View Full Version : Tribute to the PCSOs for "acting correctly"
"Did not stand by and watch"
I expect you've all seen the news about the poor 10 year old kid, Jordon Lyon who had jumped into a pond in Wigan to try and save his 8 year-old sister, Bethany, and had got into difficulties and how two fishermen "jumped in" and saved Bethany but were unable to help Jordon, and how Jordon's stepfather arrived and also "jumped in". The alarm was raised and two PCSO's (Community Support Officers) arrived who said they could see no sign of Jordon - mind you they did not get their feet wet -and so they radioed for 'Trained Officers' - a Police Constable arrived and he too "jumped in". Unfortunately by this time Jordon was dead.
My own personal opinion is that this is disgusting.
Asst Ch Con Dave Thompson defended the two PCSO's Actions; "we do not encourage police and PCSOs to carry out this kind of underwater rescue, they are not trained" - Well I suggest they get some training from the two fishermen or the child's Stepdad, who had the courage to 'have a go' at least - it was not some raging mountain stream or a Force 10 at sea, it was a shallow bloody pond. I know that emergency services are not supposed to put their lives in danger, and I also know 'most' emergency service personal don't give a fig for that 'rule' - it's gut reaction and instant response to try and 'save' a life that matters, the consequences - but Thompson's excuse is pathetic; THREE brave folk had at least 'tried'.
Mr Thompson paid tribute to the PCSOs for "acting correctly"
The sooner we have a Good Samaritan Law the better!
Good Samaritan laws (Acts) in the USA and Canada are laws/acts protecting from blame those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. The name Good Samaritan refers to a parable told by Jesus in the New Testament (Luke 10:33-35).
In other countries (as well as the Canadian province of Quebec), Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local emergency number, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case, the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed. Such laws currently exist in countries such as Israel, Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Germany, Andorra, and Spain. Violation of the French Good Samaritan law ("non-assistance à personne en danger", or deliberately avoiding providing assistance to endangered persons, can be punished by up to 5 years of jail time and a fine of up to 100 000 €). In Germany, "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance) is an offence; a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. In Germany, knowledge of first aid is a prerequisite for the granting of a driving license.
i would have thought that human nature would have prompted them into some kind of action. It beggers belief that any adult would just stand there and do absolutely nothing. i Doubt they can sleep soundly at night. :~(
Firstly, I'll start by saying yes, I think it would be human nature for many people (myself included) to jump in and try to help if they saw someone struggling in the water. However I personally don't know all the facts involved, so it would be unfair for me to say that these two PCSO's acted wrongly - if there was no visible sign of life from the wee boy, then would instinct still tell me to jump in? I just don't know.
Incidentally, by way of the "Good Samaritan" laws you mention, Bekisman, these two still appear to have fulfilled their requirements. Where jumping in themselves was putting their own lives at risk, they contacted the emergency services for assistance.:confused
alistair harper
21-Sep-07, 21:38
never judge a man untill you have walked a mile in his shoes
think about it how many people were in this shallow bloody pond, they did what they had to
I think the French: Violation of the French Good Samaritan law ("non-assistance à personne en danger", or deliberately avoiding providing assistance to endangered persons, can be punished by up to 5 years of jail time and a fine of up to 100 000 €). would cover it.. But then suppose there are folks who would think that calling a 'proper copper' was good enough...
I do not see how anybody in Caithness, or anywhere else can pass judgement on any situation, when they were not at the scene.
The ACC said that the police are discouraged from jumping in the water.
Remember the 4 Police Constables who gave their lives needlessly on Blackpool beach for a dog. The first one in was very brave - but foolhardy. The other three in an effort to save the first. Incidentally - the dog survived.
If something can be done done - FINE. Anyway it sounds to me as there where enough people floundering about in that water as it was.
'Anyway it sounds to me as there where enough people floundering about in that water as it was.'... I do not see how anybody in Caithness, or anywhere else can can pass judgement' the Stepfather was at the scene, suppose he could 'pass judgement' and maybe another couple would have 'floundered around' enough to find the kid before it was too late
http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Tragedy
I do not see how anybody in Caithness, or anywhere else can pass judgement on any situation, when they were not at the scene.
quite right just the same as a lot of caithness people jumped on the McCann
case without ever being in Portugal.??
