Always on duty?

[Messie]

Shelley's thread about annoying scooterboys has reminded me of an issue I can't resolve in my own mind. maybe org.ans can offer their opinions on the matter.
Many of us here are in professions that include certain expected codes of conduct, maybe even professional guidelines for our behaviour, and which include what might be called a duty of care to others. I'm thinking about my job, teaching, and the police force and nursing and other medical professions as well as others.
Another senior teacher recently told me his view that as teachers we are always 'on duty' in a sense; specifically if we saw a student in trouble or breaking the law, like underage drinking, we ought to go up and do something about it. Some people have advised Shelly to let the lads know what she does and that she perhaps 'ought' to do something about it.
My view is that we are not always on duty. I expect to be able to not be a teacher when out and about and socialising, even though I would, as a comassionate human being, always go to the aid of someone I knew if I could help in any way. Don't think I'd grass up an underage drinking student though (I'm sure my slaves only drank lemonade anyway!)

Your view?

[Sean_C]

People in these professions have to have down time. They'd go potty otherwise... No matter your job, you need your life outside of it. And that's the point, it's outside of work, no an extension of work.

[BanditPat]

My mates parents are both police officers and if you ask either of them then they are always on duty. I gave him a lift home and she asked to see my license and insurance I guess she wants to know her son is safe and I don't mind there both well mint.

[TazDaz]

(I'm sure my slaves only drank lemonade anyway!)


One of the lads must have a massive sugar intolerancy then! He was trashed...lol!

People should always have a downtime...I know coppers who burn pirate DVDs lol!

Part of my job is promoting sustainable transport (public transport). I very rarely use it in my personal life and own/use a bike and a car...so I really don't practice what I preach!

[yorkie_chris]

I get pretty annoyed when I hear about teachers meddling in students lives outside of school. It was the main disagreement I had with teachers when I was at secondary school.

[yorkie_chris]

My mates parents are both police officers and if you ask either of them then they are always on duty. I gave him a lift home and she asked to see my license and insurance I guess she wants to know her son is safe and I don't mind there both well mint.

IMO that's just patronising. I probably wouldn't just out of bloody-mindedness!

[Messie]

I get pretty annoyed when I hear about teachers meddling in students lives outside of school. It was the main disagreement I had with teachers when I was at secondary school.

Most of the teachers I know don't want to meddle in students lives outside school.

And Taz I don't mean us engaging in illegal activities - that's a whole different debate!

[Supervox]

I think tht certain professions carry a sense of 'social responsibility' with them.

Would an off-duty police officer be expected to help in preventing a crime being committed or apprehending a suspect ? I suspect one of our police Org-ans may be able to help out here.

Would an off-duty firefighter be expected to help in the case of a fire ? Do we have any fire Org-ans ?

I know several paramedics who've told me that they couldn't live with themselves if they passed by someone who could use their expertise. Rictus may have an opinion on this one.

Without wishing to demean the role of teachers (or should it be teacers, Sally? :p) in any way, I personally don't think that educators fall into this category. I suppose an informal chat with a parent might be possible - but, having read some of the stories over the last few years I suspect that it might well end badly for the teacher (unfortunately) !!

P.S. An allergic reaction to lemonade is never a pretty sight !!

[Von Teese]

As far as it is concerned with the police, we ARE always on duty, we have no choice in the matter.

If something happens we are duty bound to step in and identify ourselves as police and deal with the matter.
Should this not happen, resulting in something serious happening and an investigation into the matter, it could end up with serious consequences for the officer involved

However...we do have our discretion.

Unfortunately that is why we never have 'days off' but our non-working days are termed 'rest days'...*sigh!

[Messie]

As far as it is concerned with the police, we ARE always on duty, we have no choice in the matter. If something happens we are duty bound to step in and identify ourselves. Should this not happen, and an investigation proves that intervention was avoided it could cause serious consequences.

However...we do have our discretion.

Unfortunately that is why we never have 'days off' but our non-working days are termed 'rest days'...*sigh!


Yes this is what was told to me to justify the same for teac(h)ers! For me, turning a blind eye thing works fine if I see a 17 year old a bit squiffy on lemonade (or indeed sweetie enhanced vodka) but what if I see one of my Year 10's (14 years old) drinking in a pub? VT - is this written into your contracts?

Thankfully I can't see the cry of 'is there a teacher in the house' ever happening over 'is there a doctor on board' but still ...

[Von Teese]

Yes this is what was told to me to justify the same for teac(h)ers! For me, turning a blind eye thing works fine if I see a 17 year old a bit squiffy on lemonade (or indeed sweetie enhanced vodka) but what if I see one of my Year 10's (14 years old) drinking in a pub? VT - is this written into your contracts?

Thankfully I can't see the cry of 'is there a teacher in the house' ever happening over 'is there a doctor on board' but still ...

yes you are seen in the eyes of the law as in a 'position of trust' in the same way as us, you can be held responsible for actions of minors in your presence if serious situations can be avoided and you failed to take action (within reason).

[Red Herring]

As VT says a copper is always a copper, however there is an accepted code of conduct about what you do and don't get involved in whilst "off duty". I'm not in the habit of writing down registration numbers of every driver i see without a seatbelt, however if i come across the scene of an accident, or if I were to see a "crime" (assault/theft etc) in progress then I'd have no hesitation stepping in. Shelly's problem isn't should she do something, it's about justifying the potential impact to her private life if she does step in and things turn out badly. If you want to look at it in terms of economics it would make more sense for her local force to send someone else round to deal with the moped lad, than to come round and take numerous reports of damage to her home and potentially have to re-house her!

