfortable or difficult; only the ultimate consequences vary in gravity. But the resulting impacts of childhood development aren’t confined solely to ethnic or religious background issues, parental influence and peer-group pressures are also massive factors to consider and understand.

Think how difficult things can be for a child bereft of any stable, capable and interested parental support during that development process?

Writing for The Independent recently, Kohli made some excellent and balanced observations about the implications of a possible Scottish devolution, something I’ve written about before (see here). Under the title A Scotland that believes in itself can be what it wants, he pointed out how Scotland as a ”country once treated as a needy child is able to control its own destiny.”

Shouldn’t a similar belief be the ultimate aim and assumption for any child?

Obviously I’m not advocating that every father (or stand-in) needs to be an Alex Salmond clone, what a scary thought that would be? But Kohli rightly points out that belief and ultimate capability is always possible with genuine and meaningful guidance that is delivered with passion. I would balk at his football analogy however; Salmond managing “Scotland to win the World Cup” – that probably is an aspiration too far!

Back to the original veiled question; how deep we go into trying to understand many of today’s issues? The answer is often and unfortunately, far too shallow!

Notes:-

Hardeep Singh Kohli is a British writer, Radio & TV presenter and comedian. Born in London in the 1960′s, as a child Kohli moved to Scotland with his parents and grew up in Glasgow. Subsequently graduating from the University of Glasgow he went on to work for the BBC, has written for The Guardian, The Independent and from 2007-2009 Kohli wrote Hardeep is your Love, a column for Scotland on Sunday. Kohli was twice nominated as Scottish Columnist of the Year.

To read a PDF extract from Indian Takeaway: A Very British Story, please click on the following link: Where do you come from… Originally.