Posted By DavidW I know what you mean, but going on the information inthe article I'd say well done to the chap for making what turned out to be the right decision. I can understand the organisation not wanting 'dead heroes' and they have to try and make sure people do not take unnecessary risks but I'm sure he was aware of his own capabilities and hopefully made a reasoned judgement call. I hope that if ever I'm in a similar situation I'll have the guts to do as he did and not sita nd watch while a young girl dies. Sounds like they've handled the situation quite badley if it's resulted in a dedicated volunteer resigning.

Posted By Steve j B "Sometimes you save the life, sometimes you don't" Would you still say that if it was your little girl about to fall to her death??? The guy deserves a medal

Posted By Paul Duell ...and the responses so far just reinforce why I said I wasn't sure how I felt about it! I agree with everything that's been said, both supporting his actions and opposing them. I'm a member of a voluntary emergency organisation and spend a lot of time telling my volunteers that their safety over-rides all other concerns. But I'm equally aware that human nature dictates that most of us, faced with a child about to die (for example) will act on instinct and blow the consequences

Posted By M Forbes Whilst this man is a hero for saving the girls life and does deserve a medal, he breached company procedure. It states in the article that the young girl had been hanging there for 45 minutes, it also states he didn't take the equipment with him "to save time". Knowing that the girl was hanging from a cliff, and that he is required to use a harness to rescue the young girl, he shouldn't have left without the harness. But thats not the big issue, What is surprising is that in a situation where the girl may have been in an unreachable area of the cliff, why would he think it would save time not to bring a harness. In the event he could not reach her without the harness, he would have had to run back for it anyway. The girl had been there for 45 minutes, and a harness is the standard procedure for rescuing someone in a situation like this, to leave without hte harness was negligent, but who knows he may potentially have saved her life. Deepest respect to the man for saving the girl (and i presume many other peoples) lives, but his actions in this case were not in the best interest of the victim, the rescuer, or his company.

Posted By M Forbes Dervan, Never mind where does competence come into it, in a situation such as this what do you even define as competence.

Posted By dervan Competence - was he physically able to climb down a cliff face without a harness? and stay there for an indefinate period? Did he recognise the material of the cliff shale versus rock etc etc, Competence may not be neatly defined in this case but it still exits and I would feel often competence comes with experience - he seems to have had a wealth of both and did not err on the side of caution as a less knowledgeable person might have.

Posted By Crim Why so many "ifs buts and maybes"? This guy saved a life and should be congratulated - end of!

Posted By David Bramall Yes The guy was heroic in his actions, but it does appear as though he ignored his organisations rules and surely this requires soe sort of disciplinary action. All you H&S bods - if you had safety controls in place and someone ignored them - what would YOU do? Discuss DrB

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Everyone seems to be missing the point here, what about the rest of his team. By acting the way he did could quite easily have put other lives at risk because they would possibly had to do ywo rescues if it had gone wrong. Fools rush in comes to ming. If there was a chance the original casualty would have fallen to his/her death then possibly a chance to dive in would have made a difference, but was this the case or was the person trapped on the face or about to fall? It is easy for us to comment but we really need to know all the facts before coming to a snap judgement. Yes we all owe some debt of gratitude to all those who undertake this form of activity, both voluntary and professionaly and it is a difficult thing to make judgement upon. He was judged by his pears and found whanting, possibly because he could have put others at risk so why should they trust him in a future similar case. I know only what was in the paper so won't make a judgement if he was right or wrong, just put it down to thinking how serious was the predicament of the casualty and was his action justified, if it was the descision was he was rebuked for it. But he walked away he was not sacked. Get real some actions can and do make matters worse and more difficult, when this is caused by the inappropriate actions of one individual, the rest have a right for the guilty person to be repremanded.

Posted By Brenda H It always make's me laugh how people make assumptions about situations! The vehicle the guy was in with his workmate got stuck in a field nearby to the cliff edge. He decided to run on and assess the situation whilst they had called for assistance. Apparently one of the other standed persons had had an asthma attack, therefore heightening the criticality of the resuce in this guys mind. The police plane was there shining light on to the cliff and he made a risk assessment of the situation at that time and decided he could take the risk and rescue her. I am not offering my opinion on whether I think he was right or wrong. However, how many time's do we see companies put in over the top procedures which are just not practical in application. I am not suggesting that this is the case either, just a thought. I agree that rules are there to be followed and the story of his stupidity might be what we were reading if he had died (and the girl) in the process!

Posted By Robert K Lewis By the way I see this led to a poll on H&S regulations in the DE this weekend. Cannot be bothered to get upset though. Bob

Posted By Tabs As far as I can tell, the organisation did not ask him to resign, nor did they appear to impose any action on him. There will always be times that a rescuer will want to circumvent rules in times of desperation - we should acknowledge that. The rescuer should acknowledge that they will then be criticised or even disciplined. It must form part of their assessment at the scene. No-one, including the law makers have the right to deprive a rescuer of independent thought and action, but the rescuer must accept the consequences (by that, I mean I sort of have the 'right' to steal milk if I accept the punishment set by society). Well done, him. The girl deserved rescue - so what if she got into trouble twice? We hark on about wrapping kids in cotton wool, saying that falling from trees is part of growing up, then we criticise a girl unlucky enough to need help twice in her life ... I doubt her actions were malicious in either case - just stupid, or childish. I think someone from the MCA should go round to his house and talk some wise words and get him back into the team. Maybe someone should also suggest that rescuers put harnesses on en route (fire fighters do stuff like that) and carry ropes, pegs and hammers from the vehicle if they have to leave it too far away ...

Posted By teaboy just an observation this man appears to be taking some heavy flak for putting himself in danger in order to rescue a girl who was herself in acute peril. He should, it appears, have waited for the correct equipment and backup to arrive, possibly watching the girl fall to her death as he did so. how long ago was it that two PCSO's were crucified in the press for waiting for correct backup and not attempting to rescue a drowning child? it would appear that these guys are in a no win situation with either their employers or the press. makes you wonder why they bother - but thank god they do huh

Posted By teaboy i agree with you, that could have been kept 'in house', we weren't at either situation so we can't make an informed judgement. my point is that what ever happens in these situations, someone will disagree with the decision that was made at the time and the critics are normally those that weren't there. if it was me on that cliff i hope i'd have the bottle to go after her, regardless of who says what afterwards.

Posted By Heather Collins Gary "If H&S had been around a few hundred years ago we would never have made it out of bear skins and caves." You sound exactly like a bonkers conkers journo. What a ridiculous sweeping statement. I do hope you don't mean it. It is because there was no H&S a few hundred years ago that Victorian mine and mill owners got away with treating their workforce the way they did. Fancy a return to that age do you? I didn't think so.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Take a look at this months SHP, for an interesting turn of events: http://www.shponline.co....ame=news&article_id=7084 It appears there may have been another reason why the individual actually resigned.

Posted By dervan why was there not a third option - give the money to the charity?

Posted By Pete48 A good piece of journalism by the folks at SHP-well done. Shame their national colleagues in Fleet Street, or Wapping, or wherever they hide these days, didn't take the time to do it in the first place. When all is said and done; I am still a little sad, but not entirely surprised, that our altruistic hero turns out not to be quite so altruistic after all.