Daily Telegraph article. http://www.guardian.co.u...refighters?newsfeed=true

Let's be fair, that although the details have come through the unreliable press, it's clear not attempt was made to save this guy's life. My comments now relate to similar incidents that have occurred recently and not specifically this tragedy as I do not know enough of the circumstances. I could write reams, but will pose one question: The fire service are not allowed to declare life extinct as they are not medically qualified. But they are encouraged to carry out a DRA and determine a body is dead, despite that they could not approach the body to assess for any signs of life. The DRA's findings led to no rescue. Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? The fire service are being forced to retreat into a cowardly position of only accepting 'risk elimination', rather than aiming for acceptance of a 'tolerable risk' when devising a rescue plan. It's a disgrace and makes me embarrassed to have had a 32 history in what was a fine and proud rescue service, but is now a body recovery service. :(

it is a real problem that is being highlighted again and again with the 2 PCSO's being unable to rescue the drowned child, and other cases recently. What is really worrying in the wake of the italian ferry sinking is what would happen if this happened in the UK? We have NO underwater rescue capability in this country (apart from a tiny police underwater search team, that aren't geared up for rescue ). By the time the Navy, or civilian companies had been mobilised, in our cold waters, a similar disaster could have had a far worse outcome. Phil

I often wonder who is actually advising / devising Health and safety policies and procedures for the Fire Service / Police etc? It seems that those on the ground are being advised / instructed from control rooms and cannot make decisions without the green light from someone completely remote of the actual situation. It is time the Health and Safety systems and procedures for the emergency services are subject to a complete review.

In the light of the last posting... I have long taken the view that the person who actually controls how the task is done is the person who should be carrying out the risk assessment. Only they can evaluate the real situation at the time. This could be the line manager, police officer on the ground, etc. The system should be such that the health and safety team is able to advise, help and respond where the assessor feels that they need support. Of course, this presupposes that appropriate systems are in place and training given. For the record some time ago I devised a system for COSHH assessment for chemical exposure that achieved just that. The client's operation covered a vast geographical area with many outlying operations with differing and often quickly changing workplace conditions. It was simply not possible for the central health and safety department to provide up to date risk assessments for all situations. Managers, with appropriate training, could operate the system, with support from the health and safety team. One of the problems, I believe, is that because of the fear of claims, etc., health and safety has become too centralised, in many cases with the result that those making the decisions too far from the real workplace, sometimes not even with the appropriate expertise in health and safety. Perhaps time to take a critical look at how we organise the health and safety approach? Chris

Chas, many thanks for the link to the website in #6 above. We can see from the information provided by the emergency services that this was not another failure of systems or standing by helpless to act. The responses within that article from Hampshire F&R paint an entirely different picture to the sensationalised account by the newspaper. The newspaper obviously chose to ignore those relevant facts or perhaps did not have them to hand at the time. Either way it suited their purpose of furthering the safety myth. You may disagree with the assessment made under dynamic conditions but I fail to see how one could go on to suggest that this tragic incident somehow demonstrates that systems/management/H&S guidance have become too risk averse. p48