Firefighters left man in pond 'as he seemed dead' (From Daily Echo)

All I can say is the New York fire fighters during the 9/11 tradgey must have had some very good training to assess the risks before entering the Twin Towers. Perhaps the Gosport Fire Dept could go on the same course.

JohnItaly wrote:
All I can say is the New York fire fighters during the 9/11 tradgey must have had some very good training to assess the risks before entering the Twin Towers. Perhaps the Gosport Fire Dept could go on the same course.

Not really, considering how many NY firefighters lost their lives in doing so. Want to know how people like firefighters assess risks? They take the first plan that comes to mind, quickly assess it for drawbacks, and if they don't find any, they run with it. It's never the well thought-out, detailed, "best" approach you might imagine.

Beggars belief that no one went to his aid even before the fire service arrived! He was face down in a pond 3ft deep allegedly. You don't even need to know how to swim. People like my dad wouldn't even have thought about it, he would have gone in to pull him out. I would have too. Maybe people no longer know how to use their initiative, they rely on the nanny state to tell them what to think, what to do, or maybe they just didn't want to get wet. Shame on them all, he might have been saved or if not at least his family would know that folk in the vicinity did all they could.

Why has it taken a year to hold a Coroner's inquest?

How deep was this lake? If it was over 5ft and there was no boat available, I'm not sure what more they could have done apart from stripping off and attempting to swim out. If the water was only 3ft deep, as I think it is, I'm not sure I would call them an emergency service. If this had happened 10 years ago, I'm sure they would of got this man out of the water much earlier, dead or alive.

It certainly couldnt have been more dangerous than going into a burning building this is disgusting.

In my day they would not have hesitated.
Any man refusing would be deemed unfit for service and dismissed.
Of couse these days too much time is spent sitting around drnking tea and doing charity calender photo shoots or car washing.
And they have the nerve to strike!
It sickens me

From what I've read it seems a bit crazy they the fire fighter didn't go on into the water. However, I have a friend in the police service and I have been told of occasions where they are told to wait (for health and safety reasons) but have carried on and saved lives, only to be reprimanded by their bosses for ignoring orders. Disgraceful.

Equally, if the water was this shallow, why on earth had no-one else already got the guy out?!?!

Georgem wrote:

JohnItaly wrote:
All I can say is the New York fire fighters during the 9/11 tradgey must have had some very good training to assess the risks before entering the Twin Towers. Perhaps the Gosport Fire Dept could go on the same course.

Not really, considering how many NY firefighters lost their lives in doing so. Want to know how people like firefighters assess risks? They take the first plan that comes to mind, quickly assess it for drawbacks, and if they don't find any, they run with it. It's never the well thought-out, detailed, "best" approach you might imagine.

Surely first plan to come to mind is to get him out. Assess drawbacks - going to get our trousers and feet wet at worst. I bet they have paddled in deeper water with their trousers rolled up.

Some info, as a serving firefighter. Our policy (which isn't open to any interpretation) is that we do not enter water under any circumstances, regardless for even rescue purposes. Effectively what this does is puts a huge moral obligation on any individuals attending an incident. If, as an officer in charge of a crew, I ordered a firefighter into water and he died I would go to jail as I didn't stick to policy. if it went well I could at least expect to be disciplined. How many of you could deal with that dilemma. Our instinct is to save life, that is why we do the job. If you asked any firefighter what they want to do in that situation you will get every one of them saying they would go in. We are handcuffed by policy and legislation which needs to be changed. I will willingly risk my life to save anybody, but risk going to jail by getting it wrong? you decide!

The Chief Fire officer said on
Meridian News that it was not a
question of Health & Safety, but
it was removing a dead body.
It appears that was why they
waited for the guys with the correct
gear to arrive. I will admit that if I
had been there I wouldn't have
given a second thought about
going into 3 feet of water

rudolph - you are ill informed. our work for charity is generally done off duty - not that is matters as you will probably form your own opinion.

stormjumper wrote:
Some info, as a serving firefighter. Our policy (which isn't open to any interpretation) is that we do not enter water under any circumstances, regardless for even rescue purposes. Effectively what this does is puts a huge moral obligation on any individuals attending an incident. If, as an officer in charge of a crew, I ordered a firefighter into water and he died I would go to jail as I didn't stick to policy. if it went well I could at least expect to be disciplined. How many of you could deal with that dilemma. Our instinct is to save life, that is why we do the job. If you asked any firefighter what they want to do in that situation you will get every one of them saying they would go in. We are handcuffed by policy and legislation which needs to be changed. I will willingly risk my life to save anybody, but risk going to jail by getting it wrong? you decide!

then policy need to be changed - its pathetic

Stormjumper, I'm sorry, I don't agree with your response. I would have go in, just as any other fit person would of done. It was three foot of water and they knew it as they are the local boys. What is wrong with going in anyway, with rope attached, I think you are hiding behind Health and Safety regulations. What I really want to compare your mates with down in Gosport really sticks in my throat, I just can't say it. But I will say this, this is a shameful episode, especially as the Gran who witnessed it nearly jumped in.

