This is a very emotive case. The police are in charge of all such incidents and they control the scene. If the ambulance service were told not to enter the area they must do as they are instructed because an injured ambulance person is another problem to manage. I can understand the ambulance service problem and feel sure it was not simply amatter of them not wanting to deal with the injured. We should now wait until home secretary has looked at the situation and the findings will hopefully be made public, then we can make comment.

Read the Coroner's comments in the paper today and I fully agree with his comments. Whilst there a number of criticisms of health and safety rules, I find it absurd with technology today that the emergency services could not properly communicate because their radios worked on different frequencies! Now, if you cannot foresee that in a serious incident this could cause major problems what is the use of understanding the term 'reasonably practical'?

Incidentally, following similar criticisms about health and safety red tape at the 7/7 inquest I agree that the emergency services should accept to a degree that they may have to put themselves at risk in order to save others. Sadly these type of incidents fuel the notion that there is too much health and safety - as opposed to it is poorly interpreted and implemented. My criticism is not just based on those in the blue light services, but also the authorities and regulators who sometimes do little to promulgate the concept of proportionate h&s.

John M the term is not as low as reasonable reasonably practicable it is FAR as is reasonably practicable. There is no need to go as low as possible that is what is probably wrong with the current legal set up, even the European court found the term as far as resonably practical fits the general requirement because it is a relatively sound basis to work from.

John the term practicable means capable of being done successfully as opposed to the term practical which means good at making or doing things, or involving experience or actual use rather than theory. Racticable has a much more specific meaning in the word capable and in H&S law means that everything needs to be able to do something successfully which after all is most important to H&S as it means doing something correctly rather than what is easiest.

I am sorry but this debate is taking very technical and slightly pointless. the solution to this sort of incident is simple- arm all police officers. Virtually every country has its normal officers armed and this does not cause any problems, apart from the US were everything seems to be different.
If you apply the principles of dynamic assessment the ambulance service were probably correct to avoid sending their people into the high risk areas until they knew that the gunman was contained. It took that long to get an organised armed response which is why people were left possibly bleeding in the street.
Just because someone is in an emergency service that is no reason to expect them to put their lives at unnecessary risk.

I have yet to read the report, but for how many people did this decision actually lead to death? I know it caused considerable delay - but I always despair when I hear about rescuers lost to saving others. When does the life of any of us become worth more than one (ourselves)? When do I have the right to ask you and your family to forgo your life to save mine? Volunteer, or not.

Loosing rescuers because they rush to our aid is the human way - but please do not make it part of the job description that anyone "taking the public shilling" should be willing to die in my name.

An ambulance technician probably weighs up the risk of the drunks and the offensive - but not an armed person already known to be a killing spree.