Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: Double D on March 12, 2011, 06:00:40 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365272/Emergency-services-left-man-floating-face-lake-half-hour-health-safety-reasons.html
-
I can't reply to the post Audie as I would be banned from Mayhem for my comments >:-o >:-o >:-o >:-o
Ned
-
I can understand the need for caution but there really should have been no problems with that amount of help at hand.. >>:-( >>:-(
-
One of the first duties of a first responder is to insure your own safety and when a victim is floating face down the chances of live recovery is low. Having said that I do feel from reading the article that there was a lack of proper response from them. They could have used a line around the retriever and been safe.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
They should have got on and done their jobs, health a safety taken to that exreme is only for lazy paople and their boses encourage it. Too many emergency personnel nowdays quote health and safety when they do not do their job properly, that is PC speak for "I am too lazy to do it" but I like taking the money. >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Brian
-
I'm retained firefighter for Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service. We've all been trained in water rescue techniques in both moving and static water, we'd have gone in without doubt or any hesitation. You're trained to evaluate the risks, these were very, very minimal in these circumstances. They would've known the area and knew it wasn't very deep. I may be wrong but I think ALL fire appliances throughout the country carry water gear including DRY suits, buoyancy aids, life jackets, throw lines etc. All appliances in Staffordshire carry the gear mentioned, it takes minutes to put on, if needed. We're trained to go into a burning, smoke logged building with unbreathable atmosphere and near zero visability but these lot couldn't go into a 3 foot deep pool, it stinks, and I find it quite embarrassing. It's Health & Safety gone stupid again, they were probably too scared of being reprimanded for not going by the book. Fire Authorities are very good at writting rules and 'operational procedures' and using them as 'get outs' if anything doesn't go as planned. Dave. {:-{
-
if an exservice person had been their he/she would have pulled him out as my wife said when i pulled a woman out of a blazing building your mad but your a saint but then we had no h@s then back in the 60s
-
Having had a friend (d/sgt) die in the river Clyde in a successful attempt to save an 8yr old boy from the river
and another P.C. blinded by the chemicals that used to be in the water in a separate rescue I can only say
I am disgusted by the attitudes shown in Hampshire - I'm most surprised that someone there didn't just
ignore their control room and go in anyway. Things have certainly changed in 40 yrs.
Geoff
-
I personally have gone into water to try to rescue a drowning person. I failed but would not have been able to sleep if I had not tried. I have also gone into a burning building in an attempt to rescue people.........It was just part of the job and we ALL did it.
The protection of life comes first and that means trying to help those in need, not leaving them because they are probably dead anyway.......I am disgusted.. <:( <:( <:( <:( <:(
-
: ‘I’m furious that witnesses and the emergency services stood by and watched while waiting for the specialist team to drive all the way from Fareham
Seems the "Witnesses" were ineffective too, and who called the emergency services? No excuse for ANY involved.
-
Seems the "Witnesses" were ineffective too, and who called the emergency services? No excuse for ANY involved.
Good point. But we must first assume that the report is accurate - it may not be. But if it is then humanitarian considerations dictate that all those present should have attempted to do something even if it did look as if the casualty was already dead.
There are instances where it would be foolhardy to put your own life at risk in a situation where it is doubtful if it would do any good, entering a fast flowing river or very rough surf for example, but this was an inland model boating pond and it should would have been easy enough to ascertain the depth from the edge and proceed with caution from there.
Colin
-
Not the first and sadly this will not be the last H&S excused for leaving someone to die. We had a worse one in Scotland a few years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12525016
Rescue claim over Alison Hume mine shaft death
An inquiry into the death of a woman who fell down a mine shaft in Ayrshire has been told a specialist cave rescue organisation should have been called.
Alan Jeffreys, a leading member of the Scottish Cave Rescue Organisation, said its members had practised such rescues.
He was giving evidence at a re-opened fatal accident inquiry in Kilmarnock into the death of Alison Hume, 44.
She suffered a heart attack on being rescued after six hours down the shaft near her home in Galston, in July 2008.
Mr Jeffrey's told the inquiry, at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, how his team of Edinburgh-based volunteers could have been on the scene within 100 minutes of being contacted by the emergency services.
He said such a call was ruled out by a police sergeant who said he was "quite happy" his police mountain rescue personnel could cope.
Mr Jeffreys, 69, said: "The ethic of cave rescue teams is to get the casualty out as quickly as possible. Get them to the entrance where they can get proper medical care.
Ms Hume's family have called for better rescue co-ordination
"Hypothermia can be an issue. We have a 'Little Dragon' in a dispenser that can warm the casualty up."
He also said that a specialist piece of equipment, called a Larkin Frame, could have been used to provide leverage for a rescue but admitted his group did not possess one at the time.
A joint training exercise was arranged between his cave volunteers and Strathclyde Police, but not until after Ms Hume's death.
The inquiry had previously heard how Ms Hume's rescue was delayed as firefighters who volunteered to be lowered down were over-ruled by senior officers for health and safety reasons.
The probe was adjourned at the end of March last year after Sheriff Desmond Leslie finished hearing evidence.
Legal history
He decided to reopen the inquiry in August after receiving a letter from a retired fire officer asking to give evidence as a late witness.
Sheriff Leslie reopened the inquiry for a second time on Monday to hear evidence from Mr Jeffreys.
It has now made legal history in Scotland as the first inquiry of its kind to be re-opened twice because people were unhappy with the evidence which had been led in court.
Speaking after Mr Jeffrey's evidence, Sheriff Leslie said: "I think that concludes the inquiry. I don't anticipate there is any possible evidence which we have not already heard.