Ad E Noid....i dont hide behind h and safety. As an army veteran, underwater search and rescue commercial diver, international search and rescue technician with service in indonesia and haiti, I know what i am talking about. ?I have exposed myself to levels of danger that you have no knowledge of, which is over and above the obligation that my contract dictates. and for your info, the last uk firefighter that attempted a rescue in water who attached a rope to himself - died!! hence this ridiculous health and safety legislation being imposed. talk about what you know, not what you think you know.

How likely is it really, that a fit and healthy firefighter is going to die by wading into what to them is basically a paddling pool to help potentially save a life. I very much doubt it would have meant more than wading.

As a child I thought nothing of wading into a boating lake to retrieve a model boat, I imagine most of us of a certain age are the same.

This is a horryifying story. If policies and procedures got in the way of proper assistance being given, they should be reviewed immediately.

Should those attending need to be ordered in to assist, if it was safe to do so, would they not volunteer?

Are the fire service following the recommendations in Lord Young's report: "Common Sense, Common Safety"?

This report included among the recommendations: "Clarify (through legislation if necessary) that people will not be held liable for any consequences due to well-intentioned voluntary acts on their part."

and in particular:
"Police and fire services:
Police officers and firefighters should not be at risk of investigation or prosecution under health and safety legislation when engaged in the course of their duties if they have put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act. The HSE, Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service should consider further guidance to put this into effect."

The detail of the report goes on to say:

"Police and fire services
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 apply to all duties undertaken by the Police Service and Fire and Rescue Service.The Acts protect employees and ensure that activities carried out do not adversely affect the health and safety of other people. Employees are expected to take reasonable care of themselves and others. However, it is the nature of the job that individuals may occasionally put themselves at risk to save the life of someone else.Where this happens the last thing that should be contemplated is a prosecution for non-compliance with health and safety legislation.
The HSE has engaged in joint work with the Association of Chief Police Officers, Police Authorities and Fire and Rescue Authorities to identify how a balance can be struck between high risk operational duties and the health and safety of themselves and others. As a result of this work, statements and guidance were drawn up for both the Police Service and the Fire and Rescue Authorities: Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Police Service and Striking the balance between operational and health and safety duties in the Fire and Rescue Service. I support this approach.
Where an unfortunate incident occurs and an officer puts him or herself at risk in the line of their duty to protect the public, I take the view that it would not be in the public interest to take action and investigate under health and safety laws.
However, at present, there is some ambiguity in such cases, and there is a clear need for certainty in this important area.
I recommend that a common sense approach is applied to give police officers (including Police Community Support Officers) and firefighters reassurance that they will not be investigated or prosecuted for undertaking an act of heroism. This policy should be reinforced through the HSE, Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service issuing further guidance that should put this into effect.
It is important to recognise that individuals have personal choices to make and they may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable risk. However, those officers who go the extra mile and put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public should continue to be recognised and rewarded for their bravery."

Further background to the fire services position in a separate case here:
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1324586/Drowning-man
s-pleas-firemen-refu
sed-to-aid.html

just wondered, if it was an attractive young woman in the lake instead of a middle aged man, i would wager the h and s bullsh*t would have been brushed aside pdq

stormjumper wrote:
Some info, as a serving firefighter. Our policy (which isn't open to any interpretation) is that we do not enter water under any circumstances, regardless for even rescue purposes. Effectively what this does is puts a huge moral obligation on any individuals attending an incident. If, as an officer in charge of a crew, I ordered a firefighter into water and he died I would go to jail as I didn't stick to policy. if it went well I could at least expect to be disciplined. How many of you could deal with that dilemma. Our instinct is to save life, that is why we do the job. If you asked any firefighter what they want to do in that situation you will get every one of them saying they would go in. We are handcuffed by policy and legislation which needs to be changed. I will willingly risk my life to save anybody, but risk going to jail by getting it wrong? you decide!

Sounds like your just in it for the high salary, benefits and pension.Dont you feel any shame at all?

bigfella777 wrote:

stormjumper wrote:
Some info, as a serving firefighter. Our policy (which isn't open to any interpretation) is that we do not enter water under any circumstances, regardless for even rescue purposes. Effectively what this does is puts a huge moral obligation on any individuals attending an incident. If, as an officer in charge of a crew, I ordered a firefighter into water and he died I would go to jail as I didn't stick to policy. if it went well I could at least expect to be disciplined. How many of you could deal with that dilemma. Our instinct is to save life, that is why we do the job. If you asked any firefighter what they want to do in that situation you will get every one of them saying they would go in. We are handcuffed by policy and legislation which needs to be changed. I will willingly risk my life to save anybody, but risk going to jail by getting it wrong? you decide!

Sounds like your just in it for the high salary, benefits and pension.Dont you feel any shame at all?

It's a good job you never signed up to anything worthwhile in life.

'Heroes'.

