The substance of the complaint seems to be that a panel set up to examine the circumstances of cases referred to it and reach a measured decision wants to have time to actually examine the circumstances and reach a measured decision, rather than leaping to an immediate conclusion. How dare they presume to do what they were set up to do when the Daily Mail wants a sound-bite - obviously the whims of the tabloid press should take priority over everything else.

If I had to choose whether or not to instruct an employee to enter cloudy water of unknown depth because a seagull appeared distressed, I know what I'd do, and it wouldn't be to prioritise the life of a seagull higher than even a small risk to a person - and I'm far from convinced this is a small risk anyway.

The only question this story really raises is why anyone from the fire brigade attended at all.

"Councillor Sean Brennan, Liberal Democrat leader of Sutton Council, said: ‘The fire brigade provides an excellent service every day. However, this doesn’t sound the most efficient response to an animal rescue. They may want to reflect on how they handled it.
‘What we all want to see is a sensible approach to health and safety and things have got out of perspective."

I would agree!

At least the seagull lived to fly another day...


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co....risky.html#ixzz1ruFuFzPc

I have drafted risks assessments for our staff to go out and shoot seagulls.
You don’t need that many people to do that job safely.
Happy Friday.

Funny I wonder how this bird manages in the sea which is often a little more than 3ft deep? Looks like the fire brigade could be very busy round our coast!

I can't believe I have wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this thread. Not a criticism of Ray for posting it but to the daily fail for such a stupid article. I live in hope that as each generation is being better educated (contrary to the daily fail's brown tinted spectacle views on education), demand for this dreadful rag will start to dwindle.

I understood the purpose of the panel was to determine whether people were using "for health and safety reasons" as an inappropriate excuse. The only people suggesting this seem to be the Daily Wail themselves.

Notable too that the person they identify as "Joe Public" is actually and experienced animal rescuer.

"Seagull?" there ain't no such animal!

You still can't go around shooting gulls unless a particular gull problem has been declared a threat to public health and even in then it's only so far is neccessary to deal with that particular problem. And shooting should be the last resort!

I don't particularly like Gulls and disagree with them not being on the pests list but they are.

Safety Smurf
As I said we are the government, and we have all of the necessary permissions signed off by secretaries of state etc for our work.
I was just trying to get a Friday thread type point across about how many people it takes to safely rescue a sea gull (Larus spp) as oppose to how many people we would use, when engaging in our work.

The Daily telegraph has more facts, i.e.!

http://www.telegraph.co....isky-for-25-firemen.html

That's a weak response by the HSE It doesn't really say anything??? - I hope they do better in future.

As usual with our gutter press, they seem to have got it wrong: From the LFB's website:.............
http://www.london-fire.g...tNewsReleases_PR2966.asp

Firefighters were called to reports by the RSPCA of a trapped seagull on Carshalton Ponds, close to North Street in Carshalton SM5 on Saturday 7th April. The Brigade was called to the scene by the RSPCA as an emergency and the Brigade always takes calls from such organisations seriously. Firefighters arrived on the scene at 1407 and the incident was declared over at 1411.

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson said:

“The RSPCA called us out as an emergency. Our firefighters rushed to the scene only to realise they’d been called out to a seagull with a plastic bag round its leg which was swimming around quite happily and wasn’t in any distress. This clearly wasn’t an emergency so the firefighters left it to a local animal rescue charity to deal with and swiftly left the scene.”

“Often, by the time our firefighters arrive at an incident, someone has waded in to try and rescue an animal only to get into danger themselves, so we send enough crews to deal with whatever we may find. The safety of the public and our firefighters is always our priority.”

Firefighters were not stopped from entering the water due to health and safety protocols. Just this week, LFB crews were called to rescue a man after the bulldozer he was driving fell 40 feet down into a quarry pit. When they realised the man’s life was at risk, the firefighters acted outside of normal procedures and risked their own personal safety to lift him out and save his life. London Fire Brigade’s firefighter are trained to make difficult judgement calls about when it is right to risk their lives in order to save another.
__________________________________________________

Just one thing to add is that the fire service despatch resources using a pre determined amount of crew and kit. For an incident involving open water, the usual local crews (in 2 pumps) would be supplemented by 2 rescue units with a boat and water safety equipment, plus a control unit (a mobile office on wheels). The same 'attendance' would be sent to a grass fire next to a stream as would be to the Thames.

Over the top? Maybe. However, doing a task on or near water that cannot be risk assessed before hand does not give you the luxury of bring exactly what kit and crew you need, as a result an entire toolbox is sent to aid a rapid response and of course, allowing a SSOW

How odd that the rescue of the bulldozer driver by firefighters putting their own lives at risk was not front page news in the Daily Mail as well. However that could have meant the story wouldn't have legs - or wings in this case!

Today Richard Littlejohn was given a full page to give vent to his 'elf an' safety prejudices. Amazingly he too was unable to find space in his diatribe about the life saving actions of the firefighters and the bulldozer driver. Of course that LFB factual paragraph would have shown his article to be tripe. Presumably Mr Littlejohn's £800,000 salary [Source: The Guardian] would be reduced if he told it as it really was!!

The most delicious irony was served up at the Leveson inquiry in February. The Guardian reported on the Daily Mail's millionaire editor Paul Dacre's evidence. Quoting directly from the 7th February edition:

'He [Dacre] said his paper had written hundreds and thousands of stories and the inquiry was alighting on a few negative examples. The British public were being given "a very bleak, one-sided view" of an industry that employs thousands.'

Much about the same way as he presents health and safety in his paper to 'the British public'! As one of his journalists might put it: you couldn't make it up. Mind how you go!!

Cheers.

Nigel

PS The spellchecker highlights 'firefighters' and suggests the alternative 'firelighters' should be used.