"Any further proceedings would be straying into the territory of a public inquiry, which is not our remit."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12610863
This poor woman was 6 HOURS with fire fighters above her and they HAD the rescue equipment in the unit they had but a "senior officer" banned them from going down due to "health and safety" , in other words a "senior officer" that should be sacked from his job and jailed for manslaughter. She lived for 6 hours after being found but died shortly after being taken out , had they done the job they wanted to ( the fire fighters were more than ready to go down using their rescue equipment it was this idiot of a manager that stopped them ) she would still be alive today
-
What seems to go wrong in these circumstances is a lack of intelligent risk assessment on the part of those present. Instead you get a default to no risk and people die who could have been saved. For intelligent risk assessment read common sense. The problem is that if the senior person on the spot makes the wrong call, instead of being commended for doing their best in frequently very difficult circumstances, they are in practice opening themselves up to a possible charge of manslaughter. Emergency services staff should be given appropriate training and then allowed to exercise their personal judgement which should be backed by their superiors. In emergency situations it has to be recognised that sometimes there will be an unfortunate outcome and mistakes may be made but the important thing is that those present did everything possible to the extent of their ability and this should be recognised. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if you are put on the spot you have to make immediate decisions and it is good training which will give the best hope of a positive outcome. If things don't work out, well that's the way it sometimes happens and there should not be an immediate rush to pin the blame on someone.
Colin
-
you can only ask why call 999 for the emergency services if when they attend the scene they are not going to deal with the situation in hand ? as an area surrounded by water ( gosport being a peninsula ) youd have thought all emergency services in the county should be capable of entering the water at any time ?
-
Absolutely PATHETIC how can those SO CALLED emergency service personnel sleep at night let alone live with themselves they should RESIGN immediately HSE MY DERRIER
Stav
-
Very ....... very well said Colin. :-))
We appear to have had the ability to 'think on our feet' removed from our psyche by the subversive conditioning of the 'Bleeding Heart Brigade'.
Saving life or limb used to be a reflex action and not a 'considered option'. {:-{
-
I hope that the personnel involved are now feeling embarrassed and ashamed for taking money us as tax payers.
They are clearly in the wrong profession - I would suggest a course in how to become a manakin !!!!
-
One sentence spring to mind on this
PROFFESIONALLY INCOMPETENT AND NOT FIT TO BE IN THE JOB BEING PAID TO DO
Stav
-
Whilst in Glasgow I was about 6 weeks in to Police when a lorry driver stopped and said "there is woman in the river (Clyde)
so I ran round to Carlton place foot bridge in the Gorbals to see about 40-50 people on the bridge watching something in the water
about 50yd downstream.
It was late march and freezing so I ran down the bank and stripped off and jumped in and swam to where she was last seen,
I dived down a couple of times but could now find her and eventually had to come back to the bank. I stiil don't know why I did it,
I think it was becuse I was a PC in uniform and felt I had to try as it was my job. I was petrified as the river was running reasonably fast
and ended up in hospital for a stomach pump (chemicals again) and was ill for three weeks. When I went back to the training school
after being ill all I got was "theres that stupid B that jumped in the river, should have had more sense"
But I honestly believe that most of them would have done the same thing.
As to the people on the bridge this is the first but not the last time that I came across the apathy of the general public (not all)
Its alright not theres there police. Obviously with H @ S that is no longer the case
Geoff
-
Geoff,
You did it because it was the right thing to do and all credit to you. That is the absolute truth of the matter irrespective of what anyone might say about your action. You did what you could and despite the outcome you have the peace of mind that comes with the fact that you 'did your duty' and can take pride in that.
Colin
-
You have to remember that the story was in the Daily Mail, so we probably haven't been told the whole (true) story.
-
Also reported in Yorkshire Post {:-{
-
You have to remember that the story was in the Daily Mail, so we probably haven't been told the whole (true) story.
On what basis do you make that comment. Political ? A legitimate question I believe, as this is a tragedy not a point scoring exercise.
Did you not see the reports in other papers, including the Guardian, Mirror, Sun and Star, even the 'BBC' carried it, or look at the pictures in the reports showing the aftermath.
A poor bloke died here when there is a reasonable chance he may have survived and in my view such comment is beneath contempt.
I suffered a fractured spine in 1972 rescuing a driver from a burning lorry on the A1. He survived and I was paralysed from the waist down for seven weeks until I could have surgery and nearly 40 years later I'm still suffering. 'No compensayshun' in those days and the Daily Mail didn't carry the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nor did any other paper except to say that there had been an accident and that traffic was delayed.
The definition of Police in those days was ' A Constable, Locally Appointed, for the Protection of Life and Property and the Prosecution of Offenders against the Peace'. Seems to me that it has changed to ' Look after me and nuts to the rest'.
I have other comment but refrain from using it.
Minus regards
John
>:-o >:-o >:-o >>:-( >>:-( <*<
-
In one of the photos I note the air ambulance sat on the grass.
I take it that no one considered suspending a fireman - sorry fire person - in a harness and recovering the casualty in that way.
or would the written risk assessment have taken too long, and needed to be signed off by too many people.
obviously it was not a case of " right, water looks shallow but we don't know what the bottom is like, I want one volunteer to go in, and the others on a safety line on him incase he gets into trouble "
I mean to say, that's not what 'managers' do is it, make quick decisions and then stand by them, much easier to take the easy option and do nothing, and stop anyone else from doing anything as well.
what a pity there wasn't a TV crew there, you wouldn't have been able to see the water for rescuers then !!
-
i cannot see that any of the emergency services wouldnt know what the bottom of the lake is like , it was drained only last summer ! there was a report in our local paper about this poor gent on friday . hed only gone to feed the many swans that also enjoy the lake @ gosport . its a pity that with all those members of our first response teams ( paid ones ) on hand nobody thought to use the equipment in the fire tenders to assist in a rescue !
-
In one of the photos I note the air ambulance sat on the grass.
