Strathclyde fire and rescue
19 November 2011, 12:38 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les,
also missing the point. It wasn't about safety of the fire crew, the issue is that if they'd tried to lift her out and she had ended up paralysed she could have sued them for millions.
The fire service did lower someone in, the guy stayed with her giving her oxygen and first aid. The problem was this bit:
"They were apparently told they could not aid Mrs Hume because regulations stated their equipment was for saving themselves, not members of the public."
So although they wanted to they weren't allowed.
5t.
also missing the point. It wasn't about safety of the fire crew, the issue is that if they'd tried to lift her out and she had ended up paralysed she could have sued them for millions.
The fire service did lower someone in, the guy stayed with her giving her oxygen and first aid. The problem was this bit:
"They were apparently told they could not aid Mrs Hume because regulations stated their equipment was for saving themselves, not members of the public."
So although they wanted to they weren't allowed.
5t.
What would you say was the priority at the time? Was it right to leave her needing urgent medical attention and in such a parlous state when as so called rescuers they could have done something somehow to save her? Even rigging some kind of a hoist as mentioned above would have been at least an attempt to get her out.
How did they get her out of that hole in the end? What is the point of having any kind of equipment anyway if they are not allowed to use it in case it was not appropriate for the job? All this (in case she sues" mentality is quite ridiculous,especially since it could be argued that in this case it cost that poor woman her life. If the fire service is tasked with saving people in trouble then surely they should have equipment that works and also the man in charge should have a real sense of the priorities at the time. If they were able to lower a man down there, why could she not have been raised to the surface? Sounds like a lack of leadership,understanding,and competence on the part of the man in charge.
Les
19 November 2011, 04:46 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the basic reason,I don't really think I was missing the point when the result is that she died after hours spent in that hole while she was seriously injuured and doubtless in dreadful pain.
What would you say was the priority at the time? Was it right to leave her needing urgent medical attention and in such a parlous state when as so called rescuers they could have done something somehow to save her? Even rigging some kind of a hoist as mentioned above would have been at least an attempt to get her out.
How did they get her out of that hole in the end? What is the point of having any kind of equipment anyway if they are not allowed to use it in case it was not appropriate for the job? All this (in case she sues" mentality is quite ridiculous,especially since it could be argued that in this case it cost that poor woman her life. If the fire service is tasked with saving people in trouble then surely they should have equipment that works and also the man in charge should have a real sense of the priorities at the time. If they were able to lower a man down there, why could she not have been raised to the surface? Sounds like a lack of leadership,understanding,and competence on the part of the man in charge.
Les
What would you say was the priority at the time? Was it right to leave her needing urgent medical attention and in such a parlous state when as so called rescuers they could have done something somehow to save her? Even rigging some kind of a hoist as mentioned above would have been at least an attempt to get her out.
How did they get her out of that hole in the end? What is the point of having any kind of equipment anyway if they are not allowed to use it in case it was not appropriate for the job? All this (in case she sues" mentality is quite ridiculous,especially since it could be argued that in this case it cost that poor woman her life. If the fire service is tasked with saving people in trouble then surely they should have equipment that works and also the man in charge should have a real sense of the priorities at the time. If they were able to lower a man down there, why could she not have been raised to the surface? Sounds like a lack of leadership,understanding,and competence on the part of the man in charge.
Les
the unfortunate thing is now over here we have inherited the american sueing culture - from sirious issue like scratched finger nails to broken eyelasses, so many are putting personal claims for compensations which are either fabricated, enhanced ect. its seen as easy money for many people - its not fair,. and ends u with companies hving to protect themselves with every ridiculous h and s ruling.
in the end, if the history wasnt s it is, this poor woman wouldnt have died.
people here can summise and condemn as much as they like, but until it happens to you persoanlly its impossible to say what you would or wouldnt have done.
oh so easy to be an internet hero - but faced with the ridiculous dilemma imposed on them by the nation, is there really a choice?