Jeemag_USA
21-Sep-07, 23:13
There is something missing in this story, and I agree it is too easy to pass judgement unless you were there or have full and accurate details. It says two fisherman jumped in and saved Bethany, then the step father arrived and jumped in but could not save Jordan. So if the step father is already in the water and can do nothing, how can another two people jumping in help?? If they are community support officers they are not sent out to be leaping into ponds or, if the fact is you are bitter because they don't have the training for that, then why direct blame at them. If you can see no sign of a person in the water and no motion, then where do you start looking when you jump in? Where were the two fishermen, did they rescue Bethany from the bank or did they jump in, were they still in the water? If the Jordan jumped into save Bethany and he was in her vicinity and the two fisherman rescued her how could they not rescue Jordan, was he already sunk and disappeared? The fact so many questions can be raised about the very obscure description of the situation proves that it is not very clear, so very hard to judge isn't it?
This is quoted directly from the BBC news bulletin:
Jordon had leapt into the water at John Pit after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties as they collected tadpoles.
He was trying to support Bethany as she struggled in the six-feet-deep water before slipping from view. Two anglers waded in and pulled Bethany to safety using their rods but Jordon became submerged.
Now the fishermen did not jump in, they went in far enough to give the girl someting to hold on to so they coudl pull her out. Jordon was already gone. So why are you blaming the PCSO's, the stepfather could not find him and the two fishermen were not going to go in for something they could not see?? This anger seems awful misguided to me?
So where were you quoting the two fishermen "Jumped In" part from?
The two PCSOs stood around doing nothing other than shout for somebody else to attend. They were still standing round doing nothing when the step-father arrived, entered the water and recovered the boy's unconcious body during which time he had been joined in the water by a friend and a Police Sergeant who was nearby and responded to the call from the PCSOs.
All that within five minutes of their call for help. If the others could do that then why couldn't the two Muppets who where already there.
A Senior Officer has since explained that the two PCSOs had "not been trained to deal with major incidents"! I've no doubt that the lads step-father and his friend hadn't either, but it didn't stop them.
From the two Numpties making their call for assistance to the boy being recovered by others only five minutes had passed so he couldn't have been that difficult to get to.
Even the Coroner at the inquest could only say that it was "probable" that the boy was already dead so from that I must assume that the whole time period was not of sufficient length for his death to be anything like certain.
The lad himself had more guts than those two. He obviously didn't hesitate to go to the rescue of his sister.
It says a lot that, despite having been at the incident longer than most of the others, both of PCSOs were kept well away from the Inquest so they couldn't be asked to explain their lack of action.
Remember the 4 Police Constables who gave their lives needlessly on Blackpool beach for a dog. The first one in was very brave - but foolhardy. The other three in an effort to save the first. Incidentally - the dog survived.[QUOTE]Yes I do remember the four officers but the circumstances were ever so slightly different.
It was the dogs owner who was tryiing to save the dog and got into difficulties.
[QUOTE]The officers were drowned whilst try trying to save the dogs owner. The area has a treacherous reputation - in 1983 three Lancashire police officers drowned trying to rescue a Scottish holidaymaker who perished trying to save his pet dog.
A plaque commemorating the three officers is on the sea wall close to the site of the recent tragedy. The "recent tragedy" was yet another later drowning at the same location which is notoriously dangerous.
At the 1983 incident, the tide was fully in and smashing against a high sea wall, the man in danger was on a slipway running down from the sea wall to the beach, there was a howling gale and what were described as "high seas".
I think the people of Caithness have a reasonable idea of what that means. Both the man and the officers were all swept off the slipway into the high seas. I believe their bodies were recovered near Fleetwood, which they normally are but one may have made it as far as Morecambe Bay.
The location of the current incident being discussed is a pond on the site of an old coal mine, hence the name, "John Taylor's Pit". I have yet to see anybody swept away by a raging storm on a pond.
percy toboggan
22-Sep-07, 08:09
I have read enough newspaper stories about rescuers becoming victims themselves to wallpaper my downstairs lavvy with 'em.
These officers acted correctly. The area was of water was a big as a football pitch. The depth shelved steeply. Who knows what was underneath? They did not see the lad go in, and thereby had no reference point to go on.
I'd have gone in for one of my own without thinking but frankly no-one elses. Unless I knew roughly where they were.EVen then I would hesitate and weigh up the water.If there were plants sticking up out of it - no chance.
