Posted By Paul T9 I’m a fire fighter but not involved in this and I am also a member of IOSH a couple of my colleagues have asked my opinion on this. Please read but remember that AUG 6 may well apply here. http://www.dailymail.co....rvices-stood-waited.html

Posted By martinw Paul I am not a FF but having attended a number of incidents which were dicey to say the least, it bugs me to see such 'under-reporting'. In my experience, people had to be dragged back from trying to help rather than standing back responding in the way that the article suggests. Whether it is the red mist or not, that is not my recollection of anyone's attitude who attended any situation at which I was present. And that included fire fighters, who were more likely to carry out controlled procedures - actually going into danger rather than going away from it - which to me as a police officer at the time looked bloody dangerous - but I did not have your training, or experience.

Posted By Paul T9 The thing that concerns me is the risk assessment and its justification. In my opinion the recovery of the casualty could have been carried out safely using ladders and lines. I would use a ladder down the bank and a fire fighter on a safety line with minimal risk if all necessary precautions are taken (Lashing of ladder, rescue line on casualty for removal, etc) which looks like what was initially planned by the first fire crew. Instead a crew 50 miles away was called presumably attended under blue lights so probably putting themselves at risk? Not to mention the fact that limited resources were tied up for a number of hours. What made the hazard so bad that the equipment and expertise on hand could not deal with it safely? Also it says a boat was used I would like to know how they got it in the dike, maybe using ladders and lines? Andy darkness is not normally a problem, as the fire tenders normally carry a number of portable lighting units that can be set up and the vehicle may have a mast light too.

Posted By Dave Merchant There's a civil case pending so AUG6 applies - this thread cannot continue.

Posted By FAH As an ex-firefighter myself, I am always interested in reports of events that I know are an endemic part of the Firefighters [& other emegency services] normal working lives. I agree with the immediately preceding comments & do not wish to discuss this event in isolation anyway. So, may I offer a way of avoiding the application of the AUGs by suggersting that the example quoted is but one of a growing number of events that are visible examples of the way in which the emergency services have now so thoroughly adopted the idea of risk assessment without [perhaps] actually have a sufficiently thorough grasp of the actual concepts that underly risk assessment [that should get a few people going!!!]. I'm off to the secret bunker now. Frank Hallett

Posted By D H Paul - will there be an FAI? That way there may be more information forthcoming. But i suggest that you push your union to get the answers to your questions. This scenario or similar will occur again in the future. You and your colleagues need the guidance on how to deal with incidents in this rapidly changing world. I can understand the lead officer stopping the rescue as in reality if you arrived over an hour after the accident and he was face down in the water he was already dead. Lead officers have to take their team safety into consideration - and in my experience, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - hindsight is a wonderful thing! The guy at the top has to stand by his decision - and I think he should be given the respect for making that call - as he will certainly have to back it up at a later date. Dave

Posted By Crim I don't know if the fireman's priorities have changed but when I was in the job the first priority was always to safe life. (or at least have a go). This is where H&S does actually get in the way as I am sure without the risk assessment the crew would have been down in no time at all with the casualty. There is no way of knowing if the man was alive or dead but at least they would have been seen to be having a go. In that case (and knowing only what has been reported) there should have been a man with a line around his waist sliding down the bank within minutes, he would have been safe until the rest of the crew got down by ladder. The fire appliance would have adequate lighting on board to light up the immediate area. I was involved in many rescue attempts, all quite dangerous, otherwise there would be no need! We always joked that we ran in when everyone else was running out. That is what the job is all about. The Brigade I was in for 25 years have not lost a fireman on duty since the second world war. Shame on the officer that made the decision. I hope he is now retired, if not please resign and do not take the pension.

Posted By Crim If you carry out a risk assessment of descending a steep river bank with water at the bottom during the hours of darkness you would end with a high risk, possible fatality, and recommend that if you have to go down there to do it in daylight with specialised equipment to hand. The emergency services are there because of life threatening incidents and should be prepared to "go to the edge" in the interests of saving life. That's what they are trained for and that's why most of them are in that job.

