[News] Tragedy in Solihull

[Cornwallboy]

I think you are a bit of a mission creep here - no one has said that the Police don’t have any duty to assist members of the public in danger.

But you started out saying that ‘they have a duty to risk their lives’. They don’t- they have a duty to protect life including their own.

Do you honestly think a fire Chief looking at a burning building and assesses it to be very near total collapse is going to send his fire crew into the building to rescue a kid on the 3rd floor?

When did I say that?

 

[WATFORD zero]

How do you know I've previously been banned? Can't your delicate little soul take someone on here you disagree with ? So your answer is to ban someone if you disagree with them? Didn't see you getting stuck into the poster today who said he would be extremely miffed if it was his grandson drowning and the police didn't attempt to rescue him. To clarify I have absolutely nothing but admiration for the Emergency Services, but I do think the job does comes with risks, such as the incident on Sunday.

 

[portlock seagull]

No, it IS their job. If my grandson fell through the ice and a police office was first on the scene and just stood there shaking their head saying "it's not my job" I would be, well, less than pleased. I would expect them to risk their life to save a small boy. Bloody hell I would, I couldn't live with myself otherwise.

No, it’s NOT “their job” (regardless of, a rather, entitled belief) to risk their lives. They naturally do, numerously, each day. However there’s a huge difference between knowing a risk will cost them their life (what’s the benefit in double tragedy?!), which is what that tool implied, and attempting to rescue without certainty of either (thereby knowing it’s possible). For example, anyone who can’t swim, whether they’re in a service uniform or not, shouldn’t be expected to jump in and drown too just to fit some misguided idea of a hero. Or should they, in your eyes?

 

[Cornwallboy]

No, it’s NOT “their job” (regardless of, a rather, entitled belief) to risk their lives. They naturally do, numerously, each day. However there’s a huge difference between knowing a risk will cost them their life (what’s the benefit in double tragedy?!), which is what that tool implied, and attempting to rescue without certainty of either (thereby knowing it’s possible). For example, anyone who can’t swim, whether they’re in a service uniform or not, shouldn’t be expected to jump in and drown too just to fit some misguided idea of a hero? Or should they, in your eyes?

Would imagine to be in the Police force you need to be able to swim.

Ok so answer me this: On Sunday when the police arrived at the scene knowing there was 3 children drowning, what course of action should they have taken?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Back in the day didn't a Police officer have to have a Royal saving certificate or similar?

 

[Zeberdi]

When did I say that?

“…who attended had an absolute duty to do all they could to try and rescue the children and if it entailed risking their own lives to do it then so be it”

They don’t have ‘an absolute duty to rescue‘ anyone if it is deemed too risky which is the point - clearly kids falling through ice on a freezing day into freezing water is a very dangerous situation - I am a qualified life saver and the first thing we learnt in training was ‘safe’ rescue procedure.

We have no Good Samaritan Laws in this Country imposing a ‘duty to rescue’

In any event - Duty to rescue is not ‘absolute’ - it is conditional on it being reasonably safe to do so without causing further danger and loss of life -

For now, the forth time, (solely for your benefit because it seems the majority of people here get it) I have posted on the previous page exactly what the Met’s guidelines on water rescue are as stated by them but clearly you are have not read it or taken it in. In addition I posted the law relating to rescue.

There is no absolute duty to take a risk that more likely or not would put your own life in danger. There is no absolute duty to take unacceptable risks - in fact any one responsible for the lives of rescue workers has an absolute duty to ensure that his or her workers do NOT TAKE UNACCEPTABLE RISKS WITH THEIR OWN LIVES and where there is an ‘element’ of risk that it is MITIGATED in so far as is practicably possible - in this case waiting for the ‘proper’ rescue services to turn up with the right tools for the job. I would also say that the families of the (edit: ‘any’) deceased policeman would be deeply upset that you tempered the tragic loss of life with the attitude that he bought it on himself because he ‘chose‘ to be a policeman.

Ps You know the story of the Good Samaritan wasn't that the Samaritan healed the man on the side of the road, he stuck a sticky plaster on him then took him to someone better equipped to look after him ie The Innkeeper. Knowing the best way to help people is first being aware of your own limitations

 

[Cornwallboy]

“…who attended had an absolute duty to do all they could to try and rescue the children and if it entailed risking their own lives to do it then so be it”

They don’t have ‘an absolute duty to rescue‘ anyone if it is deemed too risky which is the point - clearly kids falling through ice on a freezing day into freezing water is a very dangerous situation - I am a qualified life saver and the first thing we learnt in training was ‘safe’ rescue procedure.