This is another instance of the 'blame culture' we have been lumbered with. The parantes are angrily blaming these officers yet given their apparent lack of supervision of their very young daughter maybe they should look at themselves first. To be honest both of 'em come across a pair of ill educated dopes, who do little for their cause.
Talk is cheap, and internet talk is worth even less. ACtions count and sometimes they need to be considered. They can end up in further tragedy.Two summers ago a fully trained fire-fighter jumped in a mill pond not ten miles from this incident to try to save a young kid - both drowned.
philupmaboug
22-Sep-07, 09:13
Do we know the depth of the pond? Could the two officers swim? It is not a requirement of a Northern Constabulary Officer to be able to swim so the same may be for these two as they may have had a fear of water. Just a thought.
I do not see how anybody in Caithness, or anywhere else can pass judgement on any situation, when they were not at the scene.
The ACC said that the police are discouraged from jumping in the water.
Remember the 4 Police Constables who gave their lives needlessly on Blackpool beach for a dog. The first one in was very brave - but foolhardy. The other three in an effort to save the first. Incidentally - the dog survived.
If something can be done done - FINE. Anyway it sounds to me as there where enough people floundering about in that water as it was.
We are not talking about a dog.
Percy, it seems that the other adults who went in after the lad didn't have any of those difficulties. The police sergeant who arrived within minutes of their call for assistance had no problem with entering the water to recover the lad.
If, as is being said by the people in charge, they didn't have sufficient training to deal with such incidents then that is a failure of the system.
There has been no hint of a suggestion from anybody in the local Police Force that either of the PCSOs could not swim which would have been both a ready made and a more realistic explanation than they hadn't been trained for a major incident.
The excuses, and that is all they are, from the Senior Officer speaking on behalf of the Force means that he is admitting that the two PCSOs had been employed and put in a position which they were completely incapable of coping with.
It doesn't matter if the reason for the situation arising lies with the Organisation or the individual, it should never have occurred.
As for the area of the pond, it matters not if it is the size of a football pitch or the size of a small airport, the boy was obviously, from what happened both before and after the PCSOs arrival, fairly near the bank. At no stage has there been any suggestion from any quarter that he was thought to be anything other than that.
The fact that the Coroner at the Inquest did not indicate, with any certainty, that the boy would already have been dead even if they had acted says he could not have been in the water for a great length of time. Had he been under the water for a period long enough for their to have been the certainty of death then the Coroner would, it is almost certain, have indicated that for the peace of mind of the parents if nothing else.
We here in Linc's have just had a terrible accident happen to a young family out having a Sunday afternoon drive. 2 parents and 7 kids in a lwb land rover. Don't know the details as yet but the land rover went into the local river....15ft deep and 4 of the children have died . 2 passers by jumped in and got all the children out but it was to late for 4 of them, all under 10yrs old. Its been on the BBC news and our local news as it was only 5 miles from our home. How very sad, my heart goes out to the parents. :~( janx
I wonder if the passers-by had the correct training for dealing with major incidents and were fully skilled in how to enter the water to save lives?
I suppose the correct thing for them to have done would have been to call for help and then stand around until people with the correct tick in the right box to say they had been appropriately trained arrived.
It says a lot when two passing members of the public show more common sense, decency and bravery than people who are paid supposedly to be there for the protection of the public.
I think you mean this one?: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7007273.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7007273.stm)
There's more in the right column
Maybe the guys simply were not swimmers! Not everyone is
http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Tragedy
I do not see how anybody in Caithness, or anywhere else can pass judgement on any situation, when they were not at the scene.
quite right just the same as a lot of caithness people jumped on the McCann
case without ever being in Portugal.??
You are absolutely right. I think though, that the main complaint against the McCanns was the fact that they left their kids alone in the apartment, which they admit.
NickInTheNorth
22-Sep-07, 16:40
Yet again my only question is where were the parents? They seem to be quite happy to criticise the people that where there, but the parents should have been supervising these young children at the waterside. If they could not be bothered to do their duty then at the very least they should have provided some floatation vests for the kids.
No-one has any duty to rescue others in the UK - quite rightly. If it is safe to do so then most people would try. The only people that can assess whether it is prudent to try and rescue anyone is someone there at the time. Not us bystanders with perfect 20/20 vision even over many hundreds of miles.