I take it that no one considered suspending a fireman - sorry fire person - in a harness and recovering the casualty in that way.
or would the written risk assessment have taken too long, and needed to be signed off by too many people.
And probably a redesign of the helicopter
-
madness!
I hope his family don't let this rest, this is incompetence on a biblical scale
-
As an Ex-boy scout I would have had a go at rescuing him, Only only health and safety risk there would have been the shock to passer bys as my semi naked body emerged from the water,
1 rule if I remember rightly was never get wet unless you need to, use rope etc to trough to the victim, if the victim is unconscious you then go in, there were plenty standing around so a human chain could have been formed out to the victim,
I feel health and safety is used as an excuse to may times these days, mainly by people not wanting to bother to do things, will have to remember that at work, sorry I can't drive that vehicle because Health and Safety says I might have a crash, Or even better Sorry I have to stay in bed all day reading my boat books and going on MBM because health and safety says if I go out something might happen. I wonder how long anyone would keep their jobs?
-
Health and safety is important.... but as others have said its being used now as an excuse.
I was up on the roof earlier clearing snow, and yes I did have a safety harness on, but I didnt fill in a risk assesement form, I do not have an NVQ in harnesses and harness management, or for that matter snow and snow clearing, but I got up there and did the job
Oh and horror of horrors the biggest error of all!
I did not wear a dayglo vest!
:police: :police: :police: :police: :police:
-
Health and safety is important.... but as others have said its being used now as an excuse.
I was up on the roof earlier clearing snow, and yes I did have a safety harness on, but I didnt fill in a risk assesement form, I do not have an NVQ in harnesses and harness management, or for that matter snow and snow clearing, but I got up there and did the job
Oh and horror of horrors the biggest error of all!
I hope you had your safety hat on
I did not wear a dayglo vest!
:police: :police: :police: :police: :police:
-
I was drawn to the comments posted below the body of the article. Sure enough - this being the Daily Mail - it seems that at least one upstanding reader would attribute these shortcomings to a) David Cameron, and b) "huge" public sector pensions. Nothing changes much, does it?
-
I was a very senior fire officer for 30 years and back in the day, the officer in charge at an incident used his knowledge and experience to deal with things as they saw fit.
If things went wrong it was always because of a lack of information rather than recklessness, the safety message was " one hand for the job, one hand for yourself ".
Split second decisions were recognised as such by us senior officers and huge allowances were made for that fact when deciding how to react to personnel being injured and even killed.
Over time the Health & Safety Executive decided that every service injury/ death was avoidable if only the service would follow rigid protocols and so they were introduced, simply to protect line managers from prosecution.
The H&SE was warned what would happen before the changes were made, but they failed to understand.
Now the H&SE recognises that people are dying unnecessarily, but it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. There have been too many careers destroyed by H&SE's over-reactions to failure to follow protocols for it all to go away any time soon.
H&SE still won't define what is acceptable, merely stating that in future they will "recognise" the difficulties in always obeying the written instructions, but none of those instructions have been torn up and each one can be used against you in court.
-
I blame, in part, the rise of those "Injury Lawyers For You" type-parasites who are helping to turn us all in to scaredy cats, frightened of a big hit from a potential insurance claim.
It's nonsense. >>:-(
Andy
-
I blame, in part, the rise of those "Injury Lawyers For You" type-parasites who are helping to turn us all in to scaredy cats, frightened of a big hit from a potential insurance claim.
It's nonsense. >>:-(
Andy
Quite true, If my kids fell out of a neighbors tree I wouldn't sue them, but some would.
Actually happened to me when I was a kid.... I fell out of a neighbors tree while I was stealing his apples. For my troubles I had a broken wrist, a clip roun t'ear from the neighbor for stealing his apples And another from me dad for getting caught lol
-
Look to the future
House on fire
Too Hot
Ship Sinking
Too rough
I understand that some safety parameters would need to be addressed
The natural thing to do as a Human is to help
I overheard a teen on his mobile yesterday
'I fell but I can't sue cos they had a wet floor sign'
This is life on earth as we know it
Ned
-
"I was a very senior fire officer for 30 years and back in the day, the officer in charge at an incident used his knowledge and experience to deal with things as they saw fit."
I think this shows the problem clearly, he was a "fire officer" not a "manager".
As such he doubtless knew his job, his men, his equipment, and their capabilities.
He also, dare I say it, most probably had the backing of his senior officers, who had also done the job, and was willing to make informed decisions.
unfortunately now adays it seems that any inclination to take risks to do ones job is immeadiately smothered, mostly by managers who don't know what they are doing, and are s**t scared of making a decision.
pass the H&S manual, open to page one, read "Don't do anything," carefully close manual, ensuring fingers are clear, and then, using safe manual handling techniques return manual to shelf.
makes you proud doesn't it !
-
unfortunately now adays it seems that any inclination to take risks to do ones job is immeadiately smothered, mostly by managers who don't know what they are doing, and are s**t scared of making a decision.
pass the H&S manual, open to page one, read "Don't do anything," carefully close manual, ensuring fingers are clear, and then, using safe manual handling techniques return manual to shelf.
makes you proud doesn't it !
The problem is not the upper management itself, modern senior officers are as outraged as the general public, but have no choices.
The H&SE spend six months considering a decision that had to be made in 10 seconds and then decide to prosecute because of "errors" and management's failure to enforce the "proper procedure" in the past has cost some people their job. Why would you allow someone to use their initiative if it will cost you your job, even if you never attended the incident.
The four Warwickshire firefighters who died in 2007, entered the building to search for casualties, a command decision that took moments to make.
If they had not gone into that building to search and people had been trapped inside, they would have suffered the same bad Press as so many others before and since.
Now, over 3 years later, the HS&E have decided to prosecute the incident "managers" for manslaughter by gross negligence because the exact "safe" procedure was not followed and no doubt some will be jailed.
