Home page Why Blair should resign or be sacked Ian Blair An overall function of a manager is to take on responsibilities they know they can manage. Some years ago consultants were contracted by companies because they had considerable experience in something people within the company did not. This is why they were paid high salaries because they could arrive at useful conclusions faster than less experienced coporate staff would be able to do. The result was better decision-making at a lower cost. When it comes to critical work including the security and safety of others it is more than evident that a manager's job specification should not be so complicated that an intelligent person would not be able to handle it. On the other hand, a competent and experienced manager would also refuse to take on a post where he or she felt that they did not have sufficient direct control over events. Delegation and reliance on others to carry out work effectively is admissable to the extent that the manager has full transparency as to critical events. Critical events are those which place constituents (the public or customers) at risk or employees at risk. The prevailing concern should not be the "image" of the organization but rather the proficiency of the organization is carrying out its work. Jean Charles de Menezes Therefore where something goes wrong, as in the case of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes of Brazil by British policemen this throws up two primary issues. One if that the system did not work appropriately in a critical area meaning the manager, Ian Blair, took on something which was beyond his control. The other is that changes in methods and reporting need to be introduced. However, there is no trade off between the two. Just because lessons learned from incompetence are introduced does not mean the manager who had accepted responsibility for managing such an incompetent system should remain to be given a "second chance". Jean Charles de Menezes had no opportunity for such a second chance, nor were his grieving family able to secure some second chance. It is this effect on individuals and families which needs to be kept in the forefront now as it should have been in the events leading up to this attrocity. The imperative of defending freedom is essentially about preventing any such arbitrary actions at the hands of "authorities" at all costs. Ken Livingstone's statement that police being caught up in the tension of the period following the tube attacks can be excused for making a mistake is completely irresponsible and politically charged. People who undertake such work and who are armed need to be observant and trained to handle any situation they might encounter. Why Memenzes was murdered in cold daylight when it was clear he was carrying no armaments and his hands were away from any detonation device can be answered in terms of incompetence related directly to the unsuitability of the people selected and involved in this action. This inappropriate profiling of human resources detailed for such sensitive and dangerous work runs back to the system's competence which the manager, Ian Blair, had accepted as adequate. Britain has gone far too far down the road where each political fiasco is relegated to "another lesson learned" whilst the reponsible individuals remain in their posts enjoying the benefits which should only be reserved for those who manage their responsibilities in a fashion which does not impair the freedom of innocents. This unacceptable systematic decadence is a reflection of advancing incompetence and corruption and above all a declining responsibility to the people of this country. As a democracy the people of Britain should be graced with a dignified demonstration that the life of a Brazilian citizen who was not protected whilst in our midst is a matter of national shame and something which should never have occured. No matter which way one looks at this affair the Head of the Metropoliltan Police should resign. If he does not he should be sacked. The Metropolitan police will not collapse is Ian Blair is removed and he can be given other work. This issue is that in a democracy those ultimately responsible for the actions of an institution must render themselves to a superior judgement that the ultimate objective is to defend freedom by avoiding harmful arbitrary decisions and actions. To have murdered someone is unacceptable and there is no justification in trying to assert that acts in the defence of public "security" is conditional on there being "collateral damage" in the form of the murder of innocents. No one has the right to try to remain in place in a public function which has failed on this count and especially for no more than personal reasons such as status, salary or misguided views as to their indispensibility. Such prevarication only parades the shallowness of the institutional image and adds insult to the injuries sustained, in this case by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. The new appointee should take up the post after requesting any changes in operations and personnel deemed necessary so as to be able to agreed to the feasibility of their managing the responsibilities he or she is taking on without incurring public harm harm. It is this test, and not "implementing lessons learned" by a failed manager, that can secure more practical improvements in the system. Posted: 10th November, 2007.