And as a final thought, well done to the 2 anglers there who fortunately managed to rescue the wee girl. Well done fellas.
The two anglers rescued the girl-so the wee boy was right close to hand no at the other end of the watter
You may not expect 'joe public'to be gung ho,but if I was a PC reading this report I would cringe in my shoes.-An whats with blaming the parents,how low can you get:(
Jeemag_USA
22-Sep-07, 19:03
Well Nick does have a point, if people want to throw blame around, why were two children around water that is 6ft deep or more unsupervised?? How long did it take for the stepfather to arrive and where was he before he arrived? Like I said earlier, people are writing stuff that is not quoted from the news story, and we don't have all the facts because none of us were at the scene.
cuddlepop
22-Sep-07, 19:03
Regular readers of this column will know how hard I find it to
resist a heart-warming story – so here I go again. Lifeguards have
praised a 14-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome who leapt into choppy
waters off Whitsand Bay, Plymouth (in south-west England) in an attempt to
rescue a drowning Polish student.
Will Clancy was taking a walk along Tregantle beach on September 16
with his mother and other members of his family when they came across a
distressed young women shouting for help. The girl frantically explained
that her boyfriend was in difficulties in the dangerous waters and that
another friend had been in the water desperately trying to keep him
afloat.
Will immediately stripped off his top and dived in, pounding through
the waves to where the swimmers were, held the student until the
lifeguard arrived with his board, and they both then helped the young lad
back."
Tragically, the 25-year-old Polish man did not regain consciousness and
was pronounced dead on arrival at Derriford Hospital.
Will’s mother, Trudy Pas, said: "Because of his Asperger's, he can be
single-minded. He just sees things in black and white; there's no middle
line. If he sees someone in trouble, it's automatic for him to go and
help. But we've also brought him up like that anyway, to know right
from wrong and to help people."
Will I appreciate the view that perhapse these "plastic" officers were not trained in water rescue I'd like to share this story with you.:D
Perhaps if the police had drowned in attempting to rescue the boy then we would be lauding them as heroes irrespective of the fact that we'd be more accurate in condemning them as stupid?:confused
Well, if some Police Officers can't swim, it makes a nice, easy escape for any villains they might be pursuing!!
"Just take off over the river lads, PC Plum's left his water-wings at the Station!!"
I had a flick through the web and noticed that some Police Forces will take people who cannot drive or swim. Maybe they take people who can't run either, perhaps we may read of a Burglar who got away because the Copper was not trained in running and had to call for the only Bobby in the Station who had a pair of Nikes and a truncheon down his shorts (fleeting Linford Christie image occurs)
As was said, you would need to be there to assess the particular circumstances. I am sure we would all have a go to save our own but would have to weigh up the risks in other circumstances. As I said earlier, regarding the guy stranded on Everest, there are situations where I would not risk my life against the odds to save someone who knowingly put themselves at risk.
Whitewater
23-Sep-07, 09:50
In a situation like this it is, I think it's difficult to know how you would react. I remember many years ago when I was 11yrs old, I jumped into the "Rock well" in Thurso not realising the depth. I would not be here today if it was not for the prompt action of my two friends, also 11. Without a thought about their own safety they jumped in and got me out. One had just learned to swim and the other was a beginner who could perhaps do a couple of dogie paddle strokes. Never forgotten your bravery "Bobo" and "Arthur M."
I have never been placed in that situation, I would like to think I would do the right thing, I've not been put to the test, and I hope I never will be.
It is easy to condemn others, the PCSOs involved were on the spot, they (I assume) were trained to access the situation. Did they do the right thing?? We may have an opinion but we will ever know.
I see that people are happy to blame people that were put into a demanding situation that they had no hand in creating.
Just remember Paul Metcalf, a fireman from Ramsbottom who died trying to rescue a teenager from a lodge (Mill Lake)
He got into difficulties when his safety line snagged on an underwater obstruction as he tried to find the boy.
He was with a fire crew, and still died.
No one appears to have asked the question as to why an 8 year old and a 10 year old were able to play unsupervised around open water. surely that is were blame should be placed.
Yes this is the BBC report from 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3697006.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3697006.stm)
It is interesting to note that: "The firefighters had no specialist equipment or training"
I'm not blaming anyone for this accident ,but even David Blunket the former home secretary criticized the officers not attempting to look for the lad.
