Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 A man is floating in a model boating lake with a depth of three and a half feet after having a seizure. Would you stand and watch or would you get in there and pull him out? Twenty five emergency personnel stood and watched for over half an hour because they were not trained, even though they could all swim. Firemen at the scene would not enter the pool because, they claimed, rules prevent them working in water more than ankle deep. A policeman was going to enter the lake but was ordered not to, as was a paramedic. A reporter later waded to the spot where the body was floating in less than two minutes and had the emergency services gone in to rescue the man there is a chance he would have lived but it was not until after thirty seven minutes that two fireman went in and carried him out - by which time he was already dead. Heroes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireboy Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 IMO the main fear today is that the emergency services get personally sued by the liberal society for doing such tasks. They would wade in and the guy might have died any way and the emergency workers would have been blamed as "they didn't go in with the right kit" or "they lifted him out wrong." They then find themselves in the wrong for trying to do right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 IMO the main fear today is that the emergency services get personally sued by the liberal society for doing such tasks. They would wade in and the guy might have died any way and the emergency workers would have been blamed as "they didn't go in with the right kit" or "they lifted him out wrong." They then find themselves in the wrong for trying to do right. I think I would have preferred to jump in and drag him out and be sued by someone who I saved rather than stand there doing nothing; while watching someone die knowing I could have got them out and have that on my conscience for the rest of my life. A disgraceful series of events and such things should be prevented from happening again....I mean it isn't like it was the Atlantic Ocean!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 If it was so easy to rescue the bloke, why didn't the person who phoned the Emergency services rescue him? By the time the Emergency services arrived he had floated a further 25ft into the centre of the lake and was obviously already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Attempt the rescue, then sue the fire and ambulance lot for endangering my life due to their dereliction of duty. His family should sue them anyway. No doubt H and S will have all waterfronts fenced off to prevent it happening again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireboy Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think I would have preferred to jump in and drag him out and be sued by someone who I saved rather than stand there doing nothing; while watching someone die knowing I could have got them out and have that on my conscience for the rest of my life. A disgraceful series of events and such things should be prevented from happening again....I mean it isn't like it was the Atlantic Ocean!! So would I. Just trying to think of reasons why they didn't go in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 A man is floating in a model boating lake with a depth of three and a half feet after having a seizure. Would you stand and watch or would you get in there and pull him out? Twenty five emergency personnel stood and watched for over half an hour because they were not trained, even though they could all swim. Firemen at the scene would not enter the pool because, they claimed, rules prevent them working in water more than ankle deep. A policeman was going to enter the lake but was ordered not to, as was a paramedic. A reporter later waded to the spot where the body was floating in less than two minutes and had the emergency services gone in to rescue the man there is a chance he would have lived but it was not until after thirty seven minutes that two fireman went in and carried him out - by which time he was already dead. Heroes? You will probably think that I am reacting purely out of emotion,AND YOU WOULD BE COMPLETELY CORRECT, I would put everyone who attended that tragic accident, apart from the reporter that went in to retrieve his body, up against a wall and BLOODY WELL SHOOT THEM! they are a disgrace to mankind and not fit to be called human beings, their lack of response is way beyond being ridiculous and to my mind can only be compared with the attitude of Nazi concentration camp staff during WWII, to hide behind the fear of being prosecuted demonstrates a complete disregard for human life, IF IT HAD BEEN A DOG SOMEONE WOULD HAVE GONE IN AND RESCUED IT - DEAD OR ALIVE. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 The reporter did not go in to retrieve the body he went in about a year later to add some substance to the latest Mail moan fest. This was a shallow boating pool, the first person to see the chap fall in should have pulled him out, each successive person whether in uniform or not should have done the same. Collective shame. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 If it was so easy to rescue the bloke, why didn't the person who phoned the Emergency services rescue him? By the time the Emergency services arrived he had floated a further 25ft into the centre of the lake and was obviously already dead. It was a woman who called the emergency services. She saw him have the sseizure and imediately called for help. it took just 5 minutes for them to arrive. Five minutes to arrive, two minutes to wade out and reach him = 7 minutes which would have given him a greater chance of survival than thirty seven minutes did. Apparantly it was revealed that the firemen not working in water more than ankle deep rule only relates to running flood water and they could have gone in and rescued him anyway. It would not have been obvious that he was dead because he was unconcious so would not be moving about in the water. He may well have still been alive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Assuming this guy was floating, face down in this pond, for more than 5 minutes; I think it would be fair to presume he was dead. As for the alleged inaction of the emergency services, w/boy is correct; H&S and the litigation culture have totally rendered these institutions inert in terms of taking the kind of risks we might expect. It's not that long ago, that two fire officers were prosecuted for the deaths of 4 firefighters in a warehouse fire - so, it's no wonder everyone's watching their backs, is risk averse and ensuring they get the paperwork right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Never PRESUME anyone is dead until it's a certainty. Hear about the woman in Scotland who was taken to the Edinborough Royal after she collapsed. After attempting to resuscitate her, the doctors gave up and told her family she was dead. Forty five minutes later she woke up! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 The reporter did not go in to retrieve the body he went in about a year later to add some substance to the latest Mail moan fest. This was a shallow boating pool, the first person to see the chap fall in should have pulled him out, each successive person whether in uniform or not should have done the same. Collective shame. A good common sense summing up Eagle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 A good common sense summing up Eagle. He didn't fall in. He dropped a carrier bag he had been using to feed the swans and the wind blew it onto the lake so he went in to retrieve it and was swimming when he had a seizure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 He didn't fall in. He dropped a carrier bag he had been using to feed the swans and the wind blew it onto the lake so he went in to retrieve it and was swimming when he had a seizure. Why would he be swimming in 3'6" deep water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 He didn't fall in. He was in the water, he had a seizure, he fell; he was not swimming he had no need to swim,the the water wasn't deep enough. Shall we agree that it makes no difference to the lack of urgency and moral fibre shown by all concerned? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Why would he be swimming in 3'6" deep water? Well I can't answer that lovie, eyewitness accounts said he was swimming then stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Unless he had gills Cleo, I think we can safely assume he WAS dead! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 He was by the time they pulled him out and unless you are psychic you cant say when he died and if he could have been saved if action was taken earlier. Enough said to you, because I don't play your silly little game of who has the last word! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadako Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Link to story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Dave Apps · Bewdley, Worcestershire As a retired Fire Officer I find it appalling that this "watch Manager" should have made that decision, it was always the rule that no matter a casualty should be recovered and a medical expert i.e. a Doctor was the only person officially allowed, following examination, to declare a casualty deceased. I am saddened that the UK Fire Service has descended to this point of 'H&S' watchers. Very poor. Says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 He was by the time they pulled him out and unless you are psychic you cant say when he died and if he could have been saved if action was taken earlier. Enough said to you, because I don't play your silly little game of who has the last word! Cleo that is so true of this and probably other forums,they seem to attract men (predominately) that are gutless wonders who are happy to contradict or persistently correct others opinions merely to have the last word knowing full well that there is little or no chance of meeting their counterparts face to face and seem to be on a constant egotistical trip, only interested in forcing their often misguided point of view on other forum members. The fact remains, as Eagle stated "Shall we agree that it makes no difference to the lack of urgency and moral fibre shown by all concerned?", a point simply made, that for me sums up the sad situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 And just how exactly does one "force" an opinion over the internet Alg? Everyone has or is entitled to an opinion, informed or otherwise - yer just take 'em or leave 'em, no "force" involved. We've got folk diving in here, when they should have dived in (within 5 minutes) of the guy collapsing, I doubt the emergency services were there within "5 minutes"; in which case, they failed to recover a body due to (as I said) the modern preoccupation with H&S and fear of litigation. H&S, like HR, was no doubt well intended in it's creation, but unfortunately has been abused and distorted in it's use. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 And just how exactly does one "force" an opinion over the internet Alg? Everyone has or is entitled to an opinion, informed or otherwise - yer just take 'em or leave 'em, no "force" involved. We've got folk diving in here, when they should have dived in (within 5 minutes) of the guy collapsing, I doubt the emergency services were there within "5 minutes"; in which case, they failed to recover a body due to (as I said) the modern preoccupation with H&S and fear of litigation. H&S, like HR, was no doubt well intended in it's creation, but unfortunately has been abused and distorted in it's use. This is totally out of character for you obs, I suggest you read my previous reply again, I did not say anything about "forcing" an opinion, I said "forcing their often misguided point of view on other forum members". As they say - "If the cap fits, wear it" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 We all have our own opinions and are entitled to post them, after all it is a forum. They tend to be deemed misguided only by those who disagree with them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Think "forcing their misguided viewpoint" implies some form of "force", which by some miracle would have to be virtual, it being t'internet. What Wolfie said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.