Health and safety and the Emergency services

Should emergency services be subject to the same restrictions as the general public ?
This question has been raised by Sir Paul Stephenson as a result of the 7/7 inquiry

Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has spoken out in the wake of the 7/7 inquest, which heard that the response of the emergency services were hampered by restrictive health and safety regulations

whilst personal safety of the emergency services is important it has to be realised that inherant danger is part of the job .The question is does the personal safety of someone who has voluntarily signed up to a job with inherant risks outweigh the risk of entering a high risk enviroment to save lives ?.
In my opinion no it doesn't

sky link

BBC link

[Derek]

Originally Posted by martyh

Should emergency services be subject to the same restrictions as the general public ?

Yes and no. On one hand the bosses shouldn't be allowed to get away with placing officers in danger or supplying sub-standard equipment but *IF* the emergency services choose to put themselves in danger to save lives they shouldn't be worried about possible disciplinary action.

Originally Posted by Derek

Yes and no. On one hand the bosses shouldn't be allowed to get away with placing officers in danger or supplying sub-standard equipment but *IF* the emergency services choose to put themselves in danger to save lives they shouldn't be worried about possible disciplinary action.

That is more what i am getting at ,obviously H&S has it's place but punishing officers who do try to save lives whilst breaking H&S legislation wrong imo

[budwieser]

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

Yes and no. On one hand the bosses shouldn't be allowed to get away with placing officers in danger or supplying sub-standard equipment but *IF* the emergency services choose to put themselves in danger to save lives they shouldn't be worried about possible disciplinary action.

Originally Posted by martyh

That is more what i am getting at ,obviously H&S has it's place but punishing officers who do try to save lives whilst breaking H&S legislation wrong imo

Totally agree with both of you on these posts.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by budwieser

Totally agree with both of you on these posts.

+1

Within reasonable limits it should be an understood part of the job.

You're not filing clerks.

[budwieser]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

+1

Within reasonable limits it should be an understood part of the job.

You're not filing clerks.

Spot on mate. Wasn`t there an incident a while ago when somebody drowned or something because the Emergency services wouldn`t go in because of H&S?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by budwieser

Spot on mate. Wasn`t there an incident a while ago when somebody drowned or something because the Emergency services wouldn`t go in because of H&S?

There was one where two PCSOs were first at the scene of a drowning. The Daily Mail made out as though they watched the person drown and didn't try to help due to health and safety. (A chance to have a go at the Police and H&S in one story? The DM must have thought it was Christmas!)

In reality the person was already under water and out of site on arrival of the PCSOs and as there was no reliable information where he was last seen they didn't go in, quite rightly IMO.

[Dai]

Originally Posted by Derek

In reality the person was already under water and out of sight on arrival of the PCSOs and as there was no reliable information where he was last seen they didn't go in, quite rightly IMO.

IIRC, several other people had already tried to find the kid and failed.

Sounds like it was all over by the time the PCSOs arrived.

Originally Posted by Derek

There was one where two PCSOs were first at the scene of a drowning. The Daily Mail made out as though they watched the person drown and didn't try to help due to health and safety. (A chance to have a go at the Police and H&S in one story? The DM must have thought it was Christmas!)

In reality the person was already under water and out of site on arrival of the PCSOs and as there was no reliable information where he was last seen they didn't go in, quite rightly IMO.

This type of media reporting is a problem ,we hear stories of this nature via the media but speaking as a emergency service professional have you actually come across this type of H&S conflict where you or colleagues have faced a dilemma ?

[budwieser]

Originally Posted by Derek

There was one where two PCSOs were first at the scene of a drowning. The Daily Mail made out as though they watched the person drown and didn't try to help due to health and safety. (A chance to have a go at the Police and H&S in one story? The DM must have thought it was Christmas!)

In reality the person was already under water and out of site on arrival of the PCSOs and as there was no reliable information where he was last seen they didn't go in, quite rightly IMO.

Thanks for the clarification Derek.

I think this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2512401.ece is what i was thinking of, very sad.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Derek

There was one where two PCSOs were first at the scene of a drowning. The Daily Mail made out as though they watched the person drown and didn't try to help due to health and safety. (A chance to have a go at the Police and H&S in one story? The DM must have thought it was Christmas!)

In reality the person was already under water and out of site on arrival of the PCSOs and as there was no reliable information where he was last seen they didn't go in, quite rightly IMO.