Posted By Mark Eden Would we still be having this conversation if any of the emergency services had been injured or killed attempting to recover the unfortunate dead person. I was in the Fire Service, our creed was "we would always risk our own safety to safe a life, assess all risks and put strict safety procedures in place to recover a deceased person and not put our personal safety at risk to save property. So please don't berate the emergency services - the saying of "dammed if you do dammed if you don't" seems to be the order of the day in this particular unfortunate case.

Posted By Mark Eden Bill Please read fully what was written- I did not refer to a deceased person as asset or property

Posted By martinw Are we in the situation where health and safety regulations need to be means tested for applicability? I work in an office, and also go out in my car(irrelevant danger level for this post) to do my job. I write stuff and type stuff. At no time do I, by choice, deliberately endanger myself because it is expected of me due to the job which I do. But I am subject to the same regs as FFs. I am not bigging anyone up, to use the parlance, but is there a case to say that realistically, eg RIDDOR is less easily translated in situations where the risks are dynamically changing? How can you judge a failure to risk assess when the risks change by the second? Isn't that one of the reasons why the armed forces and professional sports people are not subject to the same H&S as we are?

Posted By FAH MartinW Re your last post. Could you explain why you raised RIDDOR please? Also:- As previously identified, I was in the firefighter business - and in the area of almost civilised Essex where I spent most of my time it certainly wasn't unusual to be required to assist or retrieve all sorts of living [sometimes ex-living] beings to safety. If it was identified that there was no life to save, normally, the urgency to act was recognised as being at a much lower level. However, to ascertain that there was no urgency frequently required a series of very rapid decisions with minimal information & a range of pressures to manage. Generally, In the first instance, until we KNEW that there was no life to save, we acted as if there was a life to save. These actions were always based upon the very sound and unavoidable tenets of HSWA S2[2][c] - the requirement for "such information, instruction, training & supervision as is necessary" to work with the maximum degree of safety whilst still carrying out the job of saving life. In the current political & h&s climate however, I perceive a creep away from such active & pragmatic management of these volatile situations towards a greater desire to not make contentious decisions, to not want to be "second-guessed, & above all, not to be in a position where that someone could be prosecuted or sued. The first 2 are simply inexcusable - the 3rd is entirely understandable given that there is serious doubt by many that their employers [inc senior officers] will support them if such a situation arises. I know that if I hit the "post response" button, the storm will descend - but here goes. Frank Hallett

Posted By Andrew Murdy It is easy to jump to conclusions from a newspaper story. Emotive headline, one sided reporting, 'indicative but generic' picture and the job is done. A few facts mixed with opinions and the reader's mind is made up and bad things have happened and someone is to blame. Reading this and other stories makes it clear that you can't believe what you read as an appropriate basis for making decisions about anything except the person who wrote the story.

Posted By Andrew Murdy @ Martin Not really - you just need to be careful making assumptions based on a story written from a source with a vested interest (relative with a claim most likely). On the face of it, stories of this nature are 'risk assessment stopped someone doing something so I lost something or someone precious'. In fact, the story could be 'brave decision prevented further loss of life' or 'nightmare of decision making'. In the US, more firefighters lose their lives than anywhere else (source NCIS or some such TV show). Apparently because they jump in and then think (same source). I could believe this fact (anything prefaced with 'In America' or 'On the Internet' is always a fact), taking a storytellers view point, or I could do a bit more digging and understand what is happening out there. Whatever happens, making a decision about the effectiveness of health and safety legisation based on media coverage is hardly going to be valid, scientific or appropriate.

Posted By martinw Andrew I thought that I simply asking a question. I did not make any assumptions. FFs do indeed carry out dangerous and risky activities as part of their jobs. My question about the efficacy of H&S legislation is simply that: I haven't even looked at the article.....

Posted By Andrew Murdy And that is the issue. A few lines, slanted to support a position, and we can make a risk assessment. I have no idea what the area was like, what the lighting levels available where, how stable the bank was, how deep the water was, how much and what type of equipment was available, etc. from the story. All I know is what I've been told by a journo reporting on the story and his source is pursuing a claim. Professionally, how can I make any assessment of risk based on the information we have available?