Police defend drowning death case

[Dave-exfairy]

Going into the water is a last resort, though I've seen it done. Unless you're a swift water rescue technician you never go into moving water. (the PCSO's incident was a pit)
If your employer requires you to do something then they should train and equip you for it.

Really?? You might want to tell my dad and his colleague who saved 2 little girls from drowning in the Welsh Dee (as opposed to the Scottish Dee) in the mid eighties, both got Royal Humane Society certificates and sod all from their employer - the Police.

 

[busby1971]

Within reason, entering the water is a last resort even for trained life guards. added to which they didn't really know where the boy was or how long he had been under.

Nobody has asked why the fishermen didn't get him out or where the parents were.

This has been an exercise by the press to have a go at PCSO's.

Good to see that someone else forgot the proper word - Anglers rather than fishermen unless there was a trawler somewhere on the lake.

Give the guys a break an accident happened, none of us were there so we don't know all the facts, PCSOs tend to be public spirited individuals and I am sure that they did the best they could at the time. The press love to big things up and not report the full facts, makes a story much better not more real.

 

[firestorm]

Really?? You might want to tell my dad and his colleague who saved 2 little girls from drowning in the Welsh Dee (as opposed to the Scottish Dee) in the mid eighties, both got Royal Humane Society certificates and sod all from their employer - the Police.

Yes, really. Statement of fact. Forced by events were people have gone into the water trying to rescue without kit and training. Improvement notices were served by the H&S exec on the rescue services as they expected their people (rightly) to effect rescues but didn't provide any kit or training.

Fair play to your dad and his mate. His employer couldn't sanction his actions as it would be falling foul of the law.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1567322.ece

This makes some interesting reading.

 

[Dave-exfairy]

Yes, really. Statement of fact. Forced by events were people have gone into the water trying to rescue without kit and training. Improvement notices were served by the H&S exec on the rescue services as they expected their people (rightly) to effect rescues but didn't provide any kit or training.

Fair play to your dad and his mate. His employer couldn't sanction his actions as it would be falling foul of the law.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1567322.ece

This makes some interesting reading.

Dad and his colleague effected their rescue in the mid 1980's, well before all this health and safety cr@p came in and people used their initiative. Some health and safety is good thinking, but then some H and S laws are complete sh!te. And as for the link to the Times article, it makes a mockery of the name, Fire and Rescue Service, don't you think?? Who'd want to work for a bunch of tw@ts like that? Man is a bloody hero.