Has it really come to this?

[RogerS]

Very amusing.

But if you don't know what the memo actually said, how can you make a judgement on it?

Let's face it. You're never going to accept what the memo said unless you were physically present, standing over the person typing the memo and even then you'd probably decide that you were dreaming and that it was all a figment of your imagination.

Now, there's a thought, perhaps this is all a dream and I will wake up in a moment and the world will be free of 'holier-than-thou' humourless pedants.

You'll find the 'Report Post' button at the top RH corner. Oh, you know that already, of course.

 

[devonwoody]

Coming into this one a bit late.

If this was a newspaper report, "dont believe everything or the true situation you read in a newspaper"

They create news.

BTW

(Perhaps our American friends with their free press can tell us about that prisoner news with a link. )

 

[Smudger]

Very amusing.

But if you don't know what the memo actually said, how can you make a judgement on it?

Let's face it. You're never going to accept what the memo said unless you were physically present, standing over the person typing the memo and even then you'd probably decide that you were dreaming and that it was all a figment of your imagination.

Now, there's a thought, perhaps this is all a dream and I will wake up in a moment and the world will be free of 'holier-than-thou' humourless pedants.

You'll find the 'Report Post' button at the top RH corner. Oh, you know that already, of course.

Don't get into an insults contest, Roger. It's not very bright... and you'll lose.

You just keep believing what you read in the papers. Don't think about anything for yourself...

 

[big soft moose]

Very amusing.

But if you don't know what the memo actually said, how can you make a judgement on it?

Let's face it. You're never going to accept what the memo said unless you were physically present, standing over the person typing the memo and even then you'd probably decide that you were dreaming and that it was all a figment of your imagination.

Now, there's a thought, perhaps this is all a dream and I will wake up in a moment and the world will be free of 'holier-than-thou' humourless pedants.

You'll find the 'Report Post' button at the top RH corner. Oh, you know that already, of course.

Don't get into an insults contest, Roger. It's not very bright... and you'll lose.

You just keep believing what you read in the papers. Don't think about anything for yourself...

c'mon guys lets not get into a personal slanging match - yet again

bottom line is that none of us were there and none of us saw said memo and, dont know means dont know - however much we try to read into it.

 

[Smudger]

I think that's exactly what I said - but now I'm a humourless pedant!

I blame the Daily Mail...

 

[RogerS]

.... - although it sounds a bit strange that this was done as a 'memo' - usually it would be a policy or a guideline. ....

Memo, guideline, policy...same thing ffs.

There's the pedant bit. We all know about the humourless bit.

As for the memo, why would he lie as to the content?

 

[Jake]

We've done that already, Roger. He was the guy who made the decision, so clearly he thought the 'memo' prevented him from using the equipment. He is unlikely to be lying about it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the memo did prevent the use of it - just that, then and now, he believed it did. The one thing he couldn't afford to say or probably even think is that he was wrong and could have used the equipment but ordered his men not to on the back of a mistaken understanding of the memo. This is all conjecture of course, the likelihood is that there is a memo which says something like that.

What it doesn't tell us anything about is whether, assuming the memo did preclude the use of the equipment, that was for good reason or in fact the result of an overweening h&s culture. You are assuming the latter, as that is the way the Times etc have presented it, but there is no evidence for that belief yet. It might be true, it might not. Firemen might have killed other rescuees or paramedics or something in the past by using the lifting equipment for people not trained in its use, for all we know.

 

[devonwoody]

Heh, Jake, I was just posting and you interupted my thoughts.

Roll up, Roll up, smudger and roger are getting their fists up.

 

[RogerS]

Thanks, Jake, eloquently and succinctly put (no sarcasm intended BTW).

 

[big soft moose]

You are assuming the latter, as that is the way the Times etc have presented it, but there is no evidence for that belief yet. It might be true, it might not. .

thats the point i was trying to make - the bottom line tho is that none of us were there and none of us, bar chems, are firemen so we arent really qualified to comment.

IIRC - an bearing in mind i'm not a fireman so ive only seen this stuff in use not actually used it , the standard rope rescue winch that they have is user operated - that is a fireman sits in a sling and slides himself up or down using an abseil type arrangement.

if that is the case then the gear is clearly not suitable for winching our an accident victim alone - and its possible that the ropes etc might not have been rated for two peoples body weight.

added to which the point i made before that you dont move someone who might have neck or spinal injuries without a imobiliser stretcher and collar unless you really have to - certainly you dont just tie them to a rope and hoist them about unless you really have no other choice

 

[Chems]

I did reply earlier, but then removed the reply, but I'll just summarise.