We have no Good Samaritan Laws in this Country imposing a ‘duty to rescue’

In any event - Duty to rescue is not ‘absolute’ - it is conditional on it being reasonably safe to do so without causing further danger and loss of life -

For now, the forth time, (solely for your benefit because it seems the majority of people here get it) I have posted on the previous page exactly what the Met’s guidelines on water rescue are as stated by them but clearly you are have not read it or taken it in. In addition I posted the law relating to rescue.

There is no absolute duty to take a risk that more likely or not would put your own life in danger. There is no absolute duty to take unacceptable risks - in fact any one responsible for the lives of rescue workers has an absolute duty to ensure that his or her workers do NOT TAKE UNACCEPTABLE RISKS WITH THEIR OWN LIVES and where there is an ‘element’ of risk that it is MITIGATED in so far is practicable possible - in this case waiting for the ‘proper’ rescue services to turn up with the right tools for the job. I would also say that the families of the deceased policeman would be deeply upset that you tempered the tragic loss of life with the attitude that he bought it on himself because he ‘chose‘ to be a policeman.

Ps You know the story of the Good Samaritan wasn't that the Samaritan healed the man on the side of the road, he stuck a sticky plaster on him then took him to someone better equipped to look after him ie The Innkeeper. Knowing the best way to help people is first being aware of your own limitations

Give me the Mets 'working in water' guidelines all you like. On Sunday the Police attending that scene had an absolute duty to do all they could to rescue those young children. If that makes me a 'callous ****' then so be it.

 

[Zeberdi]

If that makes me a 'callous ****' then so be it.

Not my words but if you want to wear that hat, ‘so be it’

 

[Cornwallboy]

Not my words but if you want to wear that hat, ‘so be it’

I'll wear it with pride. Bit sad really when on a forum you get fellow posters screaming 'banned' like they are kids on a playground grassing up someone who has stolen their marbles. Not that you have done that I hasten to add.

 

[herecomesaregular]

You seem to think ‘risk’ is an either or - it’s not! Risk has to be quantified then assessed according to the level of the participant- if you read my post on the previous page, I stated what the Police’s ( or any public service officer/caregiver ) is.

I worked in many professional environments where I have also been trained in self-risk assessment prior to attempting rescue of others - For the 3rd time - there is no legal duty to commit suicide in any profession - an objective risk assessment to self must be first priority before helping anyone in a professional situation.

Unfortunately sometimes people’s emotions at seeing other people fighting for their lives, particularly loved ones, they may be blinded to the risk or simply don’t care or their moral imperatives as human beings override all of that - But don’t impose that as a duty or professional obligation please.

The fact that Police on the scene did attempt rescue and the fact one of them died doing so makes your comments odious to me.

I have not seen reports that a Police officer died trying to rescue the children?

 

[oldboyroy]

Hopefully we will never be put in that situation but think any adult seeing kids fighting for lives in water/ice would automatically jump in and try to help them/save them albeit in Sundays circumstances without success sadly.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Obliged to commit suicide? Or do the job you are paid to do which you know carries an element of risk? How could a policeman look a parent in the eye and say 'no I didn't try and rescue your child as I felt it to be too risky.'

And what about a fireman in regard to a house fire? I'm sure there are times that a fireman (or person) identify it is too risky to enter a building at all / go in further? Do you think that is something shameful? You must be an idiot if you think anyone should blindly rush in to any emergency situation. Bizarre.

 

[Cornwallboy]

Hopefully we will never be put in that situation but think any adult seeing kids fighting for lives in water/ice would automatically jump in and try to help them/save them.

Careful Roy you'll have other posters trying to get you banned posting stuff like that.

 

[Zeberdi]

I have not seen reports that a Police officer died trying to rescue the children?

No, my bad - omg really sorry, I must have misread something earlier and it got stuck in my head - one of them did enter the water though and ended up being taken to hospital with hypothermia ( subsequent released)

 

[Zeberdi]

And what about a fireman in regard to a house fire? I'm sure there are times that a fireman (or person) identify it is too risky to enter a building at all / go in further? Do you think that is something shameful? You must be an idiot if you think anyone should blindly rush in to any emergency situation. Bizarre.

