He article that redKen directed us to infers that the people who are complaining about the current H&S law and the corporate Manslaughter act, about this are not the front line people who have to put their lives on the line to save people but their managers back in their safe warm control rooms who are worried that under the current legislation if they make mistakes they may lose their nice jobs and pensions. Lions led by donkeys anyone

Redken, Can you justify or qualify in what context IOSH is constantly endorsing the nanny state etc. etc. Specifically in context of emergency services? Also, refer to HSE's "Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Fire and Rescue Service" . In no way does it prevent the emergency services from undertaking their role except that it expects. I will also question what training (initial/additional) would have been required for the use of new harnesses or was it just a case of bureaucracy/operational decision. I am not going to be popular, and in no way does this diminish the professionalism and dedication of individual fire fighters, but some of their unions, especially the FSB does indeed use health & safety as a bargaining tool for other matters and sometimes we get outcomes that perhaps are more to do with "collective agreements" than health & safety legislation per-se! http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/fire/duties.pdf

firestar - that is where I think that the whole 'needs to go on a training course' has become ridiculous. It seems everyone needs to go on annual training to use a stapler nowadays. I think it's money making thing and of course the likes of IOSH (and others) will endorse that training because they do a lot of the training courses (....and counting for this post getting pulled by the mods for using my freedom of speech and little bit too freely!!!) IMO, whilst I do appreciate the need for some training courses, I think it has become OTT and a money making scheme for the providers and a backside covering exercise for management. That's not real H&S IMO.

firestar967 I share your concerns with the concept that emergency services MUST put themselves at risk, ultimately it should be up to the crew attending to make that desicion on scene, however, I also think that quite rightly after every incident/sortie etc there should be a full and frank debrief, but it should be borne in mind that in most cases the crews don't have the luxury of weeks to pick the bones out of a situation, something that most inquest and press reports I've seen seem to fail to acknowledge. Being ex RAF SAR, I'm aware of the understanding that the MoD have with the HSE, though am unaware if civillian emergency services share the same 'luxury'. Would a similar 'understanding' be a better middle ground if (we are to believe the press) desicions are being made by 'higher ups' afraid of manslaughter prosecutions?

I would suspect that most fire services have some form of debrief procedure, I know we have. However following a protracted incident this process can take some time in itself so not entirely a solution, but a valid point all the same.

Firestar, I accept that there is a lot of equipment on a fire tender and training or refresher training may be needed periodically but, surely with a crew of fire fighters one or two could have been trained in the use of a harness? I also agree with Claire, it appears that 'training' is getting in the way of getting the job done. We all know there are a lot of training providers out there providing a service, sometimes for no good reason, but surely not everyone has to go on a training course for basic skills? There is such a thing as 'train the trainer' and it seems to me it would be worthwhile for the fire service to train up some in-house people, saving time and money.

brian hagyard Walpole park pond gosport man left, police wait for specialist services. Grandson stood with woman who reported River Meon Mislin Ford, Kids swimming 4yr old slips police officer can't go in there, friend ran up field went in and pulled kid out. The answer is the same apart from add my in front of grandson, and friend as served together and known for years and no not taken from papers taken from grandson and mate, so yes are one sided.

I have the greatest respect for the emergency services and their staff. The point I was making seems to be lost on one individual that because of unworkable H&S policies, procedures and arrangements emergency services staff are fearful of Health and Safety Legislation and the prospect of being prosecuted. Health and Safety should not be getting in the way and preventing emergency services staff doing their job. Take the Cumbria shootings as an example where because of what were cited as Health and Safety reasons Para Medics where held back from going to treat/assist seriously injured people. That cannot be right.

On the last point, the definition of 'heroism' has been bouncing around for a while as part of the 'Striking the Balance' discussions between HSE, Fire&Rescue, the Police, and Crown Prosecution Service. Striking the balance being the agreement on a common sense application of H&S law to the emergency services. The HSE, Fire and Police all agree that genuinely heroic acts that seek to save others should not result in the prosecution of the officer concerned for endangering their own safety. Unfortunately the CPS will not sign up to ruling out such prosecutions.

Cliveg, Don't forget that there are 2 systems of law at work here. The HSE can say all they want about not prosecuting the emergency services under H&S; however, the common law decisions (including whether to prosecute the charge of Gross Negligence Manslaughter) are made by the CPS. In the case of Atherstone, it appears that the HSE did not think there was enough evidence to charge but the CPS thought there was. Organisations will protect themselves and so will produce procedures to deal with some circumstances and then use a smokescreen to cover the rest (the expression "Dynamic Risk Assesment" springs to mind). The problem is that, in defending themselves, organisations will often investigate those who depart from procedure with a zeal that would be envied by the Spanish Inquisition (whom, obviously, no-one expects). This means that we produce 'process followers' rather than 'risk managers' i.e. people are more afraid of the organisation's response than doing what is possible and effective. I agree with others here: when there is nothing useful you can do, you do nothing. However, I can think of several incidents when nothing was done - or worse, an untrained person was helped into the hazard zone - when the lowest overall risk would have been to put a trained person in with control measures. Again, the culture within the organisation is an important factor in how employees feel they can act. To clarify one point, there is no requirement for emergency service personnel to do anything when they arrive - all they must do is respond to the incident. There is no possibility of a charge of Corporate Manslaughter against an emergency service unless a person is killed on the service's premises. There is only the charge of GNM against people who are there at the scene and who don't use appropriate skill and knowledge and peopel are killed as a result. One wonders how the CPS thought about the operation at Atherstone!! As always, the organisation appears to be defended and the PBI is still at risk. The provisio is that the personnel on the ground aren't going to be charged if they are wrong; they would have to be grossly negligent or reckless. The message is clear: follow the organisation's procedures and you will be safe from prosecution.

CPS have at last issued guidance which will make it virtually impossible for any police officer or fire fighter to be prosecuted for carrying out an 'heroic act' - provided no one else is endangered by that act. The CPS conclude that no jury is likely to convict where that officer or fire fighter were acting to save another, nor will it be in the public interest to seek such a prosecution (presumably because of the press clamour). However, none of this will stop over-interpretation or disregard for H&S by management within the emergency services. I'm really not sure this changes much.