Back to other professions my Mrs is a doctor. She always in a bit of a dilemma when we come across something in the street because of litigation issues. If she deals with something "in the street" so to speak and subsequently things turn out badly then she might not be covered by her professional insurance. The problem is medicine is not an exact science and using any kind of medical expertise above that of basic first aid can open the door to all kinds of debate later.

[Messie]

That's what I was told. However I can't see this as happening in real life. Myself I'm not too bothered being older and rarely in such a situation but I'm certain younger teachers get into this situation. For example, we are told quite clearly, not to have students, or past students because they have siblings in school, as friends on Facebook. I asked the question about what should we do if we find out through FB that someone under 16 has had sex? Do we turn grass or run the risk of abusing our position of trust if we do nothing?

[custard]

i met two dr's who didnt seem to go off duty. unfortunately i had just lobbed my CBR down the road and they were the first on scene :)

[gruntygiggles]

Hmmmm, a dificult one this. With Shelly's issue, I think she has every right to rely on her colleagues as any other citizen would in order to help with the problems in her street. The lads might be fine and she could have a word and her property would be untouched. Then again, they might be awful and her having a word could see her victimised for it. I don't think being a police officer means youshould have to put your personal life in possible jeopardy.

As for the matter on a whole.....I don't think you can ever be off duty no matter what your profession. If you have recieved training that enables you to help others, you should use that training when others need it regardless of whether you are on duty or off. The question is, to what extent. If I was a police officer and someone needed detaining, I would no doubt catch that person and hold them, disclose my rank and call for on duty officers to come and take over. Likewise, if I was a doctor, I would give basic care until on duty backup arrived. Of course, if someone was going to die and I was capable of saving the life, I think I'd save the life and risk the repercussions.

[Messie]

Yes I can agree with the care part - although I'd like to think I'd go to help anyone who needs care and I can do something. But ...
do I have a duty to do something about rule breaking? For example if I know a kids is skiving when s/he should be in school,do I report it?

[gruntygiggles]

Yes I can agree with the care part - although I'd like to think I'd go to help anyone who needs care and I can do something. But ...
do I have a duty to do something about rule breaking? For example if I know a kids is skiving when s/he should be in school,do I report it?

I probably would actually. Do it annonymously and leave it at that. Kids that scive are not setting themselves up well for a good future.....you could be helping them in the long term.....and their parents. If parents can now be punished for their childrens absence.....I think they need the protection of you reporting it too. Just my opinion. I don't think I would ever have any ex students on FB or anything like that. Purely because of the compromising position it can put you in.

[Jackie_Black]

I'm a tekka and would never accept students as friends on facebook as thats how you get sacked.

I will always grass them to a landlord if they are underage in a pub i'm drinking in as I don't want anything to do with them when i'm trying to chill out, also if anything happens to them when i'm there i'd get a bollocking at work for not doing it. I would not intervene directly with them outside of school anymore than joe public normally would though apart from this.

Also we are off duty a lot of the time. 13 weeks of the year normally :D. Me mate is a copper and if he's awake he's at work pretty much.

[Messie]

Would a mechanic stop someone driving away a car that he knew had a blown head gasket?

Would an electrician re-wire a strangers plug if they knew they'd got the wrong fuse in it?

Jackie Black - what's a tekka? And your last comment doen't make sense - are we or arn't we off duty for 13 weeks of the year?

But I don't want this to be specific to teachers

[gruntygiggles]

I think that a mechanic absolutely should prevent anyone that he/she knows to be driving an unsafe vehicle. I would actuallu think that if it could be proven that someone had that kind of trained knowledge, ignored it and an accident resulted, that person could carry a portion of the responsibility.

With the electrician....maybe not actually do teh rewiring, but again I think there is a duty as a member of society to use your knowledge to prevent people doing things that may end in injury. So........a sparky sees me about to turn on a light switch that he knows is faulty. If he doesn't stop me or try to stop me and I get badly shocked.....he/she is not a very good person at the very least...but if I were on their property or in their workplace...they'd also be liable.

[slark01]

I think that a mechanic absolutely should prevent anyone that he/she knows to be driving an unsafe vehicle. I would actuallu think that if it could be proven that someone had that kind of trained knowledge, ignored it and an accident resulted, that person could carry a portion of the responsibility.

With the electrician....maybe not actually do teh rewiring, but again I think there is a duty as a member of society to use your knowledge to prevent people doing things that may end in injury. So........a sparky sees me about to turn on a light switch that he knows is faulty. If he doesn't stop me or try to stop me and I get badly shocked.....he/she is not a very good person at the very least...but if I were on their property or in their workplace...they'd also be liable.
+1

[ArtyLady]

Gosh I'm I don't have that dilema - I hate responsibility! ;) Seriously though, I think you should be able to leave those responsibilites at work - you can't be "on duty" all the time, you'd never relax!!

[kitkat]

i would say everyone is entitled to be off duty, unless you are paid 24 hours a day, like armed forces. If you saw a student drinking underage I think you should report it but not because you are the students teacher but because its against the law and they could become ill. Skiving off school - as a parent I would appreciate being told. But I dont think you should get involved just because of your job but because you are a helpful human being - some may call this interfering. Just imagine how you would feel if you turned a blind eye to young drunk and turned up at work on monday to hear that they died of alcohol poisoning. If you feel strongly enough about something follow your heart and do what you think is right. If you dont give a hoot then walk on by.

[yorkie_chris]

but what if I see one of my Year 10's (14 years old) drinking in a pub? VT - is this written into your contracts?

