Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!

[Dovetail40]

This is disturbing to read. I hope a proper investigation is carried and the missing time videos are found so she knows exactly what happened to her.

Sky news Greater Manchester Police

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas

So, you believe no other alternatives exist?

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas

And just blindly follow

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas

Intellect fail

You appear to be unable to answer the simplest of questions or consider any alternative possibilities. You live in a very binary world with no grey areas. Not a possible chance of any software/computer malfunction at all then.

So the recent chaos at the airports for example - was this a result of:

1 - One person deliberately causing the problem
2 - Nothing has gone wrong and the press have made everything up

Can you provide an answer?
There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

The utter desperation to have the last word is palpable here, no doubt with protests of "but they said something to me so I have to answer" 🙄

Well, direct this to AnSolas, who is simply copying and pasting the same response over and over and over.........

At least I am trying to ask why AnSolas is blinkered into believing that there are only ever two possible outcomes.

The copy and paste is because they're not interested in engaging with you anymore, get a fucking clue.

If that's the case, then why not just not post anything?
Why just copy and paste the same thing over and over if its not "....desperation to have the last word...."?

Audit fail
Audit fail
Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

@Catchasingmewithspiders · Yesterday 08:59
The utter desperation to have the last word is palpable here, no doubt with protests of "but they said something to me so I have to answer" 🙄

@Mookie81 · Yesterday 23:11
The copy and paste is because they're not interested in engaging with you anymore, get a fucking clue.

I am just popping back to inspect the deeping hole. ⛏️👀
I could throw @Felix125 a longer rope 🤷 but it has to be secured at the top of the hole, and I have Health and Safety concerns !!

I will just keep providing audit grade untill the digging stops ( or the thread ends)

AnSolas

Intellect fail

You appear to be unable to answer the simplest of questions or consider any alternative possibilities. You live in a very binary world with no grey areas. Not a possible chance of any software/computer malfunction at all then.

So the recent chaos at the airports for example - was this a result of:

1 - One person deliberately causing the problem
2 - Nothing has gone wrong and the press have made everything up

Can you provide an answer?
There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

Oh bore off you're being pathetic now.

Mookie81

AnSolas has repeated their message considerably more times than I have.

Is it 'bore off' to them too?

Or would you like to add to the thread instead of further de-railing it?

Oh don't get me wrong I am appreciating your dedication to a deepening hole

I'm pretty sure if we did a search for threads with Felix on we wouldn't find one where he hasn't had the last word

That's why I normally tell him when I am stopping interacting with him and then let him have his triumphant last word which normally includes truth twisting or lies

This method of yours is incredibly satisfying to watch though so you are my new hero

What truth twisting or lies....?

I am suggesting that there are other possibilities to this - something which Crystal746599 has also suggested. Crystal746599 has also stated that they have knowledge of the custody processes too.

So you need to consider these - rather than just having only two possible outcomes all the time.

Its an attitude test.
Failure to understand that why the test is important is faliure to understand that delegated authority is limited authority so an employee is not the final arbiter.
Delegated means the employee has a responsibilty to request or even demand guidance if they are in the limit of the delegated authority. So the employer needs to trust establish that the employee has the capacity to do that.
If senior management publish an admission of overwriting the data more junior staff need to accept have a minimum level of confidence that the admission is factual and was as a result of the senior management being in possession of information which support the admission.

AnSolas

Intellect fail

You appear to be unable to answer the simplest of questions or consider any alternative possibilities. You live in a very binary world with no grey areas. Not a possible chance of any software/computer malfunction at all then.

So the recent chaos at the airports for example - was this a result of:

1 - One person deliberately causing the problem
2 - Nothing has gone wrong and the press have made everything up

Can you provide an answer?
There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas

Intellect fail

You appear to be unable to answer the simplest of questions or consider any alternative possibilities. You live in a very binary world with no grey areas. Not a possible chance of any software/computer malfunction at all then.

So the recent chaos at the airports for example - was this a result of:

1 - One person deliberately causing the problem
2 - Nothing has gone wrong and the press have made everything up

Can you provide an answer?

There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

So
By now has anybody noticed a pattern?
How the determination to be seen to win can become an issue?
When an employee is given authority there needs to be an ability to self-regulate?

Why that ability is very very important when we add extra worth to a witnesses testimony?

Why been seen to be impartial is important?

Why policing by consent only happens if the police pass the trust test?