19 November 2011, 05:04 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tbh you can blame yourself and everyone here (not persoanlly) but as a collective communitiy uk wide.
the unfortunate thing is now over here we have inherited the american sueing culture - from sirious issue like scratched finger nails to broken eyelasses, so many are putting personal claims for compensations which are either fabricated, enhanced ect. its seen as easy money for many people - its not fair,. and ends u with companies hving to protect themselves with every ridiculous h and s ruling.
in the end, if the history wasnt s it is, this poor woman wouldnt have died.
people here can summise and condemn as much as they like, but until it happens to you persoanlly its impossible to say what you would or wouldnt have done.
oh so easy to be an internet hero - but faced with the ridiculous dilemma imposed on them by the nation, is there really a choice?
the unfortunate thing is now over here we have inherited the american sueing culture - from sirious issue like scratched finger nails to broken eyelasses, so many are putting personal claims for compensations which are either fabricated, enhanced ect. its seen as easy money for many people - its not fair,. and ends u with companies hving to protect themselves with every ridiculous h and s ruling.
in the end, if the history wasnt s it is, this poor woman wouldnt have died.
people here can summise and condemn as much as they like, but until it happens to you persoanlly its impossible to say what you would or wouldnt have done.
oh so easy to be an internet hero - but faced with the ridiculous dilemma imposed on them by the nation, is there really a choice?
50 years ago there grandfathers would have rescued her 25 years ago there fathers would have rescued her - its borderline cowardice and you know it.
19 November 2011, 05:23 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that was not directed at you personally mate
your comparisons are frankly ludicrous though
a fire fighter shold not risk dying on the job full stop.
hundreds of firemen have died over the years trying to save people in vain. thousands have probably suceeded.
i poay money into the fire service benevolant fund for families of firefighters that hjave been affeced by traumas or families of firefighters who have lost there partners/father, brother ect.
these people laid down there life , for no financial recompsense, but left familie without an income/no father figure ect.
nowadays there is no need for fire fighters to die - there not paid to die neither are there families. altho many put themselves daily into lifethreataning situations to help others.
now that the countries population has taken on the riduculous blame/sueing culture - there hands are tied more than ever. in public eyes (and probably most of there own eyses, wrong) bit in laws eyes correct!
so ask yourself why the laws are implemented? to protect companies/ local authoritys from constant claims, thats the sad state of affairs.
what would people here suggest the guys do, go against the stupid laws the countries brought on themselves, loose jobs/houses/families ect?
your comparisons are frankly ludicrous though
a fire fighter shold not risk dying on the job full stop.
hundreds of firemen have died over the years trying to save people in vain. thousands have probably suceeded.
i poay money into the fire service benevolant fund for families of firefighters that hjave been affeced by traumas or families of firefighters who have lost there partners/father, brother ect.
these people laid down there life , for no financial recompsense, but left familie without an income/no father figure ect.
nowadays there is no need for fire fighters to die - there not paid to die neither are there families. altho many put themselves daily into lifethreataning situations to help others.
now that the countries population has taken on the riduculous blame/sueing culture - there hands are tied more than ever. in public eyes (and probably most of there own eyses, wrong) bit in laws eyes correct!
so ask yourself why the laws are implemented? to protect companies/ local authoritys from constant claims, thats the sad state of affairs.
what would people here suggest the guys do, go against the stupid laws the countries brought on themselves, loose jobs/houses/families ect?
19 November 2011, 05:36 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the cowardice remark is pretty offnsive tbh
disrespuctful and dismissive of all good thats done.
truley hope no1 here is ever in need of the fire service at an RTC, house fire ect.
my collegues have walked away from incedents where chldren have burned to death because parents havent maintained smoke alarms, how frustrating/ traumatic do you think that would be, pulling kids bodies, or anyones bodies out an rtc or house fire, its the one of the worst things to experience
disrespuctful and dismissive of all good thats done.
truley hope no1 here is ever in need of the fire service at an RTC, house fire ect.
my collegues have walked away from incedents where chldren have burned to death because parents havent maintained smoke alarms, how frustrating/ traumatic do you think that would be, pulling kids bodies, or anyones bodies out an rtc or house fire, its the one of the worst things to experience
19 November 2011, 05:43 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree, a dead fire fighter is no good to anyone , but surely they should be trained to carry out an on-site risk asessment and then carry out any recsue in the safest way possible. The situation that this thread concerns is frankly ludicrous though hardly surprising to me having worked alongside the fire service on many occasions.