We had this situation for years, after my parents split up my Brother and I would go out for a pint with my Dad on Wednesdays. His teacher drank in the same pub.

Being of the sensible sort he simply chose to look the other way.

I think that a mechanic absolutely should prevent anyone that he/she knows to be driving an unsafe vehicle.

I have no idea whether I would class as a mechanic. Probably not. But, if anybody tried to prevent me driving a vehicle I'd probably stick the nut on them. Well out of order trying to project your own idea of acceptable risk onto somebody else. Being told something is a fault is fine, but at the end of the day if I want to run on cut slicks, on a rusty frame with non functional indicators while wearing shorts and a T-shirt that is entirely my business. And the coppers if I got caught.

Tell them about a fault, advise if it is dangerous. If they accept that then keep your nose out!

[ArtyLady]

I think that a mechanic absolutely should prevent anyone that he/she knows to be driving an unsafe vehicle. I would actuallu think that if it could be proven that someone had that kind of trained knowledge, ignored it and an accident resulted, that person could carry a portion of the responsibility.

........

Huh?!!!! :confused: has that been proven in law???

[yorkie_chris]

If you saw a student drinking underage I think you should report it but not because you are the students teacher but because its against the law and they could become ill.

Of course they could become ill, and they will, it's generally known as getting pi**ed and throwing up, or a hangover. How else will you learn these things?

If you see a student in a pub and report them, they'll just move elsewhere and it will be an inconvenience. And rather than a quiet, sociable pint and a few games of pool, as we used to do after school. They will go somewhere quiet and sup a bottle of vodka apiece.

Drinking in a proper pub there's a landlord there to tell you to go home because you've had enough. Drinking down the park etc. then there is nothing like that.

When I went to uni I will admit to getting in the odd state of being completely and utterly mangled by drinking several months worth of recommended alcohol intake at one sitting. However I had an aim to do this and it was a serious rarity. The (mostly southern/posh) lot who had not had the advantage of drinking since age 13 would end up like that accidentally and put themselves into silly situations. Maybe because of lack of experience, more because of the "woohoo, freedom" thing.

[ArtyLady]

................



............. But, if anybody tried to prevent me driving a vehicle I'd probably stick the nut on them. Well out of order trying to project your own idea of acceptable risk onto somebody else. Being told something is a fault is fine, but at the end of the day if I want to run on cut slicks, on a rusty frame with non functional indicators while wearing shorts and a T-shirt that is entirely my business. And the coppers if I got caught.

Tell them about a fault, advise if it is dangerous. If they accept that then keep your nose out!

Totally agree with you YC

[yorkie_chris]

To be honest with the e-persona you project I struggle to imagine you headbutting a meddling kwik-fit bloke.

But here's one for you, a garage around Leeds actually told a lass I know that they weren't allowed to give her her car back (for me to fix, after it failed MOT) because it was dangerous, and they had to fix it! The fault was minor.
They soon changed their mind when they were reported to the police for theft.

[ArtyLady]

To be honest with the e-persona you project I struggle to imagine you headbutting a meddling kwik-fit bloke.

Hahahaha! now there's a thought :lol: no I actually meant this bit

Tell them about a fault, advise if it is dangerous. If they accept that then keep your nose out!

Although I wouldn't blame you at all if that was your reaction! :wink:

[yorkie_chris]

At the time I was very tempted, but calling the police was far funnier.

[Messie]

S'ok I'm not asking for advice (I'm quite clear on where I stand) but I am interested in other people's views.

Concerned citizen looking out for fellow citizens I have no problem with. It's the DUTY associated with the job you have that bugs me, and I guess the possible consquences of not doing it

[Sally]

Of course they could become ill, and they will, it's generally known as getting pi**ed and throwing up, or a hangover. How else will you learn these things?

If you see a student in a pub and report them, they'll just move elsewhere and it will be an inconvenience. And rather than a quiet, sociable pint and a few games of pool, as we used to do after school. They will go somewhere quiet and sup a bottle of vodka apiece.

Drinking in a proper pub there's a landlord there to tell you to go home because you've had enough. Drinking down the park etc. then there is nothing like that.

When I went to uni I will admit to getting in the odd state of being completely and utterly mangled by drinking several months worth of recommended alcohol intake at one sitting. However I had an aim to do this and it was a serious rarity. The (mostly southern/posh) lot who had not had the advantage of drinking since age 13 would end up like that accidentally and put themselves into silly situations. Maybe because of lack of experience, more because of the "woohoo, freedom" thing.

I quite agree, the posh boys who have just started drinking now, they're terrible.. Thought they could drink as they had a glass of wine with meals on a rare Sunday.
God help them when they get to uni. :p

For an underager, I can keep up reasonably well, just can't hack the pace of the lads on a Saturday night :| Thats unreal.. :drunken:

[muffles]

I don't think ANYONE should have to be on duty or carry any (legal) responsibility outside of their job's working hours. They're paid to work at the time they work and no other.

However I think in many situations there is the moral responsibility to do or say something. And sometimes people want to do something even if there is no moral responsibility. But, it is completely separate to the job and at the end of the day - crucially - not legally mandatory.

[Red Herring]

I think it would be dangerous and unhelpful to try and determine a specific line as to when and when not a professional person should elect to put themselves at work. I think part of the responsibility of holding such a position includes being able to determine such things for yourself.
I do know of a senior police officer who sent a memo around his force aimed at officers who attended some of the various biker haunts around the county. He basically told them that they have a responsibility to act and prevent any dangerous or disorderly behaviour (wheelies/doughnuts and such like) and if they didn't, and it was subsequently shown that they were there, they would be subject to discipline. Needless to say he got short change and put back in his box in no uncertain terms.