NickInTheNorth
23-Sep-07, 15:46
I'm not blaming anyone for this accident ,but even David Blunket the former home secretary criticized the officers not attempting to look for the lad.
Well what do you expect, put a politician near a bandwagon and they are compelled to leap aboard.
I bet he wouldn't of looked had he been there.
I bet he wouldn't of looked had he been there.
ouch that ,s a bit below the belt.
NickInTheNorth
23-Sep-07, 15:57
I bet he wouldn't of looked had he been there.
ouch that ,s a bit below the belt.
I know, but I just couldn't help it ;)
(And for the record I've met him several times and it is just the sort of joke he would crack about himself so I don't feel at all bad about saying it)
I think you mean this one?: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7007273.stm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7007273.stm)
There's more in the right column
Thanks for that bekisman ( i dont know how to add things yet ) jan x
For anyone who works in the public arena, there is always the thought in the back of the mind as to whether you should help or not. The natural instinct is, of course, to help but when the culture around you is becoming a suiing culture, I think everyone thinks twice.
Rightly or wrongly, when people do things that are outside thier official remit to help, as soon as someone decides that they didn't want that help, its off to court to sue. People are naturally worried about their jobs.
There should be no fear of recrimination for those who try to help, even if then end up doing a bit of harm. If we squeeze out the 'helping' culture we're in a bad state of affairs.
Andrew C
There should be no fear of recrimination for those who try to help, even if then end up doing a bit of harm. If we squeeze out the 'helping' culture we're in a bad state of affairs.
Andrew C
I agree, I have been a qualified first aider for 22 years and only in the last ten years have I been urged to think about how I treat an unconcious patient appropriately, as if someone dying is a real turn-on:roll: But the thought that someone actually even remotely thinks that I have learnt first aid to fondle someone is really offensive to me. It really knocks the wind out of the sails of enthusiasm.[evil]
I agree, I have been a qualified first aider for 22 years and only in the last ten years have I been urged to think about how I treat an unconcious patient appropriately, as if someone dying is a real turn-on:roll: But the thought that someone actually even remotely thinks that I have learnt first aid to fondle someone is really offensive to me. It really knocks the wind out of the sails of enthusiasm.[evil]
We have exaclty the same pressures in work with children. The assumption is that just because some people have abused their position is that all people are out to abuse children. Its very easy to get paranoid but its so difficult when children come up and cling to your arm or something. It can be disheartening but I don't think you can ever allow the bad apples to spoil the cart.
So long as there is a degree of good measures and protection for all built in (you can't avoid it) we need to continue to do what we can.
AC
Lots of replies to rescue, or not to rescue,I can only speak for myself and if I saw a child in the water that was in trouble I would jump in and try to safe them,would that be wrong? in this CRAZY world I expect it would be.
Lots of replies to rescue, or not to rescue,I can only speak for myself and if I saw a child in the water that was in trouble I would jump in and try to safe them,would that be wrong? in this CRAZY world I expect it would be.
Sure, I'd rescue too Moureen...but then if I did something wrong and someone pointed the finger at me, I'd be on trial for it. That is the consequences that people face and that people are made to think twice about. If we are in those situations, we simply have to count the cost.
In this crazy world anything good and noble can be made wrong by those who have something to get out of it.
One of my colleagues recently came across a man in the street who had just collapsed with alcohol related matters. He tried to help then called the police. When the police arrived they said he shouldnt have gone near him because all the man has to do is say 'there is ten pounds missing from my pocket' and straight away my colleague is under suspicion.
As you say, its crazy, but its how things have gone! PC now stands for political correctness.
Andrew C
NickInTheNorth
23-Sep-07, 17:55
Lots of replies to rescue, or not to rescue,I can only speak for myself and if I saw a child in the water that was in trouble I would jump in and try to safe them,would that be wrong? in this CRAZY world I expect it would be.
No, it is not wrong, but neither is it wrong for the people that were there to decide that they would not attempt the rescue.
I am very sad that there there was one death.
I would be even more upset to hear that there had been three deaths because two people had drowned trying to rescue the one that did die.
helenwyler
23-Sep-07, 20:16
An extract from The Sunday Times today...
"The Manchester Force said Jordon would have been beyond help by the time the PCSOs arrived, since he had been submerged for 10 or 15 minutes."