Chip
Chip
19 November 2011, 05:53 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree, a dead fire fighter is no good to anyone , but surely they should be trained to carry out an on-site risk asessment and then carry out any recsue in the safest way possible. The situation that this thread concerns is frankly ludicrous though hardly surprising to me having worked alongside the fire service on many occasions.
Chip
Chip
ther job is to carry out dynamic risk assesment, altho they still under law have a duty of care to themselves and collegues.
ultimatley the decisions of risk lie with incedent commander, and he is guided by home office standards and legislation.
the women shouldnt have died, everyone knows that, stupid laws prevented this happening. laws that were brought in, in response to irresponsible individuals raping the system.
health and safey is just a direct response to these stupid claims - altho health and saftey does have its place, and its needed in some situatiuons to stop corporate abuse
Last edited by jef; 20 November 2011 at 05:32 PM.
19 November 2011, 06:06 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling fire fighters cowards is frankly disgraceful.
On the BBC report it gave some background where 3 senior fire fighters were recently sued / fired / possibly jailed (cant remember the details) etc after they allowed firefighters into a burning warehouse - the firefighters died after the building collapsed on them.
I'd imagine the onsite decision making processes are the same no matter what the incident - This is a failing in Leadership / Management / procedure - not individual bravery !
On the BBC report it gave some background where 3 senior fire fighters were recently sued / fired / possibly jailed (cant remember the details) etc after they allowed firefighters into a burning warehouse - the firefighters died after the building collapsed on them.
I'd imagine the onsite decision making processes are the same no matter what the incident - This is a failing in Leadership / Management / procedure - not individual bravery !
20 November 2011, 01:53 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kent
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will add my 2 pence now as I work for Coastguard cliff rescue team
Every incident is different, you turn up do a risk assessment. There are procedures in place to protect everybody involved in the rescue.
The heirarchy of rescue is that number one is yourself m, number two is your colleagues, number three is bystanders etc who could get involved and last is the casualty.
Why should anyon risk their own life for someone who has endangered their own life, yes before my words are taken out of context rescue is one thing, risking your life is another.
Every incident is different, you turn up do a risk assessment. There are procedures in place to protect everybody involved in the rescue.
The heirarchy of rescue is that number one is yourself m, number two is your colleagues, number three is bystanders etc who could get involved and last is the casualty.
Why should anyon risk their own life for someone who has endangered their own life, yes before my words are taken out of context rescue is one thing, risking your life is another.
20 November 2011, 05:27 PM
#44
Pontificating
22 November 2011, 04:49 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theres no point in risking your life, you could easily become another casualty that needs rescued, straining already tight resources at the scene, and potentially ending up leaving another family/wife/kids with a parent dead.
they carry out a dynamic risk assessment on the scene - which is just a fancy way of assessing what you see, and your training teaches you how to spot potential hazards and keep your sefl safe. incidents escalate and change constanlty so you have to keep doing it, incase of roof, building collapse or vehicle fires ect.
they are there in an effort to save any people that require saving, but in doing so cannot risk there own or colleages saftey.
they have a duty of care to look after themselves and people there working with. sometimes people do go beyond what is required , but generally its not welcomed, and can leave you in trouble/jobless ect.
there are circumstances where f/f in particular can enter an incident which is clearly unsafe. but there are clearly defined rules on them, eg they can enter a house which is burning feircley to rescue a casulaty that can be seen before entering or is known to be very close to the entry/exit point. or if they enter a situation to prevent rapid escelation of an incident eg, enter a building on fire to close a gas valve thats been left open, thus reducing chance of escalation and promoting a more survivable atomosphere for potential casualties
23 November 2011, 02:27 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no thats not the way it works although a common misconception.
theres no point in risking your life, you could easily become another casualty that needs rescued, straining already tight resources at the scene, and potentially ending up leaving another family/wife/kids with a parent dead.
