Re: The real police view of

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Monday 29 September 2003 12:25, Owen Lewis wrote:

> > [... snip ...] why is ``being the subject of a discipline case is
> > making stressed'' regarded as an absolute defence.

I wasn't aware that this is usual. I thought that the usual route was that 
the incident causing the disciplinary review was triggered by stress which 
was pre-existing.
>
> Quite so. It reminds one of the old schoolboy joke (holding circled fingers
> to one's eyes), "You wouldn't hit a chap wearing spectacles, would you?"
>
> > The public sector has to explain why its staff are about four times
> > sicker than those in the private sector.  Perhaps the HSE should
> > investigate the systems of work which cause all this illness?
>
> It doesn't.  The problem is a society that has come to believe that stress
> is unhealthy and that its symptoms are an 'illness'. A large number of
> things are stressful and stress is in any case not an absolute condition
> buy a relative one. Learning to bear mental stress is as much a part of a
> rounded education and of healthy everyday living as is exercising one's
> muscles.

So we want to go back to the sort of society we had in the 1940's, do we? 
Just a reminder - Bomber Command aircrew were expected to fly 30 raids over 
enemy territory in order to complete their first tour of duty - about half 
failed to do so, mostly because they were shot down and killed. Towards the 
end of the tour, surviving aircrew members were generally sufferring some 
sort of combat fatigue (stress). Some became "flak happy", ceased to take the 
job seriously and were usually killed, in flying accidents if the Luftwaffe 
didn't get them. Some took to drink. Some - a suprisingly small proportion - 
reported unfit to fly. The authorities' reaction to this last, unfortunate 
group? Well, officers were normally promoted to a nice safe job flying a 
desk, but non-comissioned aircrew were reduced to AC/2 (the lowest rank) & 
had their flying brevets stripped off (often in front of the whole squadron 
so as to make an example of them - discipline often results from men being 
more frightened of their own leadership than they are of the enemy.). Their 
personal file was stamped "LMF" (Lack of Moral Fibre) and they spent the rest 
of their career in the Forces doing menial jobs like cleaning toilets.

Now it is certainly true that very, very few of us, if any, suffer the sort 
of stress that these men did. It's also true that a certain amount of stress 
is required to get us to perform to the best of our abilities, to tide us 
over emergencies. However some of us suffer _excess_ stress over much longer 
periods of time, and the effect is cumulative. At least part of the problem 
is reduced staffing levels (to save costs) so that those of us who are left 
are expected to perform at "emergency" levels on a permanent basis.
>
> It gets worse. Much of the world knows full well that much of the HSE and
> employment regulation is cr*p. However, since it is govt that is
> responsible for the stupid legislation that produces it, govt (national
> local and quango), of all employer's, is the one that must take its insane
> results a l'outrance. And since it is almost the only employer that does
> not have to make a profit to survive, it is the one not only stupid enough
> to do so but that is also fully financially protected from its 
> consequences.

Sure. Politicians doing something for the sake of being seen to be doing 
something again. If you knew the amount of extra stress that can be caused by 
having to comply with 100,000,000 ridiculous H & S regulations that have no 
relevance whatsoever, when the dangers that _do_ confront us in the workplace 
are simply not addressed...

Brian Beesley