[gruntygiggles]

YC and ArtyLady, I agree with you both...lol. I would also get pretty mad with someone telling me I couldn't drive my vehicle.....I must have not written clearly. What I mean is I think if I go to kwikfit and they notice as I'm driving off that my petrol tank is about to fall off...they have a duty to tell me. What I then do is up to me. BUT.....if they don't tell me and I am then in a nasty accident, but it could be proven that they knew of the fault and didn't make me aware....they COULD possibly carry some responsibility. I don't know the law, but you can be convicted for knowing about a crime and not reporting it so it's not that hard to imagine I guess.

If someone refused to give me back my keys though.....I'd report them for theft and impersonating a police officer......please tell me if there's something dangerously wrong with my car.....but don't withold it from me!!!

[Jackie_Black]

Jackie Black - what's a tekka? And your last comment doen't make sense - are we or arn't we off duty for 13 weeks of the year?

But I don't want this to be specific to teachers

A tekka is a teacher (northernism) and we are off duty for at least 13 weeks of the year. My writing is crap as i'm a technology/woodwork/electronics teacher. Oh and as YC said before if kids from school were in a pub with their parents, it would cease to be my problem ;)

[Ed]

I'm a solicitor. You'd be amazed how many clients I meet in Sainsbos who want to discuss their file in the middle of a crowded shop. This of course gives me the ideal excuse - 'it isn't very confidential here, can you call me at work' as no I don't want to discuss their file when I really want to buy a package of ham.

As a brief, I'm supposed to uphold certain standards. So if I got done for anything other than a minor driving offence then I could be hauled before the Disciplinary Tribunal. If I was convicted of dishonesty of any sort - or any form of violence - whether related to work or not - I'd be struck off. If I was made bankrupt my practising certificate would be automatically suspended as I couldn't be trusted with client money. Similarly, failure to reconcile my client account not less frequently than once every 35 days is a hanging offence, and if there is a shortfall I'm personally liable to pay it. And if my business went bust then failing to pay suppliers is not simply a credit risk for them, it's bringing the profession into disrepute.

[Shellywoozle]

As a Police Officer I am always on duty. If an incident occured when I was off duty that you would expect to require Police Assistance or medical assitance etc then I would not be acting repsonsibly in my position if I did not act in one way or another.

I would have to assess the situation and either deal with it and identify myself or call my colleagues and remain as a professional witness. I would do the later if identifying myself would put myself or others safety in jeopardy. I would not have back up or my personal safety equipment and in some instances I would not go wading in without calling it in.

Few examples - at Oulton Park few years ago someone in the campsite was having a fit, I waded in and helped like most people would, I culd not have walked passed hoping someone else knew what to do when everyone was panicking/.

On way out in a taxi me and a mate (copper too) came across a drunk driver, we hijacked the taxi for almost an hour and dealt with it, getting the car keys from driver and calling for patrol with breath kit.

But my latest thread is an exception to me as I have to consider my private life. I cannot ignore ped boy as the neighbours are affected but I am relying on colleagues to deal with it in a way that I am not identified. All dealt with now folks btw.

Sure many professions are the same, nurses especially.

[-Ralph-]

There's a responsibility to uphold and a line to be drawn and everyone needs time off.

I'd say you are off-duty outside of work hours, until such time as you find yourself in a circumstance whereby you may need to come back on-duty for a short time.

It has to be a common sense thing, a superior telling you specifically when you should be on-duty outside of your working hours is not acceptable in my view, that's an intrusion into your private time, but an employer expecting you to use your discretion and put yourself on-duty as and when you see fit is normal.

I'm not in public service but if my phone rings for work on a Sunday I'm expected to make a judgement on whether or not it needs my involvement and act accordingly. I have left shopping trips, social events, etc early in order to get home to my laptop. My friends and family understand that it's part of my job.

[Spiderman]

Teacers always on duty? Only if you like to be hated. The best teachers i had and respect where the ones who treated me like an adult when i chose to act like one. I bunked off school when i was 15 and snuck to the local pub with a couple of mates. I was first in the door and spotted by a teacher who was in there and called my name. My mates pegged it but i'd been seen so what was the point in running and being childish? I;'m a firm believer of taking my medicin when i get caught doing something like that.
I went over to him and he said "i know you're too young to buy alcohol so let me buy you a pint while you tell me why you're bunking off" :shock: I had far, far more respect for him as a person and a teacher after that. And kept it to myself too. I never told those mates what came to pass, they just assumed i'd got into a lot of trouble and they were lucky they got away.

[-Ralph-]

TI was first in the door and spotted by a teacher who was in there and called my name.

I went over to him and he said "i know you're too young to buy alcohol so let me buy you a pint while you tell me why you're bunking off"

So he did intervene, and he did put himself "on-duty".

Your were his student not his kid, so he didn't even have to talk to you or acknowledge you, he didn't ignore you and say "I'm off-duty so he's not my problem".

He just chose to handle it in a certain way and ask you why you were bunking off, rather than grass you up. He's a good teacher, he understands his pupils and what is the best way to get through to them and gain their trust and confidence.

[Ruffy]

I think there is a difference between contractual obligation and moral responsibility. Sadly the latter is deteriorating more and more in today's increasingly selfish society, so we have come to rely more on the former to make sure society doesn't turn totally chaotic and anarchic, thus leading to the dilemma of the OP.