If the fire brigade won't go into water, why were they sent to the incident in the first place? Also, having been sent and realising there is nothing they could do, why didn't they just get back in their fire tender and go back to the station?
Wouldn't look good?? No I don't suppose it would but not much different from what we have now.
I think the fire brigade do a first class job but their policy makers need to come out from behind their desks and defend their position rather than allow real fire fighters face a backlash from the public. Shame on the organisation.

stormjumper wrote:
Ad E Noid....i dont hide behind h and safety. As an army veteran, underwater search and rescue commercial diver, international search and rescue technician with service in indonesia and haiti, I know what i am talking about. ?I have exposed myself to levels of danger that you have no knowledge of, which is over and above the obligation that my contract dictates. and for your info, the last uk firefighter that attempted a rescue in water who attached a rope to himself - died!! hence this ridiculous health and safety legislation being imposed. talk about what you know, not what you think you know.

Stormjumper, I don't normally bother, but in your case I will make an exception. I'm still in and I have been to Iraq and seen it all. Big Deal, so have tens of thousands of other soldiers, and worse in Afghan. So far as that bit is concerned I am not impressed. Sorry, Hero status denied. I presume you are talking about Paul Metcalfe who died in tragic circumstances whilst attempting to save a boys life in a lake with a safety rope attached. The 40ft of water he was in is different to the 3ft concrete lined boating lake in Gosport. I apologise if this is not the Fireman you were talking about in your last post. I do agree with you the rules and regulations that you are subjected to are pathetic. Risk assessment on the day would have concluded that a rescue be attempted. Like I said, they had the option of wading in, with a proper harness on, and attempting something, anything. If they were distressed in the 3ft of water, well at least they tried. I am trying to tell you that doing nothing, should not have been an option. This sorry tale has gone out of this Country, read it in the USA Daily blurbs. Not a good advert at all. Finally, talk about how you can help others, not about how good you are, because I'm not interested.

How easy it is to stand here now and pass judgement on how you would have all done a much better job. Why don't you join the fire service to prove your point, entering burning buildings, dealing with arson, car crashes, dead bodies and trauma on a daily basis like fire fighters do. I am shocked no body else helped if the water wasn't an issue before the fire crew arrived. I bet the poor Gran who didn't actually go into the water stood around to watch the show for the next hour or two as well. Also, how about the person who phoned the emergency services and requested fire as their emergency service of choice, maybe an ambulance would of been better. How about thinking of the people who decided watching a dead body in the boating lake was a suitable form of entertainment for their children that day, that to me is appalling, hence I'm sure causing longer delays waiting for equipment to put the body into to avoid distress to the watching crowd. Its easy to judge others for their mistakes but until we truly know the full story and not a mixture of fact, hearsay and reporters opinions I suggest we reflect on the sad loss of life here and the one real true fact that all of you will happily have any one of those firefighters turn up at your homes tonight should it catch fire or cut you or your family members out of a crashed car to get you to hospital.

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

stormjumper wrote:
Ad E Noid....i dont hide behind h and safety. As an army veteran, underwater search and rescue commercial diver, international search and rescue technician with service in indonesia and haiti, I know what i am talking about. ?I have exposed myself to levels of danger that you have no knowledge of, which is over and above the obligation that my contract dictates. and for your info, the last uk firefighter that attempted a rescue in water who attached a rope to himself - died!! hence this ridiculous health and safety legislation being imposed. talk about what you know, not what you think you know.

Stormjumper, I don't normally bother, but in your case I will make an exception. I'm still in and I have been to Iraq and seen it all. Big Deal, so have tens of thousands of other soldiers, and worse in Afghan. So far as that bit is concerned I am not impressed. Sorry, Hero status denied. I presume you are talking about Paul Metcalfe who died in tragic circumstances whilst attempting to save a boys life in a lake with a safety rope attached. The 40ft of water he was in is different to the 3ft concrete lined boating lake in Gosport. I apologise if this is not the Fireman you were talking about in your last post. I do agree with you the rules and regulations that you are subjected to are pathetic. Risk assessment on the day would have concluded that a rescue be attempted. Like I said, they had the option of wading in, with a proper harness on, and attempting something, anything. If they were distressed in the 3ft of water, well at least they tried. I am trying to tell you that doing nothing, should not have been an option. This sorry tale has gone out of this Country, read it in the USA Daily blurbs. Not a good advert at all. Finally, talk about how you can help others, not about how good you are, because I'm not interested.

the response i wrote was to your own quote of saying that I hide behind health and safety, so the brief history that was provided was to indicate that you have in fact made a statement based on presumption - It was hardly written to achieve a hero status. I am very happy in the fact that I get to be part of a team that has helped to save numerous lives - that is all the recognition i need - my advice to you would be to start looking at yourself, your own frustrations, and stop judging people or services that you know little about. And if you are not interested in my comments - dont reply.

Stormjumper, I found the H&S advice that I was talking about. DEFRA said that you cannot, under any circumstances, enter water that is above ankle height. That is ankle height in running water, as in a flood. In this case, they would say get on with it. I only get frustrated with people like you that appear above the parapet to tell us how good you are, and try to defend the events of that day. Suggest you read the full transcript of events that day, even worse than what was in the Echo. Pink, I've seen enough, thank you.