they carry out a dynamic risk assessment on the scene - which is just a fancy way of assessing what you see, and your training teaches you how to spot potential hazards and keep your sefl safe. incidents escalate and change constanlty so you have to keep doing it, incase of roof, building collapse or vehicle fires ect.
they are there in an effort to save any people that require saving, but in doing so cannot risk there own or colleages saftey.
they have a duty of care to look after themselves and people there working with. sometimes people do go beyond what is required , but generally its not welcomed, and can leave you in trouble/jobless ect.
there are circumstances where f/f in particular can enter an incident which is clearly unsafe. but there are clearly defined rules on them, eg they can enter a house which is burning feircley to rescue a casulaty that can be seen before entering or is known to be very close to the entry/exit point. or if they enter a situation to prevent rapid escelation of an incident eg, enter a building on fire to close a gas valve thats been left open, thus reducing chance of escalation and promoting a more survivable atomosphere for potential casualties
theres no point in risking your life, you could easily become another casualty that needs rescued, straining already tight resources at the scene, and potentially ending up leaving another family/wife/kids with a parent dead.
they carry out a dynamic risk assessment on the scene - which is just a fancy way of assessing what you see, and your training teaches you how to spot potential hazards and keep your sefl safe. incidents escalate and change constanlty so you have to keep doing it, incase of roof, building collapse or vehicle fires ect.
they are there in an effort to save any people that require saving, but in doing so cannot risk there own or colleages saftey.
they have a duty of care to look after themselves and people there working with. sometimes people do go beyond what is required , but generally its not welcomed, and can leave you in trouble/jobless ect.
there are circumstances where f/f in particular can enter an incident which is clearly unsafe. but there are clearly defined rules on them, eg they can enter a house which is burning feircley to rescue a casulaty that can be seen before entering or is known to be very close to the entry/exit point. or if they enter a situation to prevent rapid escelation of an incident eg, enter a building on fire to close a gas valve thats been left open, thus reducing chance of escalation and promoting a more survivable atomosphere for potential casualties
Les
23 November 2011, 02:37 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fire fighters dont carry top medical equipment, thats for paramedics or first scene response /ambulances
there medical equipment is just for initial lifesaving treatment - eg oxygen, entenox, bandages, neck collars, burns kits ect.
hopefully the investigation will show exctly what happened - and what couldve been done better to save her.
the best outcome imo would be if the the laws that dictated the actions were looked at, possibly changed to allow them to do a better job.
there medical equipment is just for initial lifesaving treatment - eg oxygen, entenox, bandages, neck collars, burns kits ect.
hopefully the investigation will show exctly what happened - and what couldve been done better to save her.
the best outcome imo would be if the the laws that dictated the actions were looked at, possibly changed to allow them to do a better job.
27 November 2011, 12:22 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kent
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to think that the whole system will be reviewed and something changed. I dont agree with what happened but will defend ANY emergency services person. They all do a remarkable job.
Items that need to be reviewed which I have personally encountered is;
Lifeboats dont carry defibs any more - so heart attack on a yacht youve had it !!
First Responders cant give GTN spray - which opens up arteries etc
Items that need to be reviewed which I have personally encountered is;
Lifeboats dont carry defibs any more - so heart attack on a yacht youve had it !!
First Responders cant give GTN spray - which opens up arteries etc
27 November 2011, 01:47 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fire fighters dont carry top medical equipment, thats for paramedics or first scene response /ambulances
there medical equipment is just for initial lifesaving treatment - eg oxygen, entenox, bandages, neck collars, burns kits ect.
hopefully the investigation will show exctly what happened - and what couldve been done better to save her.
the best outcome imo would be if the the laws that dictated the actions were looked at, possibly changed to allow them to do a better job.
there medical equipment is just for initial lifesaving treatment - eg oxygen, entenox, bandages, neck collars, burns kits ect.
hopefully the investigation will show exctly what happened - and what couldve been done better to save her.
the best outcome imo would be if the the laws that dictated the actions were looked at, possibly changed to allow them to do a better job.