Funnily enough Derek the first proper policeman on the scene did jump in and get the kid out, no ones saying they want people to put themselves in genuine life or death danger but what was the real risk of having a little wade out or even probing the water with a branch, catching a cold, splinters, I know I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing in a similar situation and what we certainly don't want is anymore of this

A grandfather died of a heart attack while an emergency paramedic stood outside his home for 16 minutes, making a risk assessment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6652450.ece

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Funnily enough Derek the first proper policeman on the scene did jump in and get the kid out, no ones saying they want people to put themselves in genuine life or death danger but what was the real risk of having a little wade out or even probing the water with a branch, catching a cold, splinters, I know I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing in a similar situation and what we certainly don't want is anymore of this

A grandfather died of a heart attack while an emergency paramedic stood outside his home for 16 minutes, making a risk assessment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6652450.ece

Numerous people have drowned as a result of "a little wade out".

Speaking as someone who has actually saved / rescued someone from drowning I can tell you, categorically, that I would think - long and hard - before doing it again.

In fact I'm pretty sure that I could, with clear conscience, happlily live (that being the operative word) with myself were I not to do anything and leave it to those who are charged with that responsibility to do so.

Don't get me wrong - it's not that I would be concerned with - as you so glibly put it in juvenile terms - "catching a cold" or "splinters" but rather more important things like risking my life and the very real potential that my wife and (now three) children might, through no fault of theirs, be left fatherless.

I appreciate that may be a hard concept for you and others to grasp.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Numerous people have drowned as a result of "a little wade out".

and many more numerous haven't, imo the risk of sliding into a pond whilst holding on to the bank would have been worth it.

In fact I'm pretty sure that I could, with clear conscience, happlily live (that being the operative word) with myself were I not to do anything and leave it to those who are charged with that responsibility to do so.

That's you and I hope the same can be said of the two PCSO's that day, there's no point in them feeling bad about it, they made the decision they thought right and no amount of guilty consciences will chnage that.

Don't get me wrong - it's not that I would be concerned with - as you so glibly put it in juvenile terms - "catching a cold" or "splinters" but rather more important things like risking my life and the very real potential that my wife and (now three) children might, through no fault of theirs, be left fatherless.

I appreciate that may be a hard concept for you and others to grasp.

What's a hard concept for me to understand is it could have been one of my children or yours for that matter, that's what concerns me, the fact that lifesaving training is no longer compulsory kind of makes me wonder what is classed as an emergency these days.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Numerous people have drowned as a result of "a little wade out".

Speaking as someone who has actually saved / rescued someone from drowning I can tell you, categorically, that I would think - long and hard - before doing it again.

In fact I'm pretty sure that I could, with clear conscience, happlily live (that being the operative word) with myself were I not to do anything and leave it to those who are charged with that responsibility to do so.

Don't get me wrong - it's not that I would be concerned with - as you so glibly put it in juvenile terms - "catching a cold" or "splinters" but rather more important things like risking my life and the very real potential that my wife and (now three) children might, through no fault of theirs, be left fatherless.

I appreciate that may be a hard concept for you and others to grasp.

And you would be perfectly correct in "thinking long and hard" .compounding the problem of rescuing 1 person from ,for example ,drowning in a river or at sea by adding another person who may get into trouble for the same reason as the first person can put the emergency services in a impossible position and mean 2 people dying instead of none .

In the case of the 7/7 bombings one dog handler has hit out at other officers for holding back

The inquests had heard from explosives sniffer dog handler Pc Glen Hesketh, who hit out at other officers for holding back from getting on the bombed Tavistock Square bus to help the injured.

Undoubtedly those officers were following training and rules designed not to add emergency service personnel to the casualty count ,and those protocols have been designed around past experience where personnel have lost lives .
Now without any figures to hand i think the cases of people dying because ES personnel where doing a "risk assessment" is very low and the number of ES personnel dying in the course of their duties is also very low ,so i am inclined to think that the balance between going into a situation all"gung ho" and going in ,in a calm considered manner is just about right .

[Welshchris]

I think they should yes and i also think that if Paramedics know there is a possibility of violence then police should be sent with them.

There is a known problematic street up the road from where i live where gangs and druggies deal in a lane behind the street where there is no street lighting and just garages and the druggies dial 999 and request ambulances and they jump the paramedics for the drugs in the back of the ambulance and as the law stands Paramedics HAVE to answer the calls.