Confined Water Padi OW - Conundrum

[darthmoll]

Originally Posted by PADI-Paddy

Terry,

We have come to the end of the road Im afraid, whilst it is obvious you are unable to understand the concept of Innocent 'til proven guilty it is further compounded by the fact your clueless.


Now some may say I am being nasty. I dont mean to be, what I am saying is the truth. I am not responsible for the gaps in your education and thought process. Let me explain.

By your standards........... if you are suspended your guilty... until proven innocent. Now this goes against every tenet in criminal and civil law in most decent democracies.

Lets take the case of British soldiers killing a civilian say in Northern Ireland or IRAQ. They are charged with the crime, and taken off duty perhaps in custody.

According to you they are GUILTY.

THE STATE (according to terry's world) has nothing to prove, in fact in terry's world it is completely turned on its head......... the soldiers have now to prove their innocence........

It cannot be explained in more simple terms... it doesnt get any easier than this Terry. Forgetting about PADI do you understand the concept I am endeavouring to explain

Since you seem to be Irish, the good old scottish word ejit will not be wasted on you............

[PADI-Paddy]

Originally Posted by Chardy

620375 - Go and check for yourself
It should tell you - Paul A. Chard, in status and my qualifications, if you can't get access, I'll post them.

First thing I did after the conversation with the lady was call PADI, that was before I posted it on here.

Why ? I know what our agreement with PADI is, I wanted to see what other people would do in the same circumstance.

The bigger question is the HSE. The lady called the HSE, who were not that bothered. The lady was injured and needed medical attention as an instructor you have to report that to the appropriate authority. I wonder if that was done.

Tell me Chardy what did PADI say ?

[recurve]

In most big companies, it is usually a clearly stated point within the disciplinary system, that a suspension is specifically NOT a disciplinary sanction against someone who is being investigated, but is merely a measure taken to protect both the person who is being investigated, and the company/clients. Until a person has been investigated there can be no presumption of guilt.

As I see it, an arrest by the police is an extension of the same tennet, you are taken into custody in order to protect yourself and others, pending an investigation to establish facts. Only when these facts have been been collected can they be presented in court and a definitive statement of guilt being made.

It should be noted however that although there is no PRESUMPTION of guilt, there are certain powers that are granted when there is a strong enough SUSPICION of guilt. Hence, the point at which someone is arrested, the statement is made something along the lines of 'Fred Bloggs, I am arresting you on suspicion of nefariously bu**ering the pope'.

Whether anyone wants to listen to what I have to say, is totally up to them.

Just my two Dinhars worth.

[PADI-Paddy]

Originally Posted by recurve

In most big companies, it is usually a clearly stated point within the disciplinary system, that a suspension is specifically NOT a disciplinary sanction against someone who is being investigated, but is merely a measure taken to protect both the person who is being investigated, and the company/clients. Until a person has been investigated there can be no presumption of guilt.

As I see it, an arrest by the police is an extension of the same tennet, you are taken into custody in order to protect yourself and others, pending an investigation to establish facts. Only when these facts have been been collected can they be presented in court and a definitive statement of guilt being made.

It should be noted however that although there is no PRESUMPTION of guilt, there are certain powers that are granted when there is a strong enough SUSPICION of guilt. Hence, the point at which someone is arrested, the statement is made something along the lines of 'Fred Bloggs, I am arresting you on suspicion of nefariously bu**ering the pope'.

Whether anyone wants to listen to what I have to say, is totally up to them.

Just my two Dinhars worth.

Precisely recurve:

But hearin lies the problem, whenever one takes a stand wether it be right or wrong and twists everything and anything to suit that stand it looks like anger.

I think your last post is excellent.

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by recurve

In most big companies, it is usually a clearly stated point within the disciplinary system, that a suspension is specifically NOT a disciplinary sanction against someone who is being investigated, but is merely a measure taken to protect both the person who is being investigated, and the company/clients. Until a person has been investigated there can be no presumption of guilt.

As I see it, an arrest by the police is an extension of the same tennet, you are taken into custody in order to protect yourself and others, pending an investigation to establish facts. Only when these facts have been been collected can they be presented in court and a definitive statement of guilt being made.

It should be noted however that although there is no PRESUMPTION of guilt, there are certain powers that are granted when there is a strong enough SUSPICION of guilt. Hence, the point at which someone is arrested, the statement is made something along the lines of 'Fred Bloggs, I am arresting you on suspicion of nefariously bu**ering the pope'.

Whether anyone wants to listen to what I have to say, is totally up to them.

Just my two Dinhars worth.

Whether we use the words "presumption" or "suspicion" in this context is
largely irrelevant. If there is an accusation in a circumstance where to let
the individual continue, MAY cause further loss of life etc. then that
individual IS treated in the same way as if they are guilty.

To do anything other than that in the circumstances would endanger lives.

Ok so we can be pedantic over word descriptions, but the innocent man is
still held on remand in the same cell as the guilty one.

T.

[recurve]

The British legal system often 'hangs' on semantics.

I personaly believe that suspicion and presumption have clear, distinct and quite different meanings, hence there can be more than one suspect to a crime, although it would be quite impossible to presume them all guilty, as to presume one of them guilty, would be to exclude any of the others from such a presumption.

An individual may be detained as a suspect and may well be kept in a similar manner to those who have been found guilty of other crimes, but they are not EVER presumed guilty until found to be so by a suitable court.

The words we use are important, as is our understanding of them.

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by recurve

The British legal system often 'hangs' on semantics.

I personaly believe that suspicion and presumption have clear, distinct and quite different meanings, hence there can be more than one suspect to a crime, although it would be quite impossible to presume them all guilty, as to presume one of them guilty, would be to exclude any of the others from such a presumption.

An individual may be detained as a suspect and may well be kept in a similar manner to those who have been found guilty of other crimes, but they are not EVER presumed guilty until found to be so by a suitable court.

The words we use are important, as is our understanding of them.

I know exactly where you are coming from and not so naive to understand
why the terms are as they are, but ...........

When there is the need to protect human life, there comes a time when
the presumption of innocence in its truest sense, may lead to less of a
vigorous response than neccessary. Indeed, perhaps the possibilty of
tainting an individual only with the possibilty of guilt, may stop you or I
making that whistle-blowing decison.

For that reason while I fully endorse the principle, the reality is very different.
In life or death situations no matter how you word it, the end result must be
to remove the individual from the circumstance, until the facts can be
assertained.

T.

[darthmoll]

this thread has gone mad.

Let all the people that are rattiling on about presumtion of guilt send their loved ones to an instructor who thinks that it is ok to teach in water too deep to stand up in, and while they are learning , PADI can carry out a QA enquiry.

[John N]

Originally Posted by darthmoll

this thread has gone mad.

Let all the people that are rattiling on about presumtion of guilt send their loved ones to an instructor who thinks that it is ok to teach in water too deep to stand up in, and while they are learning , PADI can carry out a QA enquiry.

What he said.

Arguing semantics is obviously great fun but the answer to the original question is very simple.

[PADI-Paddy]

I would still like to know what PADI said when you contacted them to report something you yourself did not witness, ?