As some of you know I'm currently serving FF, and used to be based at line working specialist station so know a tiny bit about it but not much.

First off, the fire service is a disciplined service, we've changed a lot but that is still true. An FB01 memo pad is what we use for official purposes, so if the chief sent an FB01 down saying don't use this kit on the public its an order and for any Watch Manager or Station manger to disobey is totally out of the question. So the responsibility for this lies completely on the chief (thats why they get paid so much!) so don't point the fingers at the poor guys on the ground.

Secondly, if they had winches her out on first attendance whos to say that heart attack wouldn't have happened on the way, once she got moving it could have dislodged a clot etc etc, and then it would have just been a straight fatal incident and no one would have been interested.


For those who are getting heated over it, those boys would risk their lives to come in to your burning homes and get you in the night, so remember that before you alienate them.

 

[Shadowfax]

It seems to me that the expectation on the fire service is way beyond what they were equipped to do at this incident.
I am a retired fire officer and I can see that, memos apart, it would have been possible to cobble something together to achieve an extraction.
A successful rescue is an entirely different matter. The crucial factor is to effect the rescue without doing further injury. I cannot see how that would be possible with a winch and no suitable stretcher where the victim is already in a serious state.
If the fire and rescue service in question does not have a rope-rescue team then it is not equipped for incidents of this type. This was obviously a rope-rescue situation but that is a job for specialists who train for it on a very regular basis. No mention has been made of the location of the nearest fire service rope-rescue team but even if they were in the same county there would have been a delay - there always is.
It is very easy to criticize but without knowing all the facts it is not fair to comment further

Cheers,

SF

 

[Digit]

For those who are getting heated over it, those boys would risk their lives to come in to your burning homes and get you in the night, so remember that before you alienate them.

Couldn't agree more chems, but to be fair I don't think any body would dispute that, rather it seems to me that any dispute would be with those removed from the firing line who come up with what often seems on the surface to be stupid rulings.
Remember a few weeks ago when a female official prevented para medics from entering something like six inches of water as the 'hadn't been trained in watery enivironments'?
Some people can be their own worst enemies, for God sake let your people do what we all accept that they would do if not ham strung!

Roy.

 

[SPinonit]

As an ex-watch officer and current member of the Fire Service I totally agree with the points made by Chems and Shadowfax.

I work at a headquarters and I asked around about this today. The consensus was that the guys at the incident would inevitably have to work within operational policies (including 'memos' - yes we have/had those too), but that they would [most likely] have explored just about every possible way they could have to 'create' or fashion some kind of a rescue method. I cannot believe for one moment that they simply sat back and said "no go - H&S rules" - it is almost inconceivable.

The whole raison d'etre of the Fire Service and of FFs is to make every effort to save a life - even if that puts theirs in danger. Obviously it is balanced by some 'dynamic risk assessment' process and no officer in charge can knowingly place their crews in situations where they could not be expected to live - but [I believe] you can rest assured they would have been trying damned hard.

You must also remember that it is a true team effort at most rescues, with input and ideas from every member of the crew. In addition, they would almost certainly have been backed up by a more senior officer as there was a person involved/life at risk. In the four hours it took, there quite probably would even have been some escalation of the rank of senior officer - so you can't really point fingers at any one individual or group, it's just not fair without full knowledge and totality of factual information.

I once had a Sub Officer who refused to put in a running call to a car on fire - as we were passing the car itself and the driver waving at us, because he was tired of attending car fires! Regardless of his direct order to me not to place the call, I was willing to disobey him and I placed the call. Minutes later, we were diverted to attend. That was [in my opinion] only a minor act of disobedience, but the ramifications within the service are large and I was immediately transferred. I guess what I am getting at there, is that there is a team of more than one individual and if the collective voice was to effect the rescue, they would have and answer the consequences later. There must have been better reason than the papers are quoting not to carry it out.

In addition, I noted the FBU (Union) sticking their two pennies in, but if truth be known, it was probably they who led to the suspension of the use of the kit in the first place. That is only conjecture and before anyone asks, yes I used to be an FBU rep, but they can be their (and their membership's) own worst enemy. Chems - not sure if you are FBU member, but perhaps you understand my drift?

Anyhow, what was going to be a brief post has turned out quite long.

 

[Shadowfax]

Got it in one!! Well, one post, anyway.
Well said, SPinonit.


SF

 

[Chems]

Well said SPinonit very well said.

I'm FBU, I've used them once and have been very happy with the combined weight of not standing on my own.

That been said, I know that in the currently climate they are self destructing in some elements and becoming a weaker union for it.