Fire service managers therefore obey the rules, after all the H&SE know that their actions are causing avoidable casualty injuries and deaths and remain unmoved.
Parliament could solve this tomorrow.
-
Kinmel,
thank you for clarifying the situation. I did not intend any disrespect to those people who do try to do their job professionally.
The trouble as I see it is that according to H&S there is no such thing as an accident.
the police these days refer to RTCs rather than RTAs for this very reason, and because there is no such thing as an accident, then someone must be responsible for anything that happens.
however, if you continue this to it's logical conclusion, and lets be honest there is nothing logical about most of H&S policy, then the person ultimately responsible for the final outcome of any occurance must be the head of H&S, because if there are no such things as accidents, what happens must be as a result of the policy laid down by his department !
or is that the point where the goalposts suddenly start moving ?
-
The basic problem is a break in the chain of accountability. H&S set the rules but they are not accountable for the way they are applied. Blame stops at the operational level. It is is classic case of power without responsibility.
Colin
-
what has me worried is we are going to end up with a generation that wont take a risk.
just think what would the world be like with no risk takers.
Empty for 1 because mankind would have died out very quickly if no one had taken the risk of killing for food, playing with fire, sailing around the world to prove its not flat etc.
where does it leave us for the future?
-
what has me worried is we are going to end up with a generation that wont take a risk.
I think this is a very valid point. Thirty-five years ago I was eager to go to secondary school since they ran a sailing club. My years, up to the end of my A-levels, were focussed during the summers on sailing and racing dinghies. The winters on prepping the boats for the next year. A real risk of injury and potential drowning for one; power tools, varnish and paint fumes, the other. I loved it - the responsibility of being given a boat and a crew to look after, when just in my teens, coupled with the excitement of sailing and racing against my peers. :-))
We had H&S, of course - basic training, life jackets and a rescue boat (oar powered!). But it wasn't anything like as strict a process as it would regretably be today. I've no doubt that the paperwork required these days - release forms, risk assessment forms, disclosure forms, accident report forms - would put many schools off even bothering, which would be a real loss to both teachers and children in terms of the experience and fun they could gain.
Andy
-
Unfortunately too may of our emergency services seem to be staffed with senior officers who just want to cling on to their jobs "without rocking the boat" until they can claim the pensions...We all ready know from the 7/7 inquiry that the H&S guidelines/laws have caused major loss of life
What we need is a change in culture at the top...We need Senior Police, Fire Service and other emergency service leaders tell the gutless rubbish that govern this country, that you have to take risks in order to save lives...
-
Although I agree with most of whats been posted here, there are some other points to ponder.
For a start...don't go off the deep-end when politicising newspapers. Whether you agree with them or not....you'd be in a fine and ignorant state without them.
Secondly, you can't just blame any one political party for the rise and rise of the H@S lobby. There was little or no reaction from anybody (you, me or the politicians) as it was an insiduous "creep" into our society....and we all woke up too late.
During my "working life" the RFA appointed a Ch.Engineer in charge of "Safety" (no mention of Health) way back in the early 1980s.
Quite sensible, and a good idea (we thought). But then "Empire Building" came into the equation, and the whole concept became more and more intrusive. I imagine that the same progression pertained within local councils and central Government. Then the idea of being a "Health and Safety" expert must have seemed to be a good wheeze for some otherwise unemployables. And so, like Topsy, it just "growed and growed". And the Human Rights Acts as interpreted by our civil service and judiciary really just compounded the whole thing.
How to stop it? I don't know, but asking one beaurocrat to sack another these days seems to be an impossibility. Perhaps the French did get it more or less right with their Tumbrills and Guillotines! BY.
-
Yet another H&SE persecution..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12737728
Stunt expert cleared in Batman cameraman death trial
An Oscar-winning special effects expert has been cleared of health and safety breaches over the death of a cameraman during filming of the last Batman film.
Christopher Corbould, 53, had denied failing to ensure the safety of Conway Wickliffe, 41, who died during a test run for an action sequence.
The father-of-two suffered severe head injuries and died at the scene in Chertsey, Surrey.
The accident happened during filming of Batman: The Dark Knight in 2007.
Mr Corbould, 53, had denied failing to ensure Mr Wickliffe's safety during filming for the movie starring the late Heath Ledger.
Guildford Crown Court was heard Mr Wickliffe was leaning out of a car when the vehicle failed to negotiate a bend and hit a tree.
An inquest hearing in Woking, in November 2008, ruled his death was an accident.
Mr Corbould, of Woodlands Road, Bookham, Surrey, won an Academy Award at this year's Oscars for his work on the film, Inception.
Jurors were told Mr Corbould, who has almost 40 years' experience in special effects, was in charge of the Batman crew as they filmed the second part of an action scene, which they had started in Chicago.
Three rehearsal runs were carried out without incident but when they did their first test shot "something went dreadfully wrong".
The 4x4, travelling at about 20mph, failed to make the necessary left turn.
Mr Wickliffe, who did not have his seatbelt on, had his head hanging out of the open window and it was crushed between the tree and the car.
Mr Corbould, who said he was devastated by his colleague's death, said everyone had been briefed on what they should be doing during the stunt.
He said Mr Wickliffe had a duty of care to himself, which included wearing a seatbelt.
'Misguided prosection'
After his death, Mr Corbould was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter but police decided to take no further action and the incident was then taken up by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Outside the court, solicitor Chris Humphreys said Mr Corbould and his family were tremendously happy with the verdict.
"We always thought from the beginning that this was an ill-conceived and misguided prosecution by the HSE," he said.
Heath Ledger Heath Ledger, who died of an accidental drugs overdose in 2008, played The Joker in the movie
"The police decided within two weeks of this tragic accident that there was no-one to blame and it was a tragic accident.