Some job roles have a greater degree of obligated duty than others but I would hope that everyone would always carry a sense of willingness to use their professional expertise, in whatever field, should it become necessary. Of course, individuals should be allowed to use personal discretion and judgement but I don't think anyone should be allowed to just ignore a situation simply because they weren't "on the clock".

As far as intervention goes, in my experience the direct quiet "word in the ear" provides a better first action than a faceless report to a third party enforcer, if the aim is to educate (moral/ethical improvement, greater self awareness and personal responsibility) rather than simply get someone into trouble for breaking an arbitrary rule. It's just a shame that the rulemakers never see it like that - the law may be black and white but the real world is many shades of grey.

[Ruffy]

The best teachers i had and respect where the ones who treated me like an adult when i chose to act like one. I bunked off school when i was 15 and snuck to the local pub with a couple of mates. I was first in the door and spotted by a teacher who was in there and called my name. My mates pegged it but i'd been seen so what was the point in running and being childish? I;'m a firm believer of taking my medicin when i get caught doing something like that.
I went over to him and he said "i know you're too young to buy alcohol so let me buy you a pint while you tell me why you're bunking off" :shock: I had far, far more respect for him as a person and a teacher after that.
Ironically, this was a specific example I had running through my head when I was writing my last post in a more general way.

As far as intervention goes, in my experience the direct quiet "word in the ear" provides a better first action than a faceless report to a third party enforcer, if the aim is to educate (moral/ethical improvement, greater self awareness and personal responsibility) rather than simply get someone into trouble for breaking an arbitrary rule.

[Mr Speirs]

Sorry just realised it sounds like I'm aiming this at you Messie...It is not, it is more of a response to your 'Senior Teacher'

I think as a Teacher you need to reevaluate your view of your job role slightly.
Your role is to inspire and teach children to become knowledgeable and a credit to society first and foremost. Unfortunately there is now a lot more disipline involved now and maybe teacher feel more like a peacekeeper/enforcer than a teacher which may explain why you feel the need to be 'on duty'
Personally I feel that teacher have duristiction in the classroom, outside of that there is no need to get involved in the welfare of your pupils...that's Child Service's job.

Police Officers and Medical Staff are different as others have said. They are on duty pretty much all the time, that's why it takes a special type of person to be in that type of job. I would hope that if I was getting set upon there wasn't an off duty copper watching it happen thinking to him/herself I am not on duty today, I would hope he/her would use their training knowledge and demeanor to diffuse or stop the situation.

I don't really see the resemblance between a teacher and a police officer in terms of duty.
What I am getting at is the primary job role of a teacher is teaching not enforcing.

[-Ralph-]

I don't really see the resemblance between a teacher and a police officer in terms of duty.
What I am getting at is the primary job role of a teacher is teaching not enforcing.

No, but both jobs are vocational and hold responsibility towards society.

[Mr Speirs]

Absolutely..Police are there to uphold the law..Teachers are there to teach kids.

I am agreeing with Messie on this one. Its not her job to stop a teenager from underage drinking it is the Police. I also wouldn't expect her to feel moraly obliged to either.

[Spiderman]

So he did intervene, and he did put himself "on-duty".

Your were his student not his kid, so he didn't even have to talk to you or acknowledge you, he didn't ignore you and say "I'm off-duty so he's not my problem".

He just chose to handle it in a certain way and ask you why you were bunking off, rather than grass you up. He's a good teacher, he understands his pupils and what is the best way to get through to them and gain their trust and confidence.

I guess you could see it that way but i honestly dont think he acted that way. It was lunchtime in summer and he'd gone to have a pint and i walked in. He chatted to me kinda how i guess he would have chatted to a friend. he certianly didnt say "so explain yourself" or anything like that, he simple said if like he would ask a mate "what brings you in here then" kinda attitude. What was going thru his mind obviously only he knew but i felt like i was being treated like the adult i thought i was acting like and that earnt my respect in a huge way.
Howeer i think Messie's original quesion was more about should she or any other teacher, if walking down the road get involved if they witness underage drinking or something....my teacher clealry actively encouraged it by buying me a pint, lol.
reverse pschology achieving the same ends? I dont thing so. If i'd bee drinking on the streets with mate while bunking off ans rhe same person came over and wanted to tell me the rights and wrongs of my behaviour i know i'd surley have to him to f off and not had an ounce of respect for him at school after that.

[Jackie_Black]

I'd love to think i could buy one of the kids a pint if that happened but if it got back to the powers that be or the parents i'd probably get binned on the spot. So that was quite a risk he took!

[Baph]

Yc, you make me laugh, and i agree with every word. :)
For me, there's a number of places in the uk, let alone the world that i cannot go. Visiting such places, regardless of my actions is grounds for instant dismissal from my job! But thats down to knowing a financial system intimately.
As some on here know, if i come across an accident etc, i'll gladly help out where possible, and i'd hope others would do the same for me. Whatever their job.
But there is a line between genuinely helping someone, and interfering.

[Biker Biggles]

I have quite strong views on this and possibly not very popular ones.I believe that professional and contractual employment responsibilities belong firmly in the "on duty" period,and what anyone does outside this time is absolutely their business.Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same.
History tends to show us that great people are often very flawed personalities,and sometimes downright unpleasant,but great at what they do nonetheless.Our current system of total control over every aspect of peoples lives favours the ordinary and mediocre,and edits out real talent and ability.
Having said that,I would hope most people would stop and help their fellow humans where they could,and I would be first to denounce those who didnt as thoroughly unpleasant,but its got nothing to do with their employment status or professional competance.

[-Ralph-]

Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.

