Thread: Here we go again - UK nanny state

I just looked at the OP again. That river hardly looks like a raging torrent. Looks more like a placid country stream. And the OP only casually mentions the cold and the 'undertow'; the emphasis is on the fact that the cops did nothing because regulations said they had to wait for the union members certified in water rescues. Pretty pathetic.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I just looked at the OP again. That river hardly looks like a raging torrent. Looks more like a placid country stream. And the OP only casually mentions the cold and the 'undertow'; the emphasis is on the fact that the cops did nothing because regulations said they had to wait for the union members certified in water rescues. Pretty pathetic.

Dont forget, this is the sensationalist press writing the story. Please try to take this into account before making a judgement. Never let facts get in the way of a good story etc etc. We all know that the press are sensationalist scumbags dont we?

^True. The press is a factor. I still tend to disagree with you on the chances of attempting a rescue, but really can't say without having more facts. I still think that this is about regulations rather than capability.

I'm at this point, but, if the water was that cold, and there were such horrible undercurrents, undertow, rip tides, etc, how did Daddy Dearest, who had just survived a high speed impact with said river, manage to get himself and his son to the shore, where the fearless cops who were certified for riverbank retrievals pulled them up. Ditto to the above points if the car was deeply submerged. And, by the way, I resent your "If you're a diver as you say" comment. If I wasn't a Rescue Diver, why would I say I was?

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I'm at this point, but, if the water was that cold, and there were such horrible undercurrents, undertow, rip tides, etc, how did Daddy Dearest, who had just survived a high speed impact with said river, manage to get himself and his son to the shore, where the fearless cops who were certified for riverbank retrievals pulled them up. Ditto to the above points if the car was deeply submerged. And, by the way, I resent your "If you're a diver as you say" comment. If I wasn't a Rescue Diver, why would I say I was?

kin ell!! if I believed everyone in hua hin or cha am who claims to be ex special forces, one has to be abit sceptic about some comments or stories that one hears in expat circles,not saying you arent a rescue diver, but talk is cheap when the evenings get long and the lao khao is smooth!!

I don't think you are , but I think you are reacting in exactly the way the media would want you to react. Over emotional when you don't know or understand the full facts of the situation. Take a deep breath Davis.

It would certainly prove diificult for Police Officers to assess the risk involved in attempting to save a child who probably had been in the submerged vehicle for more than 5 minutes prior to their arrival. As reported they were engaged in pulling the other two occupants from the river prior to receiving a report that another was trapped inside.

Could they see the submerged vehicle from the riverbank?

Were they competent swimmers themselves?

Was there any life saving equipment to hand?

The number 1 priority for all UK Police Officers is the 'Protection of Life' and i am certain that the officers concerned would themselves have felt pretty helpless in such a situation as would members of the public who attended the scene.

To lose a child in such circumstances is traumatic for everyone concerned although it beggars belief that a 'doting' father could have put his own children through such an ordeal.

RIP little one

Originally Posted by astasinim

putting yourself in a situation, whereby you will just get dragged to the bottom once the line is taught

keep the line slack as the rescuer floats/swims downstream to the vehicle (3 man team holding the rope walks along the river bank keeping pace), once the rescuer gets to the vehicle then the team stays just slightly up stream to the rescuer on the river bank until it's necessary to reel him in (using an arc maneuver). It would be tricky, but like others have mentioned I would risk my pension to do it.

What you are describing is a routine carried out by a specialist team, which is exactly what had to be used to recover the body, the police officers on-site had neither the training or the resources to carry out such a task.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

the police officers on-site had neither the training or the resources to carry out such a task.

I'm sure they will put that on the little one's headstone.

I'm 100% sure they won't. Sentimental claptrap at best Agent Smith.
I'm sure that is what the findings of the inevitable inquiry will state, as opposed to the findings of the trial by media.

Originally Posted by Ningi

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I simply can't fathom how trained law enforcement personnel could stand on the river bank and watch a kid drown and freeze to death for over an hour and a half. If there is a strong current, you rope yourself off before you go in. Remember the guy who went into the frozen river in DC some 20 or 30 years ago when the Air Florida plane crashed right next to the 14th Street bridge. He had to break the ice to get in, and just took off his shoes and went for it - and saved a life. This is very hard to understand. RIP little girl.

Straight facts first, the car was driven into the river deliberately!the driver left the child to try and get out on her own, secondly the police must of been thinkingabout their 2 colleages who disobeyed health and safety regs by jumping into a stormy sea in blackpool to rescue a pensioner whose dog had been washed away and had jumped in to rescue it, 1 policeman lost his life he left a wifeand 2 children the police refused to pay her a widows pension, the other policeman was sacked , he had a 19 year exemplary record, he lost everything too,all you have a go hero.s its easy for you to criticisetry walking a mile in their shoes!!