"World-class actors do not put their livelihoods and wellbeing in the hands of people that don't put their health and safety first.
"Directors and producers do not entrust that kind of money to someone that doesn't put safety first."
The HSE said it took the decision to prosecute Mr Corbould following a thorough investigation to determine the exact circumstances surrounding Mr Wickliffe's death.
"It would be inappropriate for us to comment on the verdict, that is properly a matter for the court," said a spokesman.
Heath Ledger, 28, who played The Joker in Batman: The Dark Night, died of an accidental drugs overdose the following January.
The film's closing credits carried a dedication "in memory of our friends Heath Ledger and Conway Wickliffe".
The HSE said it took the decision to prosecute Mr Corbould following a thorough investigation to determine the exact circumstances surrounding Mr Wickliffe's death.
No the proper way to examine the full circumstances is an inquest or fatal accident enquiry NOT a persecution/prosecution wasting hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money just because the little tin-pot dictators in H&SE demand they "have their own way"
Time to scrap the H&SE start again making damn sure everyone knows that first and foremost YOU are responsible for your own actions and to use some COMMON SENSE !!! <*< <*< <*< <*< <*<
-
Unfortunately too may of our emergency services seem to be staffed with senior officers who just want to cling on to their jobs "without rocking the boat" until they can claim the pensions...We all ready know from the 7/7 inquiry that the H&S guidelines/laws have caused major loss of life
What we need is a change in culture at the top...We need Senior Police, Fire Service and other emergency service leaders tell the gutless rubbish that govern this country, that you have to take risks in order to save lives...
Oh, but they did and they continue to do so.
It is not for career professionals to dictate the Laws of the U.K., they must abide by them and wait for the politicians to make the policy changes necessary.
Hampshire Fire Service's Incident Report (http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/news/stories/recentincidents.htm?newsid=58702&textid=201103101217) puts a different perspective to the the Mail's story.
-
An example of H&S and PC gone mad,
At a University xyz in Australia their H&S officer is a compulsive smoker, who smokes on the job.
His duties also include implementing and enforcing the University's no smoking programme.
When challenged the University's PC response was his smoking doesn't affect his ability to do his duties. <:( <:(
Excellent instances of leading by example and don't do as i do but do as i say. :(( :((
The current generation is lost.
-
"Hampshire Fire Service's Incident Report puts a different perspective to the the Mail's story."
I was always trained that the only person who could certify a person as dead was a doctor, and that until that time efforts to resucitate / treat should continue.
also, how do you ascertain that someone in a lake is sadly not alive [ie dead] without going near him ?
sorry, but this does not change anything as far as I am concerned.
ps how do you 'quote'?
-
"Hampshire Fire Service's Incident Report puts a different perspective to the the Mail's story."
I was always trained that the only person who could certify a person as dead was a doctor, and that until that time efforts to resucitate / treat should continue.
also, how do you ascertain that someone in a lake is sadly not alive [ie dead] without going near him ?
sorry, but this does not change anything as far as I am concerned.
ps how do you 'quote'?
Correct, :-)) :-)) :-))
The report :(( :(( only reflects one point in time not that he could not have been saved by those first on the scene, O0 O0 O0 the thrust of this thread.
-
I was always trained that the only person who could certify a person as dead was a doctor,
Had a similar response many moons ago when I was a bus driver, I called up on a code red to centercom (London transports center of communication ) saying that the A3 was blocked due to a fatal accident, the response was a sarcastic "Oh we have a train doctor driving a bus do we?" I had to point out that when you see a motorcycle hit the back of an artic some 6 foot from you and the crash helmet still containing the head bounces of the windscreen of the bus you are driving, it normally means its fatal. I then got reported for swearing on the airwaves after I may have questioned the operators parentage and mental capabilities
-
Hello, Our lake has sloping sides and I have forgotten the number of pushchairs including the infant that has gone into the water, did we think of what to do, did we H**L, in we went and rescued the child. The parents/grandparents were in a worse state than the child.
The other day a fellow member collapsed with a suspected heart attack, there we were doing CPR until the paramedics turned up. Did we stand and stare, no, we tried our dammest to help this member, I am sorry to say to no avail, I agree with the majority of the postings about H & S. Nemesis
-
ps how do you 'quote'?
You reply by clicking the 'quote' box on the top right of the item you want to include in the quote....
-
DER !
thanks for that, I was copy / paste and then trying to work out how to do it.
-
"Hampshire Fire Service's Incident Report puts a different perspective to the the Mail's story."
The different perspective in their 'Incident Report' is more than likely what is well known as 'The Mandy Rice Davis Defence', given when Mandy Rice Davies was questioned in Court as to what Lord Profumo had said on oath about his involvement with Christine Keeler.
She replied "Well he would say that wouldn't he".
The Fire Service report would be, I suggest, carefully written so hopefully no Senior Officer would be held responsible in a prosecution.
It is very sad that the Emergency Services have to run this defence these days and I must say if any of us needs rescuing, please let the first on the scene be from the 'Old School of get the job done ans answer questions later' Brigade.
Watching the horrendous destruction and loss of life in Japan on the Television, I couldn't help but wonder how on earth some HSE Official from the UK would manage to progress with his 'Rescue Risk Assessment' if something like that happened here.
If I was 30 years younger, I would be out of the UK like a shot from a gun.
Cheers
John <:( <:( <:(
-
Sorry chaps, my 'Quote' System seems to have gone awry somehow.
Still the Post is there even though it appears as a Quote.
Must try harder !!!!!!!!!!
John
-
Sorry chaps, my 'Quote' System seems to have gone awry somehow.
Still the Post is there even though it appears as a Quote.
Must try harder !!!!!!!!!!
John
Make sure you hit enter until your cursor is after and below the word quote in brackets as here, [/quote] and then start typing your reply.
-
It has been announced today that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has despatched a team to help in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami.
