Sad War! Because of the Coast Guard and HSE!

[Finless]

Oops. Sorry. Silly me. I spelt Waugh incorrectly.

Well, I know the story is in the Daily Mail but, even so, I am speechless.

FFS!

Health and Safety / insurance liability .......... which evil came first? They all seemed so necessary and good for everybody once upon a time?

[Finless]

Wasn't there a tragedy recently where a young boy drowned after having gone into the water to save his little sister (or vica versa) and the police officers (possibly community support officers?) wouldn't go into the water because they weren't trained? It was something like that.

[Mark Chase]

There is surely more to this story.


Mind you i have to agree with the coastguard that unnecessarily risking a life to save a life is insane. The problem is where do you draw the line.


I used to teach remedial contractors about all aspects of running the practical side of their company.

I used to point out that putting a haz chem sticker on their van was not a legal requirement, didn't help them with parking and might get them killed.

In a road accident the fire brigade and emergency services should not go near the veichal displaying a haz chem sign unless they have identified the chemicals. QED if they cant identify the products they should leave you to die in the car / van.

A stupid death for the sake of a tin of wood worm fluid, but how do the emergency services know its not hydrochloric acid or something that might go bang?

ATB

Mark

[Scubee]

I love the way the headline says he was sacked, but if you read the article, it is quite clear that he quit (i seem to recall he was a volunteer, technically not employed, therefore not 'sackable' in the conventional sense).

I am on the fence on this one. There are regulations which must be followed, but then he acted in the apparent best interest of the victim, not himself. Do we not teach, on a rescue course, or any course for that matter, to do what you can, but not out yourself at risk because you could asily end up with 2 casualties instead of one.

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Scubee

I love the way the headline says he was sacked, but if you read the article, it is quite clear that he quit (i seem to recall he was a volunteer, technically not employed, therefore not 'sackable' in the conventional sense).

I believe the term is "forced to resign"?

I am on the fence on this one. There are regulations which must be followed, but then he acted in the apparent best interest of the victim, not himself. Do we not teach, on a rescue course, or any course for that matter, to do what you can, but not out yourself at risk because you could asily end up with 2 casualties instead of one.

Scubee, I am not cross at you ( - FFS, a short haired smart boy hug, shudder / I was going to give you the 'tongue' but I thought that might be taken the wrong way, that is to say ............. ) but F*CK THE REGULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what is wrong with the country these days. Nobody is apparently capable of making their own decisions. Every time something happens it leads to mass consultation of the poxy rule book to see what can be done and what is allowed (per HSE and insurance).

What is even more depressing is that this method of thinking is percolating into the general conciousness of the masses ............

Why do I bother? Can nobody see what bunch of lily livered indecisive tossers the government want as its "subjects".

It's bloody outrageous. In the days when men were men and women were damned glad of it (excuse me, I have to stop typing for a second or ten to slap my thigh and laugh heartily).

I despair, I really do. TF I'm 50 and on the slippery slope!

The bloke, on a scale of 'zero to hero', should be at least on the plus side (towards hero, for those who are too young).

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

Mind you i have to agree with the coastguard that unnecessarily risking a life to save a life is insane. The problem is where do you draw the line.

YOU or WE do not draw the line. It is up to the person involved and just because some prat back at HQ who has digested the whole bloody rule book (as permitted by the HSE and insurance companies) .................... turning green / can't afford anymore underpants / trying to calm down.

[Foggy]

I think this has similarities to a previous thread:-

No more heroes, anymore......

There is no way any agency can ever say PUT YOURSELF IN JEPORDY. They give people the training and tell them to assess the risk themselves.

However, this man has arrived at the cliff top assessed the situation - the girl is going to die before they can get their gear from the van, and he believed he could stabilise the situation allowing his collegues time to get their rescue gear. He knew the risks - if a fall wasn't likely to be deadly then he would have left her and got tooled up. He assessed the risks and went ahead. (good for him). The Agency cannot condone what he did, as he put himself at risk, but IMHO they should not condemn him either!

Now why did they not break down the locked gate and bring their van with their gear to the spot it was needed? Probably cos of thousands of false alerts, wrong directions, and complaints from landowners ....may just have left the agency telling its volunteers to make damn sure before breaking and entering! IMHO the TRUE inept culprit is therefore exposed....THE AGENCY! (read management).

Now go and read Andy the Coasties post on the other thread!

-Paul

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Now go and read Andy the Coasties post on the other thread!

-Paul

Do I have to?

Oh, OK.

[Finless]

OK, just ignore me. It's already been done.

I wonder if I actually posted in the original thread. For the sake of my memory I'm almost too frightened to look.

I spotted the story in the DM today when I was doing the back page crossword whilst munching on my sarnie. I new it was an old paper but assumed it was only a week old. Oh well.

[Scubee]

Originally Posted by Finless

I believe the term is "forced to resign"?

Actually, is Constructive Dismissal. I could go through exactly what you have to show to be able to claim it in law but, TBH, it is too complex for a Monday afternoon.

Originally Posted by finless

Scubee, I am not cross at you ( - FFS, a short haired smart boy hug, shudder / I was going to give you the 'tongue' but I thought that might be taken the wrong way, that is to say ............. ) but F*CK THE REGULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what is wrong with the country these days. Nobody is apparently capable of making their own decisions. Every time something happens it leads to mass consultation of the poxy rule book to see what can be done and what is allowed (per HSE and insurance).

What is even more depressing is that this method of thinking is percolating into the general conciousness of the masses ............

Why do I bother? Can nobody see what bunch of lily livered indecisive tossers the government want as its "subjects".

It's bloody outrageous. In the days when men were men and women were damned glad of it (excuse me, I have to stop typing for a second or ten to slap my thigh and laugh heartily).

I despair, I really do. TF I'm 50 and on the slippery slope!

The bloke, on a scale of 'zero to hero', should be at least on the plus side (towards hero, for those who are too young).

i agree with you. The UK is, sadly, following the septics into a blame culture. The constant run of ads for the 'no win no fee' scumbag lawyers doesn't help. FFS... if i trip over a paving slab and break my ankle, is the council to blame for not having a level pavement, or me, for not looking where i am going? Too many people will look for a way to get cash in whatever way they feel they can get away with. (Ooops... i had 4 twinsets and precision regulator equipment in the boot of my car when it was rearended.... honest, guv... look... here is a note from the specialist repairer who says they will kill me if i use them again and as the accident wasn't my fault i need to add another £2000 to my insurance claim.).
i actually hope that if i had been in a position similar to that of the girl he helped, that someone would be prepared to assist, but i wouldn't blame them if they felt they were taking too big a risk without the correct equipment.

I actually think there is more to this than the press are telling us.

It isn't necessarily the government of the UK that is to blame. They have had to react to the people who do sue by blaming someone else for their own stupidity.