Have-a-go-hero's is what it comes down to at the end of the day. That word is deliberately meant to discourage and emasiate a man from doing the right thing.

You either man-up and do something about it or back-down and cower like the H&S facists want you too.

Originally Posted by astasinim

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Have to disagree Asta. I've been in a lot of fast currents and if you rope yourself in upstream, and have somebody on the rope to help out, you can sweep right down to your target area. And I'm not a hero, but neither am I a police officer who has sworn to do the job of protecting and assisting the public when their lives are at risk. And, I have been a rescue diver for more than twenty years, albeit with the majority of my experience in open ocean vice rivers. The water couldn't have been that freezing, the child was still alive 97 minutes later when they finally got her out. And the current couldn't have been that much of a factor, as she was in the car, and not drifting free in the water. Sure, there were a lot of factors to consider, but it seems to me that in the 97 minute period in which they watched, somebody should/could have come up with some kind of rescue attempt.

If your a diver as you say, then you would see the holes in your argument.

1. By attaching yourself to a rope in a fast flowing river (lets assume it was moving rather fast given the time of year. Melt water from the saturated hills etc etc) your putting yourself in a situation, whereby you will just get dragged to the bottom once the line is taught. Then your mate will try and pull you back, possibly snagging you to something on the bottom, causing you to stay there and drown.

2. If the child lasted 97 minutes under water, then it must have been damn cold. Its a well known fact that the body can survive longer submerged in cold water due to the initial shock.

3. Once the car hit the river bed it would probably have got wedged onto something on the bottom, and not have dragged down stream.

There are many other things to take into consideration, and not making yourself a casualty is one of them.

The kids were in an air-pocket not hybernating mate.

Do something or Do nothing is the name of the game...

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Originally Posted by astasinim

putting yourself in a situation, whereby you will just get dragged to the bottom once the line is taught

keep the line slack as the rescuer floats/swims downstream to the vehicle (3 man team holding the rope walks along the river bank keeping pace), once the rescuer gets to the vehicle then the team stays just slightly up stream to the rescuer on the river bank until it's necessary to reel him in (using an arc maneuver). It would be tricky, but like others have mentioned I would risk my pension to do it.

No rescue team would ever attach a line to one of its rescuers full stop. It goes against all the rules. If he/she got into diffuculties it would be more of a hindrance. All water rescue personnel are self rescue techniques, and as I already said, the number one rule is not to become a casualty yourself.

Originally Posted by Slipstream

The kids were in an air-pocket not hybernating mate.

Do something or Do nothing is the name of the game...

How do you know they were in an air pocket? And how long do you think that air pocket would last? A couple of minutes at best I would say. Plus if the father and son got out, then that means the car would have been flooded before the police arrived.

Nothing personal to anyone, but I think some of you are allowing emotions to rule your head, which is not advisable in situations like that. Plus I doubt many of you would have tried to effect a rescue had you been there. Im sure many would have thought about it, but I think few would have tried.

^
So we must assume that if you were on the riverbank at the time and potential help was half a county away, you would just stand there and do nothing ???

Please leave - your coat is on the hook next to the door !

In the years that I was in the mining /muckshifting industry in way out places - we were on call out for heavy plant if there were local disasters - landslides / earthquakes etc.
It was always a case of f*ck the relief organisations H & S rules - just get in there and get the job done.

In handling about 15 incidents over the same amount of years, we had one man lose a hand - but got out over 500 people who would be dead if we stuck to the rules !!!
( ref - Ibb Yemen - earthquake, Mexico city- earthquake, Taiwan - earthquake, Oran - earthquake, Izmir Turkey - earthquake, Switzerland -3 avalanches, Peru - landslide Etc etc etc )

The rules and regs are written by desk pilots who have never had to be on the spot and make instant decisions !!! ( or the tragic results that happen if the bloody silly rules are followed to the letter)
Next time give them a bodybag and put them on the next plane so they can fill it up with bits !!

Rant over - but hope I am forgiven for deflecting the thread a bit - but it is a subject that I was deeply involved in for many years !

Anyway I started the thread so a bit of leeway should be allowed !

Originally Posted by astasinim

Nothing personal to anyone, but I think some of you are allowing emotions to rule your head, which is not advisable in situations like that.

