Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By srd
Anyone see tonight's (Monday October 22) programme on ITV regarding claims that 'Health and Safety' legislation is preventing the emergency services from saving lives in situations where their own lives would be put in danger?
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Sorry, didn't see the programme. However, I am in complete ageeement with a fire chief who will not send his lads in to save a possibly already lost life at the expense of their own.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
Yes - watched the program in disgust from a safety professional point of view.
However, the need to protect is a basic function and heroes will go in no matter what.
If my wife and kids were at risk (including grandkids) then no hesitation.
However, these people are at work and need training and guidance.
I asked my wife if I should have jumped in for that child and she said - "you cant swim" and he was under water for a period.
The ladder climbing was not clever either - what about ladder extending 1 mtre above landing area so to keep 3 point contact? lashed or footed?
In my opinion the questions were turned to show us in a bad light. I also felt the HSC woman could have been more specific as to why workers are required to follow training and rules - she let the trade down badly.
And that is maybe the problem here - is our governing body totally in touch with the media - ie - get rid of the conckers ideas that we give people.
The HSE need to get strong here - and silly cases of the fire brigade getting improvement orders for fitting smoke detectors do us no good at all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Parry
I did see the program, I also agree the HSE did health and safety no justice.
However I disagree slightly with the rest.
I agree that risking your life to retrieve a body is pointless, although being ex military I do see the point.
The water was cold and children have been known to have been revived after over 30 minutes so it may have not been pointless.
Firefighters, police and other emergency services are there to protect and help the public. Doing this can at times be a fine line balancing risk and cost (death). Putting it another way why do we send armed police to a bank raid or hostage situation ? they may get shot. Why do firemen enter a property when people are reported inside ? its dangerous. God forbid we send the military out...they have dispensation by the HSE .... getting killed and maimed is ok.
Getting back to reality, yes we do need rules but they also need to be flexible. They operate in emergency situations that quite often don't fall into "we can plan for this" event. In short Staff need to receive relevant training prior to facing the risks not after eg swimming / rescue techniques, its not rocket science.
I agree IOSH media need to be on this yesterday !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
It's the same old question of getting the balance right and allowing competent professionals to make decisions themselves.
Take for example the firefighter who jumped into moving water and saved a girls life. He broke the rules (i.e. no fire fighters to enter moving water) to do so, but at the end of the day it should be his decision to make, he knows the situation and his limits, not the person making rules sat in an office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Hi everyone,
I watched it and thought that it did us safety people no favours at all. I would fully support the community police for not entering the water 10 mins after the child had gone under.
Yes, there will always be heroes, and its brilliant that some folks are prepared to risk their lives for others, and possibly if the child was still visible then the police may have tried to rescue him, which would have been great, but sense seems to have prevailed.
Incidentally, there were fishermen at the pond, why didnt they help? Why waere the kids allowed to play in or around the pond? There are a lot of responsibilities that could be used as blame, however, its the police that are copping the flak, unfairly.
Only this morning there was a report that 3 British adults and a German had drowned tryingh to save 2 children in the sea in Portugal. Ironically, even though the "heroes" drowned, the children survived.
Oh and as for the ladder fiasco, lets not get too excited about it. We should expect the media to drag these things up to justify why H+S is a bad thing.
Interesting to see the surely inevitable IOSH reply..........
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
I did watch some, I turned over after about 10 minutes though.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
I don't actually believe it did much at all.
The fire brigade clearly stated that contractors were better set up to do the bunting removal and that these sort of jobs are a waste of their time.
The police stated that the PCSOs had arrived long after the child had been in the water (the fisherman had been their the whole time. They also stated the reason they hadn't climbed the ladder at the church was because they didn't need to. Looking at the way the bloke used the ladder he won't have far to his permanent resting place.
The HSE promoted sensible risk assessment and would not be drawn into an obvious blind alley and the presenter did a weak job of pointing the finger at them.
