PC fudge excuse over drowned boy

panzerschreck1 · Post by **panzerschreck1** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:29 am

As a former rescue swimmer myself (have the swimming license , but never did any actual baywatching myself) i too can't understand why noone jumped in to save a kid 10 years old..it really isn't that hard...in comparence with an adult male its a completely easy job...when a adult full grown male is fighting for his life when in the process of drowning , i can fully understand why people hesitate to react and save, because in death fright ,(especially a male)will push anything underwater to save himself and keep his head above water.since deathfright equals unbelievable strength we were advised to first knock the victim unconsious before we could safely pull a 100 kg body out of the water,without endangering yourself much...but again a lightweight 10 year old kid is a real easy job and absolutaly requires no knocking out

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:37 pm

Waleed Y. Majeed wrote:Now, now. now ...!

To simply apply any kind of guilt to any one per...policeman, we should first of all have to have
ALL knowlegde of ALL events in this case!

What makes IT PC or not in the first place!?
The up-holders of law could not (or would not) swim!!!
So what! My mum is scared of water! Would she save ME from drowning if the case occured?
Would I dive in for someone elses kid, knowing I might drown (not a great swimmmer myself)!?
I would probably think too long, (2-3 possibly 4 times) before making a choice. Who knows...!?

The question should be: How far are YOU as a human being willing to go?
Who would YOU as a... let's say fellow poster, be willling to help...!?
- And how far would YOU be willling to go for MONEY (after all it is "just" a job!)..?

Where do WE as the "public" get our standards from - and how are those
who WE as the voters put in power, able to make desicions of their own?

Too many questions to be answered and as many to be asked if answered...

Jesus C All Mighty and Allah as well..! Should keep off the wine!
(PC as we speak) 8D
Can't shut up when I should!

waleed

ps. All I wanted to say is: How are we to judge?
First judge oneself, then...!

pps. Any complaint... please pm me and keep the thread sober

I agree with much of what you write Waleed. However, one must not forget these people (PCs and PCSOs) have willing volunteered to protect and serve and the public and are willingly exposing themselves to these kinds of situations. They are of course, also being paid to protect and serve the public.

They obviously knew where the boy was, because when the “real” Police Officer arrived he dived straight in and pulled the boy out (he was praised by the boys parents).

Assuming they could swim (they shouldn’t be in the job if they can’t) then they have failed in their duty, not only as professionals but also as human beings.

Kind regards,

Andre

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:44 pm

Todays Sunday Mail tracked them down and it was a female aged 19 and male aged 24.

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:58 pm

The article MK related to in his post.

One of the 'Blunkett Bobbies' who failed to try to rescue ten-year-old Jordon Lyon from a pond is a newly qualified woman officer.

The other is a 24-year-old man, who stood on the roadside to flag down regular police after the pair had radioed for the emergency services

The female officer was 19 when the incident happened in May this year, but has since turned 20. She was sporty at school and won an award for the junior rounders team of Bolton Lads and Girls Club in 1999.

She watched and waited for regular officers to arrive knowing Jordon was beneath the surface of the John Pit pond.

She answered the door of her family home in Bolton and confirmed her name and position with the PCSO team of Greater Manchester Police. But she looked visibly shaken when asked to talk about her role in the tragedy. The officer refused to discuss the incident and slammed the door.

Her male colleague lives in Hindley, Wigan. Reporters were referred to Greater Manchester Police with 'no comment.' The officers had said they did not attempt a rescue because they were not trained to do so

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... ge_id=1770

Regards

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:00 am

Hi Andy,

There was recently film of a 22 year old from Newcastle drowned in the Tyne surrounded by hundreds of party-goers. None of them jumped in. The police then arrived, but as the body had sunk, they had no position to dive on. They therefore waited for Firemen to arrive with specialist gear. They found the body in a few minutes.

Frankly, I see no good reason to risk police officers diving blind into freezing water after some drunken prat.

In this case, as I understand it, the parents are kicking up a stink. It strikes me that the ultimate responsibility for this is theirs. This "PC PC" stink is probably diverting attention from the more fundamental problem of irresponsible parenting.

Cheers,

Sid.

Richard Hargreaves · Post by **Richard Hargreaves** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:45 am

sid guttridge wrote: In this case, as I understand it, the parents are kicking up a stink. It strikes me that the ultimate responsibility for this is theirs. This "PC PC" stink is probably diverting attention from the more fundamental problem of irresponsible parenting.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well said Sid. I don't know about anyone else here, but I wouldn't let a six year old girl play near/in a dangerous pit pond unattended.

That said, had I been there on the day, I'd probably have waded in (and possibly promptly needed rescuing myself given my lack of prowess in the water...)

Interestingly, much of the media hoo-ha has been kicked up by the Mail... whose political views are diametrically opposed to the government's.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:55 am

Hi Halder,

Sadly, The Mail isn't just diametrically opposed to the Government, but often diametrically opposed to reality.

If one wants "serious" discussion on crop circles, UFOs, alien abduction, Diana, etc., The Mail is the one for you!

I agree with you and Blunkett that common humanity perhaps ought to have impelled them into the water, but whether this would have in fact have retrieved the situation is a moot point. After all, the boy who died did so doing exactly the same thing - trying apparently to rescue someone else.

Cheers,

Sid.

Reb · Post by **Reb** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:14 am

In "hombre" Paul Newman said, "We all die. Its just a matter of when."