The first image that springs to mind on first hearing this news is that the PCSOs actually watched that little boy struggling in the water...a horrific image.
This was probably not the case as they seem not to have been on the scene when the incident actually happened.
Although we may have issues with training and guidelines for both police and PCSOs in the area of water rescue, we should be wary of prematurely indicting the PCSOs, as facts and circumstances are still emerging.
Another extract..
I think David Blunkett summed it up: "What was appropriate in this circumstance for a uniformed officer would be appropriate for CSOs as human beings, never mind the job," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"I would like to think that you or I, when we arrived on the bank as just normal human beings and we had the spot pointed out to us by the anglers who pulled the little girl out, we would have a go, even if we had to pull out because we weren't divers and we weren't able to sustain it. "I would have got more than my trousers wet by the sound of the depth of the lake, but I'd like to believe we'd have a go, even if we were only moderate swimmers."
The boy's stepfather and a friend waded into the pond in a desperate search for him and were joined minutes later by a uniformed officer who stripped off his body armour and dived in to help them. Jordon was eventually pulled from the water at John Taylor's Pit but despite attempts to resuscitate him was later pronounced dead in hospital.
We will never know if those few minutes between the CSO's radioing and waiting on the bank whilst the kid being under the water would have made any difference; what is it? 4 minutes before the brain goes? but at least a few of them 'had a go'
No, it is not wrong, but neither is it wrong for the people that were there to decide that they would not attempt the rescue.
I am very sad that there there was one death.
I would be even more upset to hear that there had been three deaths because two people had drowned trying to rescue the one that did die.
Much as you infuriate me Nick..on this we are in agreement!
Karia
Lots of replies to rescue, or not to rescue,I can only speak for myself and if I saw a child in the water that was in trouble I would jump in and try to safe them,would that be wrong? in this CRAZY world I expect it would be.
Very likely - but according to all the reports, the child was nowhere to be seen.
From the call by the PCSOs to the father, his friend and the Police Sergeant arriving and getting the boy out of the pond was no more than Five Minutes.
As for the comment that they possibly didn't know where the boy was then why did the others have no problem finding the location and what happened to the two fishermen and the boy's sister, had Scottie Beamed them up?
There is no excuse for people who are willing to accept payment to act as protectors of the public to simply stand around doing nothing when the going gets tough. If that is their attitude then they are in the wrong occupation and should find something more suitable to their inclinations.
As for the statement the Greater Manchester Police have apparently just released then I ask myself why that information was not made at the Inquest held into the boy's death, did they just forget to mention it?
I'm sure that if the Coroner had been told of that period of time for the boy to be submerged he would not have shown doubt about the boy’s fate by adding the word “probably dead” to qualify the boys condition when the PCSOs arrived. I’m sure that had he been given those timings he would have been in no doubt about the condition of the boy and would have mentioned that time scale being involved.
If that time scale was known to be true then it would appear that an attempt was made by the Manchester Police to keep that information to the Coroner. Neither would it seem that there would be any reason to ensure that the two PCSOs were kept well away from attending the Inquest.
The sudden appearance of a previously unmentioned fifteen minute time period, and it would appear that the Assistant Chief Constable making a public statement about “not being trained” and “major incidents” just also happen to let it slip his mind, makes the explanations sound more and more like a Damage Limitation Exercise than anything else.
These are the same clowns who, after the appearance of CCTV of a youth holding an AK47 and fitting a clip to it outside a railway station, and a report from a member of the public who advised them not only that but that the youth had pointed it at him, explained that they didn’t advise an Armed Response Team because “there didn’t seem to be any danger to members of the public”.
And this in an area where there are 10 gun related offences every day, where shoot outs by rival gangs are commonplace and such weapons are found on a fairly regular basis.
If they can try to explain away doing nothing (oh, sorry, they sent somebody in plain clothes to take a look) about somebody wandering round with an Assault Rifle, even if it turns out to be an imitation, then they will try to excuse anything.
As for the claims that people who were not there are not in a position to comment then there can be very little discussion about anything at all and certainly you might as well do away with any news and destroy all the history books because the only things which you are allowed to accept or comment on are those where you are actually there.
Remember folks, you can only comment on those things in the World which fall within that vary small area covered by your own five senses.
Perhaps somebody should check all the threads and where somebody comments on a matter where they were not personally there the post, or even the thread, should be removed.