But.. it sells newspapers, fills morning TV slots and keeps the self righteous in ammunition on internet forums.
Next... oh look a train crashed in Belgium, who we gonna blame for that..?

Good post astasinim.

many old farts like myself , who have been regular soldiers, have partaken insearch and rescue operations in adverse conditions in different corners of the world, even done a few earthquakes and avalanches,where ever there are natural catastrophes,people help and do extraordinary things but in the cold light of day there is no point in letting your feelings get the better of you, some you win and some you lose and thats a fact of life!!

Originally Posted by Happyman

^
So we must assume that if you were on the riverbank at the time and potential help was half a county away, you would just stand there and do nothing ???

Please leave - your coat is on the hook next to the door !

If I was on the riverbank with no equipment, then I would have to think very hard as to whether or not I would dive in. Local knowledge would play a large factor in my decision.

Water rescue is part and parcel of my Job, and have personnel experience of these "have a go hero`s" making themselves casualties also, thus making my job even harder. Im not saying these qualities aren't admirable, but had they have thought a little beforehand, maybe they wouldn't have been so quick to dive in (no pun intended).

So thanks, but, no thanks. I`ll leave my coat where it is.

Dog saves woman from river in St Asaph

May 3 2008 by Hywel Trewyn, Daily Post
Penny the Dog

A DOG saved a drowning woman’s life by dragging her from a fast flowing river.
Plucky labrador retriever Penny was hailed a heroine after she swam into the Elwy and pulled the unconscious woman to shore in St Asaph.


Daily Post North Wales - News - North Wales News - Dog saves woman from river in St Asaph

OK for untrained dogs to rescue people, but not police apparently.

“If Penny hadn’t gone into the water I would have tried and rescued the woman.”

...and promptly get fired after.

'Failures' caused fireman's death


Paul Metcalf was also a joinery lecturer at Accrington college

A firefighter drowned while trying to rescue a teenage boy from a lake because of "a catalogue of failures" by his brigade, a court has heard. Sub-Officer Paul Metcalf died as he tried to save student Reyaz Ali from the lake in Holcombe Brook in Bury, Greater Manchester, in September 1999.
Bolton Crown Court heard that Greater Manchester Fire Service had failed to assess the risks of water rescues.
It denies a breach of duty charge brought under health and safety law.

Mr Metcalf, a part-time firefighter based at Ramsbottom fire station, was dispatched as part of a crew to rescue Reyaz Ali, a 15-year-old from New Zealand, who also died in the rescue.
He was studying at the Darul Uloom Islamic College, less than a mile from where the accident happened.
Paul Metcalf displayed the selflessness and courage you would expect of a firefighter


Tim Horlock QC

The teenager had been with friends when he swung on a rope into the water and got into difficulties.
On Tuesday, Bolton Crown Court heard that Greater Manchester Fire Service had failed over a "lengthy period of time" to address the risks associated with water rescues.
It denies the breach of duty charge brought by the Health and Safety Executive.
Tim Horlock QC, prosecuting, said: "Paul Metcalf and others entered the water in a vain attempt to rescue him [Reyaz].
Mr Metcalf's safety rope became snagged underwater

"Paul Metcalf displayed the selflessness and courage you would expect of a firefighter and lost his life as a result of trying to save another."
The court heard that Mr Metcalf, a joinery lecturer at Accrington and Rossendale College who was a "strong swimmer", entered the water 30 minutes after Reyaz disappeared.
He drowned after his safety line became snagged on a branch beneath the water.
He said that a "catalogue of failures" by the brigade led to Mr Metcalf's death.
The firefighters had no specialist equipment or training and had been given no information about the risks they faced during water-based operations, Mr Horlock said.
He also told the jury that there had been other occasions between 1994 and Mr Metcalf's death when safety procedures were recommended for such operations but never implemented.


As a result of this man death, training and new rescue techniques have been put into place across the UK to minimise the chances of a repeat incident.

In my home town we have fond memories of a heroine named Susan Harris who in 1966 jumped into running water in an attempt to rescue a young boy who was in difficulties.

He survived but unfortunately she drowned. She was a young nurse and daughter of a vicar from Cornwall and myself and a few good friends tend her grave annually during my trip to the UK.

The tragic loss of a young girl, who without thought for her own safety tried to save another.

Experience in rescue techniques have moved on quite considerably in the past 50 years and jumping into a river/lake without thought for ones own safety has long since passed. Many considerations need be made prior to taking action. A few seconds of assessment could be the difference between saving life or causing more fatalities.

A brave girl who lost her life in tragic circumstances. One more than any of us can afford.