Nobody knows how they will react in an emergency situation and people who criticise others for not reacting as they would expect are on shakey ground.
The political party shown are all about headlines. Perhaps their leader would be better off dressed in a spandex suit with a large 'S' on the front.
Overall a lot better than it could have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
I think yesterday's tragedy in Portugual where four people died trying to save three children (who all survived anyway) is clear indication of why entering the water is not generally a good idea unless you are very sure about what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
From my Search and Rescue days, many of the bodies we recovered were of potential rescuers trying to do the right thing even though it was beyond thier training and ability.
Whilst I'm not a fan of the PCSO policy, I agree that they were right not to enter the water given the lack of training, effecting a rescue when wearing clothing is pretty hard to do!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark W
Unsurprisingly this programme leaned towards yet more unhelpful and biased rhetoric by the media who seem intent in discrediting all things H&S. I thought this was an editorial policy limited to the tabloids but it’s now progressing to mainstream TV. Wouldn’t it have been an unexpected surprise to watch a programme highlighting the number of lives that may have been saved by sensible and practical H&S initiatives, but then of course that would be creating a positive outlook, an attitude which is in very short supply in the British media.
Regarding the tragic drowning case, surely the obvious point requiring answering is what was done to try and prevent the hazard in the first place, not the actions or decisions made after the loss of life had occurred? Many in our society appear passionately intent on always trying to find someone else to blame when sadly the root cause often comes closer to home. None of us in fact know the true full facts of this incident yet, but on face value the PCSO’s were probably quite right in not entering the water under the circumstances.
I agree with the sentiment, if a life is already obviously lost what is the point in endangering another? (Military exceptions accepted of course) Mind you this case aside, I would like to learn the justification why many emergency service workers, including the Police are no longer provided with the basic life-saving skills that include swimming proficiency? What next, not providing training for nurses in basic hygiene methods, surely that would never happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
I always thought that firemen were trained professionals first and heroes second. Someone who jumps into a river to save a childs life without much thought for their own safety may be called a "hero" as they are not trained for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Kane
On this subject! I thought that the HSC were evasive in their answers and simply quoted the rule book. As did the chief superintendent. He seemed more intent in keeping his proverbial out of the dock. I'm not saying that a person in the emergency services should risk their life just because "we expect them to" but allegedly the PCSOs did absolutely nothing. The fisherman may have been a none swimmer as may the PCSO but again nothing was done by him. What's the world coming to when H+S is being the reason for someone NOT to do something in an emergency. We are after all human beings, there was a child drowning and all people can bicker about is H/S legislation.
We are all different and react in different ways. On another day there may have been someone there who may have tried a rescue attempt. It's a tragedy that we find ourselves asking these questions of the HS profession when we all know that it does a lot more good that harm.
BK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I tuned in expecting a kicking (the introduction was very biased, but McDonald likes to do that) but I found the reporter presenting the programme was far more balanced in her comments than I expected.
I thought a neutral person watching this programme would have been able to make an informed opinion, and that many people would have come out in favour of h&s rules.
As alluded to above, she gave all the answers herself, and it was only the poor mother (for whom my heart goes out) could not yet see that we cannot always expect someone to risk more life for one already lost.
I have never endangered my life for others, there has never been the occasion, thankfully - but I know I have limits.
The fireman jumping in the water took his own decision, it doesn't mean the rulebook is wrong, it means that he stepped outside of its protection. That is his choice - it is not for his employer to write it into his job description though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
I watched the whole programme & thought that Mr.Average will be biased by it to think that H&S is more red-tape produced by persons who are "more-than-my-jobs-worth" philosophy. The "profession" has created this myth by poor maangement - with that I think IOSH members are generally "creating the right image".
I thought it interestign that when one force is being prosecuted for breach of H&S laws (killing of an innocent man in tube) - this program was aimed at criticising a police authority that had its members abiding with H&S rules - coincidence!?!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.