You're not an MP are you? ;)

[Biker Biggles]

You're not an MP are you? ;)

Not yet.I feel their may be a few vacancies in the offing though.And "rations" look pretty good to me.:cool:

[muffles]

I have quite strong views on this and possibly not very popular ones.I believe that professional and contractual employment responsibilities belong firmly in the "on duty" period,and what anyone does outside this time is absolutely their business.Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same.
History tends to show us that great people are often very flawed personalities,and sometimes downright unpleasant,but great at what they do nonetheless.Our current system of total control over every aspect of peoples lives favours the ordinary and mediocre,and edits out real talent and ability.
Having said that,I would hope most people would stop and help their fellow humans where they could,and I would be first to denounce those who didnt as thoroughly unpleasant,but its got nothing to do with their employment status or professional competance.

+111111111111111111111111

That's exactly what I was saying :)

[Red Herring]

I have quite strong views on this and possibly not very popular ones.I believe that professional and contractual employment responsibilities belong firmly in the "on duty" period,and what anyone does outside this time is absolutely their business.Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same.
History tends to show us that great people are often very flawed personalities,and sometimes downright unpleasant,but great at what they do nonetheless.Our current system of total control over every aspect of peoples lives favours the ordinary and mediocre,and edits out real talent and ability.
Having said that,I would hope most people would stop and help their fellow humans where they could,and I would be first to denounce those who didnt as thoroughly unpleasant,but its got nothing to do with their employment status or professional competance.

So I'm guessing then that you wouldn't have a problem with a sex offender getting a job at the local primary school, provided of course they hadn't done it whilst at work, or perhaps you wouldn't mind if your local copper does a bit of burglary in his time off..... Maybe I being a bit far fetched. How about a Health Minister who spent their time in power privatizing an entire section of the NHS only to then resign and go and work for the company that won the contract. Ever heard of something called integrity? It's what people in responsible positions should have and it's not something you turn on and off when it suits you.

[yorkie_chris]

That's totally different to asking someone to work while not at work.

Someone who works in a warehouse wouldn't be obliged to unload a truck if they happened to pass one.

[keith_d]

Many years ago when I was at school teaching was rather a different profession. They were able to take us mountain climbing without a mountain of paperwork.

There was one pub near the school, the Orange Tree, which was frequented by teachers and pupils alike. But the teachers were always in the front bar, and pupils were relegated to the public bar or the garden. That way they never _saw_ us drinking and we didn't get too out of hand because we knew they were there.

It worked for all concerned, but would probably get all of us disciplined these days.

Keith.

[Sally]

Many years ago when I was at school teaching was rather a different profession. They were able to take us mountain climbing without a mountain of paperwork.

There was one pub near the school, the Orange Tree, which was frequented by teachers and pupils alike. But the teachers were always in the front bar, and pupils were relegated to the public bar or the garden. That way they never _saw_ us drinking and we didn't get too out of hand because we knew they were there.

It worked for all concerned, but would probably get all of us disciplined these days.

Keith.

Everything nowdays has been ruined by red tape, PC ****e, health and safety and them bloody risk assessment forms.

I have been drinking in the same pub with teachers, they didn't mind... :)

[muffles]

So I'm guessing then that you wouldn't have a problem with a sex offender getting a job at the local primary school, provided of course they hadn't done it whilst at work, or perhaps you wouldn't mind if your local copper does a bit of burglary in his time off..... Maybe I being a bit far fetched. How about a Health Minister who spent their time in power privatizing an entire section of the NHS only to then resign and go and work for the company that won the contract. Ever heard of something called integrity? It's what people in responsible positions should have and it's not something you turn on and off when it suits you.

Mate I know what you're saying but I am pretty sure that's not what he meant, same as me.
Integrity - yes, very key, I expect it in people.

However - I DON'T legally expect it!! I expect people to choose to do it, but not be forced to do it. There's a very very big difference and one thing a lot of people on this thread aren't realising is that even though in practice it may not mean anything (i.e. what happens will still happen regardless) there is a VERY big precedent set by forcing work!

It's the difference between a manager who makes people WANT to work for him, versus the one that FORCES them to work for him, to give an analogy.

And just to reiterate - not specifically at you :) - it's the FORCING that's the issue here, yes I expect morals and responsibility to be shown but I absolutely cannot, CANNOT have that forced on someone. It's such a fine line and people hate this comparison but look at Hitler...

[Red Herring]

That's totally different to asking someone to work while not at work.

Someone who works in a warehouse wouldn't be obliged to unload a truck if they happened to pass one.

Working in a warehouse is also totally different to being a police officer or a doctor. Teachers aren't expected to correct spelling mistakes on posters they see in shop windows but if for example they were to see one of their students working in the market when they're supposed to be in class I'd expect them to subsequently deal with it. I accept that personal responsibility is on the decline nowadays but that doesn't make it right.

[Red Herring]

.............

And just to reiterate - not specifically at you :) - it's the FORCING that's the issue here, yes I expect morals and responsibility to be shown but I absolutely cannot, CANNOT have that forced on someone. It's such a fine line and people hate this comparison but look at Hitler...