The real point is, why is no one criticising those in charge of the rescue operation for wasting hours on end while they were discussing all the health and safety aspects and whether their equipment was safely capable of extracting that poor lady from the hole while she was effectively dying during their protracted inability to find a way to save her life!
How did they eventually pull her out after all those hours anyway?
What happened to the real priority of saving her rather then their worries about their own position with regard to all the PC stuff I wonder? They even had a volunteer who was prepared to do the job!
I wonder how they can sleep at nights!
Les
27 November 2011, 02:17 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kent
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les,
I dont know the specifics of the case etc but I do know a lot about emergency response, until the inquest believe nothing in the press - they are there to sell papers!!
The incident commander is personally responsible for every person within the inner cordon - If they make a **** up then they are held legally responsible in a court of law. Its not a culture I should be in the emergency services but it is here like it or not.
In this instance they made a mistake - how many mistakes do we make in our lifes ?!
The difference is (before its pointed out) if they **** up people die !! BUT I will not endanger ANY persons life unless I am confident.
I dont know the specifics of the case etc but I do know a lot about emergency response, until the inquest believe nothing in the press - they are there to sell papers!!
The incident commander is personally responsible for every person within the inner cordon - If they make a **** up then they are held legally responsible in a court of law. Its not a culture I should be in the emergency services but it is here like it or not.
In this instance they made a mistake - how many mistakes do we make in our lifes ?!
The difference is (before its pointed out) if they **** up people die !! BUT I will not endanger ANY persons life unless I am confident.
28 November 2011, 12:53 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ok Matt,I understand what you are saying.
It is an indication of the modern attitude to such occasions when the PC plonkers and Health and Safety have such an influence that the real priority, ie saving a person's life, becomes a secondary requirement to all the other rules that these people think up!
Les
It is an indication of the modern attitude to such occasions when the PC plonkers and Health and Safety have such an influence that the real priority, ie saving a person's life, becomes a secondary requirement to all the other rules that these people think up!
Les
28 November 2011, 01:01 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
les, like i said earlier in this post you can directly blame that on the uk population themselves, for the adopted US suing culture - or possibly blame it on the people who brought it over here.
now its firmly here and people may die as a result, its those people that have abused the system that should not be able to sleep at night. they are responsisble for the loss of this persons life. and the countless other hoops people have to jump through to avoid prosecution
sad state of affairs imo.
agree with above beleive fck all in papres, there just to make money, not tell truth
now its firmly here and people may die as a result, its those people that have abused the system that should not be able to sleep at night. they are responsisble for the loss of this persons life. and the countless other hoops people have to jump through to avoid prosecution
sad state of affairs imo.
agree with above beleive fck all in papres, there just to make money, not tell truth
29 November 2011, 01:09 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
les, like i said earlier in this post you can directly blame that on the uk population themselves, for the adopted US suing culture - or possibly blame it on the people who brought it over here.
now its firmly here and people may die as a result, its those people that have abused the system that should not be able to sleep at night. they are responsisble for the loss of this persons life. and the countless other hoops people have to jump through to avoid prosecution
sad state of affairs imo.
agree with above beleive fck all in papres, there just to make money, not tell truth
now its firmly here and people may die as a result, its those people that have abused the system that should not be able to sleep at night. they are responsisble for the loss of this persons life. and the countless other hoops people have to jump through to avoid prosecution
sad state of affairs imo.
agree with above beleive fck all in papres, there just to make money, not tell truth
Being more of the old school I am very sorry to see that has happened, seems to be a lot of selfishness now which would never have been tolerated in earlier times.
The priorities have changed and not for the better in my opinion.
Les
29 November 2011, 03:28 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totally agree les,
its make a fast buck, and fck who it screws over in the long run.
agree with you, it wouldnt hve been tolerated in the past, and imo shouldnt be now, shame.
its make a fast buck, and fck who it screws over in the long run.
agree with you, it wouldnt hve been tolerated in the past, and imo shouldnt be now, shame.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DogsofWar
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
16
23 September 2015 07:41 PM