Whilst holding out some hope for the victims of the earthquake, I would hope that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service leave it to more responsible officers regarding victims floating in more than two feet of water in what may resemble boating lakes.
It just seems a dreadful, dreadful irony. >:-o
-
Make sure you hit enter until your cursor is after and below the word quote in brackets as here, and then start typing your reply.
Many thanks for the advice.
I shall blame it on the drink taken prior to my feeble effort !!!!! :-)) :-))
-
Many thanks for the advice.
I shall blame it on the drink taken prior to my feeble effort !!!!! :-)) :-))
Go get em O0 O0 O0 :-)) :-)) :-))
-
See........you can teach an old dog new tricks :-))
-
That is the smaller lake used by my club and the scene of the tragic accident is no more than twenty yards from the club house. That morning the club along with the Council had been clearing weed from the main lake and must have finished and gone home less than an hour before it happened. Had some members still been around with their knowledge of that lake's bottom I'm sure the outcome would have been different............a sad case of 'If only.......'
I'm sure I can speak on behalf of my fellow club members in sending our sincere condolences to his family and loved ones. R.I.P
MikeK
-
It has been announced today that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has despatched a team to help in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami.
Whilst holding out some hope for the victims of the earthquake, I would hope that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service leave it to more responsible officers regarding victims floating in more than two feet of water in what may resemble boating lakes.
It just seems a dreadful, dreadful irony. >:-o
It looks like Health and Safety have struck again. It appears that a British rescue team has had to be withdrawn because the British Embassy have said that they would be legally responsible for any problems which might arise during rescue work, and they couldn't take that risk.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12756366
It's now beyond irony....
-
Looking at the article it would appear this is a different organisation to the official rescue teams supplied by the fire service -
they are up and running and working with American rescue teams.
Geoff
-
Hampshire Fire and Rescue defended the decision of one of their officers in the local paper last night. They (HF&R) maintained that the decision was correct.
However, I (and many other respondents to the local paper) cannot understand how a fire officer (of whatever rank or calibre) can officially pronounce a casualty 'dead' from a distance of 25 metres. As a previous contributer to this thread has already mentioned, this surely can only be carried out by a qualified person, such as a doctor, who has to have immediate access to the casualty.
Our boat club (just over the water from Gosport) will seriously have to reconsider our Health and Safety risk assessments in the light of what we thought was the availability of any type of rescue service or arrangement.
I suppose we have now to ask ourselvelves the question:
WHO TAKES CARE OF THE CARETAKER? :((
-
I'm also following this story as it's local. It is obvious you cannot count on the emergency services to save you or your family any more, so do we really need them? They will have to do a lot to gain my respect again. To those on site at the pond side watching the assumed corpse floating the word 'chicken' comes to mind. What would they have done if it was their own father floating face down would they have gone in then? I wouldn't expect them to enter a raging river, but come on this is a shallow boating lake!
It is obvious that this is more than just health and safety it's to do with possible litigation issues, and senior management take the easy way out, they are paid well to make difficult decisions to preserve life (they didnt know he was dead) so they renage on their duty to the public and instead cover their backsides - what wimps!
-
There is talk of this over in Finland and general concencus of opinion here is that the Emergency services should face criminal negligence charges. They could not prove as some have already said the person was dead so attempts should be made to save life and by not doing so the are criminally negligent
-
It is obvious that this is more than just health and safety it's to do with possible litigation issues...
Deadbeat is right.
Ever since we have moved to the American system of allowing lawyers to offer 'no win - no fee' services there has been an exponential rise in speculative legal cases. Nowadays insurance companies will sell your details on to solicitors firms if you have an accident, and they will then try to extract every penny possible from the incident. Just google 'road traffic accident' and you will find pages of solicitors sites anxious to blame someone and take the profit.
I note that the police are now calling road traffic accidents "road traffic collisions", because, they say, there is no such thing as an accident, there is always someone at fault. The lawyers must be laughing all the way to the bank....
-
I can see this debate going on for some time & quite possibly getting heated into the bargain. Understandably so!
This world has gone mad. As I understand it, the emergency services are there to help - in an emergency. It's what they are supposed to do. We see it in the movies when they 'put their lives on the line'. Trouble is we start to believe it too. :((
Health & Safety is not necessarily a bad thing but, in the case of this poor man in the lake, it screams volumes. I hope those responsible have a guilty conscience for a very long time & perform much better in future.
I feel like crying.
Condolenses to the family & friends.
DG - My dad always says that there is no such thing as an accident, they are INCIDENTS. On the road there is always someone at fault. Either by driving too fast, too slow, poor maintenance etc. But I do not agree with people getting rich from others misery.
Al
-
DG - My dad always says that there is no such thing as an accident, they are INCIDENTS.
That's a very good saying when it is used to help keep people alert and aware. But it has now been twisted by the lawyers. You will hear it on the TV constantly - 'Where there's blame, there's a claim!'
-
......................Health & Safety is not necessarily a bad thing but, in the case of this poor man in the lake, it screams volumes...................
Al
Quite true Al.
Robens wrote his report in 1974 in an attempt to draw attention to risks, primarily in the workplace.
Health and safety recommendations are not law, but rather placed in law by a plethora of regulations and Acts.
It is the INTERPRETATION (by individuals) of those Acts and Regulations that puts us in the position that we are today. (Or MISINTERPRETATION as the case may be). :((
And, by what I read in the local Portsmouth paper tonight, the Paramedics involved do not agree with the decision made by the fire officer at the scene, and were still rendering CPR in the ambulance on the way to hospital.
Somebody even commented in the 'letters' section that Hampshire Fire and Rescue teams could safely assist in Japan now as the tsunami waters were only ankle deep.
Sadly these firefighters (brave people all) have created their own stigma via an ill-considered response from a leader.