A bird flew past my window today, how exciting. Don’t comment anybody because you were not there!
Originally Posted by NickInTheNorth
"No, it is not wrong, but neither is it wrong for the people that were there to decide that they would not attempt the rescue. I am very sad that there there was one death. I would be even more upset to hear that there had been three deaths because two people had drowned trying to rescue the one that did die."
At least two fishermen, one step-dad, one friend and one Police Officer thought differently, as I mentioned before this was not the raging sea or a mountain torrent for heaven's sake. I know that I would have tried, I have a conscience and in those incidents you don't have time to think 'emm, shall I shan't I ' whilst there is some possibility you can save a life, having kids of my own helps!
NickInTheNorth
24-Sep-07, 09:59
Originally Posted by NickInTheNorth
"No, it is not wrong, but neither is it wrong for the people that were there to decide that they would not attempt the rescue. I am very sad that there there was one death. I would be even more upset to hear that there had been three deaths because two people had drowned trying to rescue the one that did die."
At least two fishermen, one step-dad, one friend and one Police Officer thought differently, as I mentioned before this was not the raging sea or a mountain torrent for heaven's sake. I know that I would have tried, I have a conscience and in those incidents you don't have time to think 'emm, shall I shan't I ' whilst there is some possibility you can save a life, having kids of my own helps!
And for those fishermen friends police officers that decision was right.
It is an individuals decision. None of us have the right to decide for another human being whether or not they should put their own life at risk. Had you been there you may well have decided to enter the water to try and effect a rescue. They chose not to. Both decisions are equally right.
Having spent my entire life fishing I have probably spent more time than most in and around water in all it's manifestations. I respect it's dangers. The most innocuous pond can be lethal. I have seen small clay lined mill ponds filled with over ten feet of soft stinking silt, under just inches of water, to look at it anyone would believe it to be safe. It took 2 lives that I know of because it looked so innocent. You get unexpected currents in even still waters. You find all sorts of things on which you can become entangled or snagged.
No piece of water is "safe". Every water such be judged on it's individual merits, and unless you know a piece of water intimately my advice would be don't get in there unless you are happy to die.
Would I have attempted a rescue?
If I could see exactly where the child was. If I had some means of "floatation" available. If there were others there to assist. Then I may have done. But then again I may not. I certainly would not do so if I thought I would simply become another statistic.
As to your assertion that you don't have time to think, you are simply incorrect. If you don't take the time to think you are more likely to come to grief. And as for having kids of your own, no they have made no difference to my choices in such circumstances. Unless they have perhaps made me slightly more cautious. If I were to throw my life away in a vain attempt to save another life then who will care for my kids?
Nickinthenorth: "and unless you know a piece of water intimately my advice would be don't get in there unless you are happy to die".
What a strange thing to say; 'happy to die', where did that piece of thinking come from? Scenario; this chap is walking along the bank of a slow-moving stream when he hears a cry from below; "help Mr, my friends fell in and I can't see him".. The chap; "sorry young lad but I do not know this water intimately, and, as I am unhappy to die, I will try and find someone else to help".. hmm
"As to your assertion that you don't have time to think, you are simply incorrect" - I did actually say 'emm, shall I shan't I ' meaning it's a faster reaction needed in these situations.
What base do you use to tell me I am incorrect? - as you have said it's an individual thing, i.e. most would and some would not.
"Having spent my entire life fishing I have probably spent more time than most in and around water in all it's manifestations"
Having kayaked many, many thousands of miles along a lot of the worlds dangerous rivers, lakes, reservoirs, including an unsupported 8 hr kayak across the English Channel in a Force 7, I too think "I have probably spent more time than most in and around water in all it's manifestations" (I'm 63 and still going)
I'm off now, going shopping to Wick Tesco's (bypassing Thurso of course) but here's 130 comments about this thread, quite interesting too!
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1516242007&bad=986447
I'm off now, going shopping to Wick Tesco's (bypassing Thurso of course) but here's 130 comments about this thread, quite interesting too!
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1516242007&bad=986447 (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1516242007&bad=986447)
This article states the two fishermen had already saved Bethany, and lost sight of Jordan as he had become submerged, when the PCSO's arrived on the scene. I for one, will not criticise them for not going in when there was no visible sign of life, regardless of others subsequently arriving on the scene and choosing to go in themselves.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.