Community Support Workers refuse to rescue 10yr old as not properly trained......

[Wisteria]

here

Hope there was more to this than apparent. Would you need proper 'training' to rescue a 10yr old?
This is procedural bollocks in my humblest of opinions - you would have thought it would be a no-brainer, see drowning child, jump in, no?

Think we heard you the first time cod.

It's a separate issue surely.

It sounds like they're blaming the PCSOs but are probably feeling guilty too. The dad/stepdad did go in at some point though didn't he? So they were either nearby or the pond is close to home.

Message withdrawn

Not much guilt in evidence when they were spouting off about the PCSOs on TV.

I hate reading stuff like this.

I've had years of lifesaving training and I must admit I find it hard to understand why they didn't even make an attempt to enter the water and find him. But, like others say, we don't have all the facts.

It would definitely have been very cold, cold enough to take their breath away. If you aren't used to it that can be a scary thing, and it affects your swimming too as you're gasping for breath. Maybe they weren't very strong swimmers, maybe afraid of surface diving. I know some experienced lifesavers who don't like going under the water in lakes or the sea. It must have been awful for them to have to stand there and wait for back up knowing he was there.

Guilt is exactly why they are spouting off about the PCSOs I expect.

They've lost a son and are looking for someone to blame.

Half an hour after somebody slips under the water you are not trying to save them anymore so there is no longer any real urgency.

saw the same programme marne, surprised me a person could be under cold water for half an hour and possibly survive. feel for all involved.

I wonder if this situation has arisen by the PCSO's not attending the inquest and putting their side of the incident? Maybe that would have made the timing of events clearer to the parents?

I thought there would be a little more to it than reported but I still maintain that you would at least try - I think (although I know you never really know how you'll react) I would have done, irrespective of whether I thought he might be dead - surely a chance is better than standing there assuming.

I don't see any reason why the parents should have been there, there's already been a self-righteous e-mail into PM demanding that we blame the parents because of this accident.

The children were not toddlers, they were 10 and 8. It is stretching credulity to suggest that letting children of these ages out alone, is a symptom of neglect. At what age are children to be allowed out without parental supervision? 18? I don't think it's unreasonable to allow an eight and ten year old out unsupervised, I suppose the accident could have been avoided if they'd been at home playing with their playstations and adding to the childhood obesity statistics. I find it really depressing that there appears to be an almost kneejerk reaction abroad of "it's the parent's fault." It isn't. And it isn't the angler's, or the support officer's. Sometimes, accidents happen.

If submersion has been for >25 minutes there is 100% mortality according to here:www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40001333/

They did not know where the boy was. Unless you were a very strong swimmer there would not be much point in jumping in and risking your own life.

Little Bella. Sadly, the reason why the parents should have been there is all too obvious. However, I don't think this is the time to be blaming the parents - I'm sure they've done enough blaming themselves. I don't think the Community Support Officers should be blamed either. They are not lifesavers - they may not even be able to swim. Very sad case all round.

FGS - sorry but they were 10 & 8, not 6 & 4.

We were out playing around local rivers, streams, lakes and all sorts even younger than that - as Little Bella says, accidents do happen.

And I suppose if children get drug overdoses at 17 in a club, that will demonstrate why their parents should have been there.

Shoddy reporting.

There is the possibility that if the PCSOs had jumped into the water, there could have been further deaths - this has happened before.

Off-topic, and it's not the same, but DH had to stand back and watch someone burn to death - the decision was not made lightly but he has to live with that decision.

I take back my unkind comments towards the PCSOs. I had assumed they were watching the boy trying to save his sister. Of course they would not jump in if they couldn't determine where he was.

Also please don't start accusing the parents of neglect! We have had enough of that on the MC threads

your poor dh - what a horrid experience.

I personally couldn't give a rats arse if people question the parents role (or lack of) in the incident.
What I find offensive, is that they would give interviews to the media inaccurately blaming other people for the death.
They attended the inquest so how can they not know the chronology of events.
My sympathy lies with the PCOSs who have been branded cowards who stood by and watched a child drown.

Littlebella - I think a 17 year old is just a little bit different from an 8 year old. I really don't even see it as being remotely connected. As I said previously, I don't think this is the time to blame the parents. Neither do I think we should blame the Community Support Officers for not jumping in when the boy could not even be seen.

......but also appalling IMO that the BBC have been reporting this all day in (what seemed to me) a manner that completely implicated and blamed the PCSO's. It's only in the last hour that they have started to show the other side.

I think it's quite harsh to be offended by them. They're grieving for the loss of their son and they may not have taken in exactly what happened. Just because they were at the inquest, that doesn't mean they have the faintest idea what went on, people in grief don't always take in officialese. They're lashing out. Not pretty, not nice, not very stiff upper lip, but I feel sorry for them, not offended. I feel sorry for the officers as well.

Me too LB.

It was wrong to blame the PCSO's and I'm glad the BBC are attempting to clear that up.

The remote connection chopchop, is when do you stop holding a parent responsible if a child has an accident? At what age is it reasonable to let a child out alone? The 8 year old was with her 10 year old brother. Most people would consider it reasonable to allow them unsupervised time. Most children in our society don't get enough unsupervised have the worst-behaved teenagers in Europe. It just really irritated me to once again hear that kneejerk reaction "it must be the parent's fault". (On the radio, not here.)

Sorry I deleted lots of that,it's incoherent.

Oh well

We'll have to disagree on this LB. I have a 10 year old DD who is allowed out to play - but not on a riverbank. Again, I feel very sorry for the parents but no one should be expected to put their own lives in danger. Even fire crews and coastguards will pull back from a situation which is considered too risky.