I suggest its more than that. Its a matter of how.

cheers
Reb

Cott Tiger · Post by **Cott Tiger** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:16 am

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Andy,

There was recently film of a 22 year old from Newcastle drowned in the Tyne surrounded by hundreds of party-goers. None of them jumped in. The police then arrived, but as the body had sunk, they had no position to dive on. They therefore waited for Firemen to arrive with specialist gear. They found the body in a few minutes.

Frankly, I see no good reason to risk police officers diving blind into freezing water after some drunken prat.

In this case, as I understand it, the parents are kicking up a stink. It strikes me that the ultimate responsibility for this is theirs. This "PC PC" stink is probably diverting attention from the more fundamental problem of irresponsible parenting.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid,

I too saw that piece of film.

There are many differences between the two scenarios. Firstly, one is a drunken 22 year-old man who ended up in the water due to his own foolishness and bravado. The other is a 10 year-old who went into the water to rescue his 8 year-old sister.

Secondly, the location of the 22 year-old was unknown and there was even some uncertainty at the beginning if there was anybody in the water at all. The location, or at least general area of the 10 year-old was known. As soon as the PC arrived he dived immediately into the water and pulled him straight out.

Thirdly, the water the child was in was not freezing cold and it was a all of six-feet deep.

You points about the Mail are very valid indeed, but in this instance I believe they are correct in their criticism of the individuals concerned (assuming they could in fact swim) and of the PCSO system in general.

As for the parents, there are of course some questions there that also needs to answered, but that doesn’t mean that that the two PCSOs should not have acted, even if it meant breaking the rules, to save his little life.

Best regards,

Andre

sniper1shot · Post by **sniper1shot** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:37 am

They obviously knew where the boy was, because when the “real” Police Officer arrived he dived straight in and pulled the boy out

Were the fishermen right over the spot too.
Yes, the parents failed but that being said there are "professionals" that are there to do the job.
FROM WHAT I HAVE READ HERE......these 2 failed in their jobs. Whether qualified or not, they would not of been in trouble jumping in to save the boy. The not qualifed excuse is just that.....an excuse because they know they failed.

If I was there I would of gone in too.......

I'm sad at the loss of the child over petty "qualifications". Yes, the parents are ultimately to blame....however, these 2 should lose their jobs over this in my mind.

Assuming they could swim (they shouldn’t be in the job if they can’t) then they have failed in their duty, not only as professionals but also as human beings.

I AGREE !

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:40 pm

Hi Sid

I agree to a point but I'm guessing your no spring chicken and just like me, I remember going out at 9am and not coming home till later that evening. Now my parents told me not to play around ponds etc but you get a bunch of friends and you can easily end up at a pond etc.

Parents have a responsibility but they cannot wrap there kids up in cotton wool.

These 2 PSCO's failed in there responsibility to act as a human beings. They succeded in there responsibility to act like a robots.

Cott Tiger has pointed out that the regular officer went straight in and found the child. He wasn't part of a underwater search unit or wearing special clothing/equipment, he just went in.

Regards

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:04 pm

...and last night, in an interview from the Labour Party Conference, the Home Office Minister justified their NON-action. So when you have their capo-di-capo telling them via the media they were right to act as they didn't....NOW how many more PCSOs WON'T act as human beings and wade in....

sniper1shot · Post by **sniper1shot** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:27 pm

Troops....Common Sense Prevails......apparently they didn't have any! or maybe it isn't as common as we would like.

I wonder if they were more worried about losing their jobs than in saving the life.

We live in a sad world these days, we really do. I am sure this happens more than we would like and then to have their boss pat them on their backs for their inaction ......

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:17 pm

I wonder if they were more worried about losing their jobs than in saving the life

No, probably more worried about the insurance claim against them!

Getting involved when they weren't trained for it? BIG no-no....Your Honour!

The UK has gotten more litiginous than California recently. It's not about fulfilling any Responsibility now, more about avoiding any Liability!

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:35 am

I suppose that people like this wouldn't intervene if they saw a man beating his wife or girlfriend on the grounds that they are not trained in streetfighting and unarmed combat. And they would be backed up by management level senior officers - most of whom have flown desks throughout their careers, kissed the right arses and learned the right kind of Masonic handshakes - whose main focus is cutting expenditure and generating income.

All of that aside, there should be a minimum age requirement of 25 for police recruits plus a further requirement that anyone applying to be a policeman show previous life experience or further education to degree level. In other words, graduates, ex-servicemen and people who have lived in the real world.

PCSO recruits should also undergo psychological evaluation and a selection process aimed at weeding cowards and individuals tainted with what used to be known as LMF - Low Moral Fibre - out in the first couple of days. They should be able to run five miles in forty to fifty minutes in full kit and pass swimming, lifesaving and basic first aid tests.

However, that would defeat the whole object of this window-dressing exercise, which is to cut costs to the bone by dressing low quality individuals up in snappy uniforms to give the impression of a police presence but without actually spending any money. Keeping up appearances... That is why these rejects receive very little in the way or training, with the exception, of course, of being well-drilled in filling out traffic and nuisance penalty tickets.

Meanwhile, the EUSSR commissars push ahead with plans for the formation of a Europe-wide "goon squad" whose tasks will include "containing" public unrest, tackling "violent demonstrations" and protecting EU conference venues. In short, beating and locking up people like us without trial when we start insisting upon answers from our rulers to simple questions like: "what have you done with all our money?" and "why are we paying more taxes than ever before in one form or another but getting much less than we have ever had in return?".

PK