-
It seems that many people here cannot get into the mindset of the H&S Executive and continue to see it as a fire service problem.
In our world people often get into life threatening situations from which they cannot escape without help.
The H&SE consider the consider the priority at such incidents to be avoiding all danger to would be rescuers, professional or not, and they use their powers to enforce their view.
Fire Service officers ARE being prosecuted for doing exactly what you and I believe to be proper and some loose their careers. If a rescuer had been trapped in the weeds at that lake, the H&SE would have prosecuted.
When I used to arrive at a house fire with people trapped inside, my crew got on with the rescues without real guidance, as we got out of the cab I may shout "hose reel" or "Main jet" and nothing more. Now H&SE expect the crew to remain seated in the fire engine whilst the officer does his risk assessment and then climbs back aboard and carefully briefs each firefighter in detail. Not forgetting of course to remind them fire may be hot. Then the crew can each do the job they were tasked for. Nothing else.
If that process is not followed and someone is injured, then you as the officer are in real trouble and you will not be saved just because the big Chiefs are on your side.
It is known to be a nonsense and will continue to be a nonsense until someone calls off the dogs.
The strangest thing is that now firefighters are not allowed to use all their skills and equipment as they see fit, more firefighters are being injured than ever before as they try to cope with these limitations.
There will be plenty more of these "coward" stories in the future.
-
I can't reply to the post Audie as I would be banned from Mayhem for my comments >:-o >:-o >:-o >:-o
Ned
i fell the same way
this is ridicules the police and rescue services are paid to save lifes not to stand there watching people die >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
-
kinmel: I appreciate what you are saying there. Sounds as if you are someone who knows.
'If a rescuer had been trapped in the weeds at that lake, the H&SE would have prosecuted.' How or why? If that was the case I think there would have been an uproar! >>:-(
&
'more firefighters are being injured than ever before as they try to cope with these limitations.' {:-{
Seems to me it's about time the bureaucrats were thrown out on their ears. That way, maybe the emergency services could get on and do their job properly without fear of repercussions & reprisals. Not only that but, think of the money that could be well spent elsewhere on improving equipment.
In addition, personally, I do not think it is a case of cowardice. It's red tape in the extreme. That being the case, maybe there should be a sign by the lake saying 'Anyone entering the water does so at their own risk'. Works in car parks.
Going to have to leave it there else my health is going to suffer. Later guys.
Al
-
The bottom line at least here in OZ, where we have the same ridiculous stupid risk assessment, simply put, is do not try unless you can be 120% successful.
It is all to do with money. Regretably those in power who make these decisions lose sight of the fact that the taxpayer is not in accord with their actions, after all they know what is best for you thats why you put them there?????????????????????????????????????????????
Commentators are correct in saying lawyers are suing and making money out of peoples misfortunes, but there are accidents, if they are not accidents then they must be intentional. That is not to say that there are not contributory influences by either party to an accident. The PC police have got in here as well.
The seat warmers are paid big bucks, not to run the respective Taxpayer funded service such as police, fire, etc, effectively for the publics welfare and benefit but to minimise litigation.
-
We may be making some progress on doing nothing.
Lord Young has published his report on Health & Safety (http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/402906_CommonSense_acc.pdf) and recommends :-
"Police and fire services
Police officers and firefighters should not be at risk of investigation or prosecution under health and safety legislation when engaged in the course of their duties if they have put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act.The HSE, Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service should consider further guidance to put this into effect."
You never know, common sense might win in the end.
-
Kinmel, thanks for posting the link to Lord Young's report. It makes very interesting reading and contains a great deal of common sense.
It may also be useful to model boat clubs as it incorporates references to voluntary bodies.
Although health and safety considerations are important in achieving reductions in ANY type of injury, I am in total agreement that these should be managed on a "considered risk" basis rather than the current "eliminated risk" scenario, where a model on the landing stage can be thought of as a "tripping hazard"!
Well done Lord Young - now lets see if anyone else takes notice....
Danny
(no - its not "our Bryan" elevated to the peerage) :-)
-
Heaven forfend! I try to keep well clear of anything to do with the H & S brigade. A bunch of bigotted idiots who just keep dreaming up ways to keep their "jobs". BY.
-
well if the guys in charge care about there money wich they do there law just lost them another person worth of taxes and vat
-
health and safety has gone completly beyond sensible ! a couple of years ago when i required a new hi vis coat i visited a local safety shop . the assistant when asking my purpose for the coat then informed me that if working at more than 6" from the ground i needed to wear a fall arrestor , when i asked him what i was to attach it to he was stumped , as both the highest and lowest point on my vehicle are the same ! lets all go back to common sense ?
-
I attended a ten day (one day per week) H & S course about 30 years ago, courtesy of the TUC as I was a 'workplace representative' (shop steward in old money). (Now you know what happened to your Union subs... )
There were 10 people on the course, including 2 from Chatham Dockyard, two from Fleet Street (where they were still carrying molton lead round in open buckets) and 2 from a large aggregate company (who managed to kill a person the previous year! The dockyard guys were involved with submarine installation using some dubious form of adhesive to stick insulation to the walls/ceiling of the sub. The adhesive ran down their arms producing dermatitis and a severe rash. Oh yes - the insulation was asbestos! (The dockyard management had thoughtfully provided an extractor fan when some of the workforce fell unconcious).
The stories these guys told was a real eye-opener as to why H & S was (and is) important. They risked DEATH or SERIOUS injury every day in the normal course of their work. It made me think that ther Victorian chimney sweep boys were not so badly off after all!
During the 10 weeks, we studied legislation, inspections, negotiations and representation - in fact everything to do with H & S at that time.
At the end of the course, we were told that, although there was no exam or any qualification, we were in fact, better qualified than many of the "professional" H & S consultants, who had actually only been on a four day course. According to the Young report, this appears to still be the case!!