I don't think it's generally a case of being forced to "work" when not at work, or even a case that's it's expected, in my experience those that do get involved in their own time do it because they want to do it. I think I mentioned earlier that when a senior officer tried in effect to "force" officers to get involved whilst off duty it didn't get him very far, and rightly so because what he was expecting was outside what was commonly expected.
On a personal note I put a great deal of effort into catching criminals on the job so to speak, I'm hardly going to pass up an opportunity if one presents itself in front of me just because I don't happen to be on duty at the time am I.......:)

[muffles]

I don't think it's generally a case of being forced to "work" when not at work, or even a case that's it's expected, in my experience those that do get involved in their own time do it because they want to do it. I think I mentioned earlier that when a senior officer tried in effect to "force" officers to get involved whilst off duty it didn't get him very far, and rightly so because what he was expecting was outside what was commonly expected.
On a personal note I put a great deal of effort into catching criminals on the job so to speak, I'm hardly going to pass up an opportunity if one presents itself in front of me just because I don't happen to be on duty at the time am I.......:)

Right lol, it sounds like you are agreeing with what I was saying? :) But what I am "moaning" about is stuff like Shelly said earlier where she said something about being disciplined if she didn't get involved? I know that seems to contradict what you're saying so I'm not sure what the situation is. And obviously there are some similar issues with the teachers here too...

[Biker Biggles]

So I'm guessing then that you wouldn't have a problem with a sex offender getting a job at the local primary school, provided of course they hadn't done it whilst at work, or perhaps you wouldn't mind if your local copper does a bit of burglary in his time off..... Maybe I being a bit far fetched. How about a Health Minister who spent their time in power privatizing an entire section of the NHS only to then resign and go and work for the company that won the contract. Ever heard of something called integrity? It's what people in responsible positions should have and it's not something you turn on and off when it suits you.

Guessing indeed as I didnt write anything of the sort.Paedos in primary schools, coppers doing burglaries and other serious criminal activities were nothing to do with my post,more like something you read in the Daily Mail,and should be dealt with by the courts.
And yes I have heard of integrity,but its not something that can be imposed by employers or the great and the good,many of whom have little or no integrity of their own.

[yorkie_chris]

How about a Health Minister who spent their time in power privatizing an entire section of the NHS only to then resign and go and work for the company that won the contract. Ever heard of something called integrity? It's what people in responsible positions should have and it's not something you turn on and off when it suits you.

That's completely different to the question raised in the thread though, that would be deliberate subterfuge for their own ends.

Integrity is a completely personal thing and no level of contractual obligation will turn a rat into a lion.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Right lol, it sounds like you are agreeing with what I was saying? :) But what I am "moaning" about is stuff like Shelly said earlier where she said something about being disciplined if she didn't get involved? I know that seems to contradict what you're saying so I'm not sure what the situation is. And obviously there are some similar issues with the teachers here too...


Both Shelly and Red are correct.

As Police officers, out first and foremost duty is to preserve life and protect property. If we were to, for instance, be first on scene at an RTC and didn't help and as a result someone died, and it was discovered that we had been there, then yes, we would be disciplined as it would be a clear neglect of duty.

I don't know if you remeber but a few years ago there was an incident which ocurred on a motorway in Englandshire somewhere. IIRC, there was a distressed female running on the hard shoulder trying to get s car to stop to help her. An off duty Inspector was driving and called in to report it, thinking she had been involved in an RTC or similar. He did not stop. t turned out she was being chased by her crazed ex how subsequently murdered her. IIRC, the Insp got the sack for neglect of duty.

We are not expected to deal with minor things like what Red was saying about the bike meets while we are off duty and nor are we expected to put ourselves in danger without our PPE.

It comes back to us being Civil Servants as opposed to "employees".

I know I for one would never, ever, ever in a million years, walk past any sort of incident if I thought I could help.

[Biker Biggles]

Both Shelly and Red are correct.

As Police officers, out first and foremost duty is to preserve life and protect property. If we were to, for instance, be first on scene at an RTC and didn't help and as a result someone died, and it was discovered that we had been there, then yes, we would be disciplined as it would be a clear neglect of duty.

I don't know if you remeber but a few years ago there was an incident which ocurred on a motorway in Englandshire somewhere. IIRC, there was a distressed female running on the hard shoulder trying to get s car to stop to help her. An off duty Inspector was driving and called in to report it, thinking she had been involved in an RTC or similar. He did not stop. t turned out she was being chased by her crazed ex how subsequently murdered her. IIRC, the Insp got the sack for neglect of duty.

We are not expected to deal with minor things like what Red was saying about the bike meets while we are off duty and nor are we expected to put ourselves in danger without our PPE.

It comes back to us being Civil Servants as opposed to "employees".

I know I for one would never, ever, ever in a million years, walk past any sort of incident if I thought I could help.

Good example this.
Being honest, how many of us would have stopped on that motorway?Id like to think I would, but then picture the reality.Im doing 80 ish and glimpse a situation,then think about it for a few seconds,then realise the stopping distance involved,then Im well past the scene,then I think its probably nothing and carry on.Dozens of vehicles probably did just that,but the Inspector did that and called it in.That put him in the frame and got him sacked.
My original point, before we got dragged into paedos and bent coppers,was that sacking people for this kind of thing is wrong,and has nothing to do with your employer.

[yorkie_chris]

So he should have put himself into a dangerous situation without his PPE? :-P

[Milky Bar Kid]

So he should have put himself into a dangerous situation without his PPE? :-P

Totally hear what you're saying and agree with you but I think they tried to argue that if he thought it was an RTC then he should have stopped and that if he had stopped, he could have takent he female out of the situation.

I agree that it is ludacris tho...

[-Ralph-]

I don't know if you remeber but a few years ago there was an incident which ocurred on a motorway in Englandshire somewhere. IIRC, there was a distressed female running on the hard shoulder trying to get s car to stop to help her. An off duty Inspector was driving and called in to report it, thinking she had been involved in an RTC or similar. He did not stop. t turned out she was being chased by her crazed ex how subsequently murdered her. IIRC, the Insp got the sack for neglect of duty.