As stated above (not the ‘idiot’ part but there are plenty of caps to go round. )

 

[Zeberdi]

Give me the Mets 'working in water' guidelines all you like.

Initial responders​

On arrival at the scene, initial responders should:

• consider their own personal safety
• not get involved in rescue activities
• undertake an assessment using the METHANE mnemonic as a guide
• declare a major incident, if appropriate
• establish rendezvous point(s) for incoming personnel
• establish a forward command post, if safe to do so

Taken from the College of Policing Training Manual - Response and Recovery

Response | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

From the same Training Manual:

“Although there is a duty to protect life, this duty is not absolute.”

• Court judgments have consistently said there can be no rigid standard regarding the positive obligation to protect life. They emphasise that police officers are entitled and expected to take other considerations into account. See, for example, re Officer L [2007] UKHL 36, para 21 (in relation to the positive obligations on authorities under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The standard is based on reasonableness, which brings in consideration of the circumstances of the case, the ease or difficulty of taking precautions and the resources available. In this way, the state is not expected to undertake an unduly burdensome obligation – it is not obliged to satisfy an absolute standard requiring the risk to be averted, regardless of all other considerations.”

Risk | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

 

[Cornwallboy]

Initial responders​

On arrival at the scene, initial responders should:

• consider their own personal safety
• not get involved in rescue activities
• undertake an assessment using the METHANE mnemonic as a guide
• declare a major incident, if appropriate
• establish rendezvous point(s) for incoming personnel
• establish a forward command post, if safe to do so

Taken from the College of Policing Training Manual - Response and Recovery

Response | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

'Not get involved in rescue activities.' What are they there for?

 

[Zeberdi]

'Not get involved in rescue activities.' What are they there for?

To protect the public, prevent crime (ie keep law and order) including protecting people at risk of being victims of crime, arrest perpetrators and investigate crime.

FROM SUSSEX POLICE guidelines on water rescue
3.1 Surrey Police and Sussex Police understand that police officers and staff would feel an overwhelming responsibility to attempt a water rescue. However, it is imperative that officers do not put themselves, colleagues or members of the public at risk.
3.2 Whilst our duty will always be to protect life and limb, police officers and staff should not put themselves in unnecessary danger by trying to undertake a rescue they are not trained or equipped to undertake. They are NOT required to enter water but are expected to carry out a dynamic Risk Assessment of the situation with the assistance of the Authorised Profession Practice (APP) National Decision Model (NDM) to determine the next course of action and whether it is safe to attempt a rescue.

https://www.sussex.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/sussex/policies/water-safety-policy-for-first-responders-surrey-and-sussex-11842021.pdf

(I think if you read the above link you will be relieved to know that you are not the only member of the public to think the police should dive in to water at the first sign of trouble regardless of the risk to themselves!)

 

[Cornwallboy]

To protect the public, prevent crime (ie keep law and order) including protecting people at risk of being victims of crime, arrest perpetrators and investigate crime.

FROM SUSSEX POLICE guidelines on water rescue
3.1 Surrey Police and Sussex Police understand that police officers and staff would feel an overwhelming responsibility to attempt a water rescue. However, it is imperative that officers do not put themselves, colleagues or members of the public at risk.
3.2 Whilst our duty will always be to protect life and limb, police officers and staff should not put themselves in unnecessary danger by trying to undertake a rescue they are not trained or equipped to undertake. They are NOT required to enter water but are expected to carry out a dynamic Risk Assessment of the situation with the assistance of the Authorised Profession Practice (APP) National Decision Model (NDM) to determine the next course of action and whether it is safe to attempt a rescue.

https://www.sussex.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/sussex/policies/water-safety-policy-for-first-responders-surrey-and-sussex-11842021.pdf

(I think if you read the above link you will be relieved to know that you are not the only member of the public to think the police should dive in to water at the first sign of trouble regardless of the risk to themselves!)

So on Sunday when they arrived they weren't required to enter the water but expected to carry out a 'dynamic risk assessment' well that was really going to help the poor children who were drowning. But hey as long as the APP and NDM are happy that's all ok then.

 

[GT49er]

I have not seen reports that a Police officer died trying to rescue the children?

True, so they got their risk assessment right (although it's always fine margins - if the fourth little boy had died as well they would have risked their lives for no purpose).

Before anybody quibbles, I salute their bravery in attempting a rescue, and hope against hope that the one little lad survives..