So you may well understand my frustration when I hear of the ridiculous interpretations of the "Euro" additions to the Act and the obvious money grabbing enticements of the legal profession which has resulted in the current "sue for anything" state of affairs.
There is a place for considered judgement of H & S in the workplace, but it must be done bearing in the mind, NOT the wishes of the self interested legal jackdaws, but the safety and well-being of the employee.
Arrrgh - time for a spell in the workshop (with suitably displayed Factories Act 1961)
Danny
-
The big problem is not that some of the H&S requirements are stupid (though some of them definitely are!) It lies deeper than that.
The problem is that we have moved from taking responsibility for our actions to a state where we expect some authoritative body to take that responsibility for us. So now there is a huge growth industry in setting standards and providing statutory advice for all kinds of activity, and another comparable industry of consultants who interpret this compulsory advice on behalf of the few people remaining who are trying to earn money. By now all of the sensible advice has been given , but to stay in employment the advisors need to think up more and ever more detailed additions...
Someone should point out that the only wealth this country has comes from the money earners, and if too many people try to make a living of providing compulsory advice to them then our economy will simply collapse...
-
There was a time long long ago in land far far away called OZ that when an industrial accident occurred it was investigated by a safety officer who figured out how it happened and how to prevent the same accident happening again using commonsense and all was well in OZ.
But as time moved on the safety officer was overthrown by the forces of darkness and taken over by the 'Health and Safety officer' who was now empowered to prevent all accidents no matter where and before they happened using any and all means available.
Alas commonsense died that day and a pall now hangs over the once happy land of OZ, which had spread throught the world.
<:( <:( <:( <*< <*< <*<
-
Here on Anglesey the water training School Indefetigable former HMS, is busy with boats from Liverpool and the Cheshire Brigades, keeping their skill's fresh, if this part of the country do it, I have no doubt that other Brigades do the same training. H&S killed this country years ago, introduced for all the best reason's, then handed to people who now see it as job's for the boy's, and how many more lives will be lost due to a lack of common sense?
Andy.
-
You might say that everyone has now been caught up in the 'big picture' phrase where a couple of casualties/deaths is acceptable so long as the majority survive its called risk assessment.
Simply put Example, far better to let one die than to risk 4 trying to save one, you don't even consider that the 4 might succeed, that is not part of the risk assessment which is worst case result, that is all dead so no go, so you don't allow the 4 to try.
Also commonsense plays no part in H&S. <:( <:(
On the bright side there are still individuals out there who can still apply commonsense so there is hope. :-))
-
You might say that everyone has now been caught up in the 'big picture' phrase where a couple of casualties/deaths is acceptable so long as the majority survive its called risk assessment.
Simply put Example, far better to let one die than to risk 4 trying to save one, you don't even consider that the 4 might succeed, that is not part of the risk assessment which is worst case result, that is all dead so no go, so you don't allow the 4 to try.
Also commonsense plays no part in H&S. <:( <:(
On the bright side there are still individuals out there who can still apply commonsense so there is hope. :-))
I guess the RNLI will be selling up soon then?
-
An interesting question - fire, police and Paramedic supervisory officers can be prosecuted by H and S for unneccessararily
hazarding there staff but what about the RNLI. I assume because it is a voluntary organisation the lifeboat cox'n
could not be prosecuted on any judgement calls he makes out at sea - Probably the same with the mountain rescue team leaders
but is that being too simplistic.
Comments??
Geoff
-
Hi All,
On a more positive note, found this today, so maybe there is hope that the next generation has some sense, and can still act when needed.
And yes we do have the PC squad here in NZ, but not yet to the extent in other countries.
The Fire Service is considering rewarding two Rotorua teenagers for bravery after they rescued a young boy from a fierce house fire which claimed a woman's life early this morning.
The teenage boys were vomiting from smoke inhalation outside the burning house on Clayton Rd, Rotorua, when fire officers arrived about midnight.
Central North Island Area Commander Graham Fuller said the boys, who were neighbours, had bravely entered the burning house, aware that there were people inside, and rescued a young boy.
Brave lads, who did the right thing, even though they are taught at school, to not enter a burning building, but how to escape the right way, along the floor, so they simply did it together
well done to these two
cheers
kiwi
-
Last year whilst testing out my Type 24 frigate,I saw a young toddler fall into the pond on the far side. I didn't wait to see if the parents were going to do anything,I just sprinted the length of the pond in order to reach the child. Another member of the public saw me rushing round and he did the same. Knowing that the pond is only two & a half feet deep,we both jumped in and grabbed the child,the father was hysterically frozen to the spot,not knowing what to do.Thankfully,the child was just wet and upset,but if I hadn't acted,things could have been much worse. Now under current H&S regs,what would the response have been?
-
The two instances above highlight one thing:
FIRST AID.
This has been the life saver over the years.
On the battlefield, on the domestic front, on the recreational front as well, and in a host of other situations.
Lives have been saved by people's unselfish reactions.
And not by reflecting on recriminations brought about by text, plain simple TEXT.
Well done to the two two New Zealander teenagers for their quick response (and to you Dreadstar), this is what humanity is all about.
-
Police service is still attracting the finest brains in the country....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/05/salvagers-arrested-scrap-recycling
-
They have obviously nothing better to do in Gloucestershire - it's not exactly the crime capitol of the southwest
That Supt. must be a right plonker if he thinks that was a measured response to the "crime"
Geoff
-
It depends how you look at it, at the end of the day theft is theft. Be it 47pence pounds on million pounds
But it does seem an awful waste of resources
++Makes a note to return the pen he took from work this morning++
-
But it does seem an awful waste of resources...
It makes a lot more sense if you consider that Gloucestershire police might lose their helicopter in the cuts unless they can demonstrate a high number of 'crimes cleared up' by its use.....