This was ridiculous, he did do something about it. If he'd been in a 30 limit I'd agree with his disciplinary, but it could easily be argued, especially if he was in lane 3 and the traffic was busy, that in order to perform a safe stop on the hard shoulder without cutting across traffic, or braking too hard for traffic behind him, he would have come to a stop on the hard shoulder 1/2 mile away from the woman. Reversing on the hard shoulder is illegal. To stop and help more quickly could have endangered a whole load of motorists. IMO somebody within his superiors didn't like him.

It comes back to us being Civil Servants as opposed to "employees".

I think this is bang on, though I'd add the proviso that you are vocational civil servants. If you worked in accounts payable for DEFRA then you wouldn't be expected to work out of hours (you'd hardly be expected to work at all and you'd have a great pension, a full year paid maternity leave, and 56 days a year holiday) :p

[Milky Bar Kid]

I think this is bang on, though I'd add the proviso that you are vocational civil servants. If you worked in accounts payable for DEFRA then you wouldn't be expected to work out of hours (you'd hardly be expected to work at all and you'd have a great pension, a full year paid maternity leave, and 56 days a year holiday) :p

Unfortunately, in my experience, we are employees when it suits and civil servants when it suits....

[Bri w]

I think people who take up 'vocations', i.e. want to be public servants, feel morally obliged to act/support/help - its in their nature. It's why they chose the job in the 1st place, and they wouldn't be true to themselves if they didn't act.

[yorkie_chris]

Indeed, but how many people do, rather than think "hmmm, that's got decent pay and a good pension plan with no risk of redundancy"

[Red Herring]

Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same.


I think you and YC need to decide which camp you sit in. Either is does matter to you what police officers, teachers etc get up to when not at work or it doesn't.

[yorkie_chris]

I think you and YC need to decide which camp you sit in. Either is does matter to you what police officers, teachers etc get up to when not at work or it doesn't.

No, that's totally impossible to define in such black and white terms.

Obviously rather at the darker end of the shades of grey would be teachers aren't really supposed to go noncing at the weekends, and coppers should avoid battering innocent people for no reason ... oh wait...

[Biker Biggles]

Guessing indeed as I didnt write anything of the sort.Paedos in primary schools, coppers doing burglaries and other serious criminal activities were nothing to do with my post,more like something you read in the Daily Mail,and should be dealt with by the courts.
And yes I have heard of integrity,but its not something that can be imposed by employers or the great and the good,many of whom have little or no integrity of their own.

Thats my position.Let the courts deal with paedos and bent coppers.Obviously those falling foul would not be eligable for employment.

[Red Herring]

If "Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same" then why should a court conviction for something not committed at work make them "not eligible for employment". Given the old saying that it takes a thief to catch a thief you could argue it would make them more competent.

[Biker Biggles]

You could argue that,but take your job for example.Ill bet part of the person spec is that you dont have convictions for burglary.Mine certainly is and Im happy with that,but the arbiter would have been a court,and "beyond reasonable doubt".That is not the case with professional bodies or employer disciplinary panels which is why I have no confidence in them.(Nor in their "integrity")

[Red Herring]

I agree with you, but who wrote the "person spec". Indeed part of the "person spec" for a constable is that they be of good repute, but the same regulations place restrictions of their private lives and expectations on how they conduct them. These regulations are there to help maintain an acceptable standard. Are you saying that an employer can set standards they expect employees to maintain, but only a court can decide if they fell below them? If so what would happen if the alleged behavior did not end up in court?

[Biker Biggles]

Thats probably where we differ.I believe in giving people as much freedom in their private lives as possible,as in the traditional meaning of "liberal",and that authoritarianism should be challenged wherever it arises.I do accept though that my ideals have a downside,in that it gives people the freedom to do the wrong thing before they are caught and dealt with.To me thats a price worth paying for a free(ish)society.

[Red Herring]

Most people have the freedom to do the wrong thing should they choose to do so, police officers included, it's just the penalty for breaking those rules might be more severe to them than most. Professional "restrictions" on private lives are there for a reason, police officers for example are not allowed to consort with known criminals, doctors and teachers are not allowed to have personal relationships with patients/pupils and accountants/solicitors are not allowed to be declared bankrupt (I think, but I could be corrected on that one) These rules are part of that profession, they make sense and those that join those professions recognize their value and accept the advantages they give them. It gives them a confidence in their colleagues they could not otherwise have.

[Ruffy]

I believe in giving people as much freedom in their private lives as possible...
Agreed, but there is a individual responsibility to ensure that those so-called private lives are, in fact, kept private. This places restrictions on what non-work activites can be enjoyed in a potentially public or semi-public environment.

Just because you are not at work doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, without care. To do so would compromise your credibility as an individual, which will naturally lead to implications in the world you occupy as an employee.

[Biker Biggles]

Agreed, but there is a individual responsibility to ensure that those so-called private lives are, in fact, kept private. This places restrictions on what non-work activites can be enjoyed in a potentially public or semi-public environment.

Just because you are not at work doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, without care. To do so would compromise your credibility as an individual, which will naturally lead to implications in the world you occupy as an employee.

Agreed thats the way things work,and thats what is wrong.Its what allows the example of the Inspector(a couple of pages ago)to get sacked by a vindictive employer,and what allows a gutter press to hound perfectly adequate people into losing their jobs.Imagine if we had applied the "private life test" to Winston Churchill.The drunken nutcase would never have been PM and we would have lost the war.