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?

kimi, they did not watch the child drown. He had disappeared under the water before the community police officers arrived.

Kimi, there's every chance a "proper" police officer would not have jumped in either.

The fact that they were PCSOs is irrelevant imho.

Kimi, do you know all the facts?

And do you want proper police on the streets, or trained police divers on the beat just in case someone falls in nearby open water?

same bolleaux being reported on the BBC this morning

Kimi - I think the term 'hobby bobbys' is really unfair.

i just think the boy was terribly brave to rescue his little step sister.

Just heard the 'discussion' on the today programme - can't believe the disgraceful scapegoating by Humphreys, Blunkett etc. In particular Blunkett should be ashamed (cold day in hell etc) because he created CSOs as less-trained support to ordinary police and should stand by them as they acted properly in accordance with the remit he and Parliament gave them. Instead of admitting his own hand in the business he chose to suggest the poor individuals should have disregarded the rules/their own safety/their greater usefulness in co-ordinating other emergency services.

kimi, open water isn ot the same as a swimming pool. no one without proper training should jump into open water to try and 'save' someone else. you'd end up with two casualties instead of one.

my friends dh went into the sea to save a stupid woman in trouble. him and three others. they, including the woman came out fine. he went ohome in a coffin. they were on their second honeymoon. young kids. their entire life ahead of htme. he drowned because he did what you are advocating. 'common sense' .

Well, Blunkett is an utter twat. In case anyone was previously unaware of this fact.

No I was well aware of the twatness of Blunkett before this morning.

It really makes me sick that so many people are grasping this opportunity to slag off the parents. While refusing to answer my question, about how old thye think children should be, before thye will admit that they should be allowed to go out to play without adult supervision?

There is an explosion of childhood obesity, because children are not allowed to play out (it's not solely because of crap food). We have the worst behaved teenagers in Europe, possibly because they have not learned gradually how to behave without adult supervision, they aren't allowed out at all until they're fourteen and then suddenly they're let loose without the skills to behave. People are loudly complaining about the no risk elf and safety culture displayed here, while at the same time demanding that children are not allowed to take any risks. Hello? Is it possible that the special constables were not allowed out by themselves until they were 16 and er, joined the constabulary? (That remark is supposed to be flippant, btw, just in case anyone takes it literally.)

How old do people think children need to be, before they are allowed out alone? How old is a child who dies allowed to be, before some of you people will have the grace to refrain from blaming their parents? Th

agree with ruty here

Hmm. DS2 and DS3 are 10 (almost 11) and 9. They're allowed to play out quite a lot on the play area across the way. They also go out on their bikes and go slightly further afield in a group (still on the estate), not always with my knowledge until after the event. We have a park quite close by, and it has two fairly shallow pools in it, they don't have permission to go there without DS1 (13), but it's close enough for them to get to without my knowledge if they choose to. Have never done so to my knowledge. (Had this conversation with DH earlier following discussion of this news story).

For some reason, people have to have someone to blame, be it the parents or the PCSOs in this instance. No one seems to accept that tragic accidents do occur.

I wouldn't dream of blaming the parents - they've suffered enough, but I do not think the PCSOs were wrong for not jumping in.

Blunkett? words fail me.

It didn't look like a particularly huge stretch of water, at least not in the picture in the Guardian today. More of a big pond.

Apparently it's the size of a football pitch.

I have no idea whether they should have jumped in or not. But I do know that if, God forbid, you are ever in real trouble, pray that someone asks for the fire brigade first, not the cops or the ambulance service.

A. Fire brigade are faster - that's why they carry defibrilators, because they get there before the ambulance.

B. If there is any chance at all of saving someone, firefighters get stuck in.

(Disclaimer, I don't work for the fire brigade and neither does anyone I know. Merely observation/tons of research into the shoddy, pathetic way ambulance services are run - not a comment on technicans/paramedics but on the people at the top who could do better and know it perfectly well.)

excellent point edam.

the Sunday telegraphdoes not seem to be aware the PCSOs arrived on the scene well after the boy had dissapeared

I hate this second guessing of people's decisions in an emergency situation. We don't have all the information, we don't even know if those PCSOs could swim and yet they are being blamed for a child's death.

I actually think the elf n'safety culture the article goes on about comes back to the way some have blamed the parents. Accidents do just happen sometimes.

oh well the telegraph does have a specific agenda on this and it's not going to let the facts stand in the way of an opportunity to harumph about elf and safety...

Well,FWIW, the truth of it is that firefighters are also instructed to not attempt underwater rescues.

What are the rules when the emergency services can actually see someone in difficulties in the water? As opposed to someone underwater where they can't pinpoint the location.
Would they attempt a rescue then? (I like to think so)

Fine, Pan, but the general point still holds good that firefighters will get stuck in where the police and ambulance services will turn up later and perhaps hold back.

If the fire brigade can't save you, it's because you can't be saved.

Edam, I'll remember that. Thanks

Now I have read that the boy was not flailing around, I feel sorry for everyone, including the PCSOs.

It is not fair on them that they don't have the training to do a proper job, when they are percieved by the public to have life saving skills.

I feel really sorry for the boy but also for the PCSO's. The boy was under water when they arrived, the pond was about the size of a football field.

There had already been mistakes to the exact location, so there could have been more if they actually went into the pond.

FWIW, the police are also not meant to go into water. And.... the fire service will go in with a boat to collect a body, but will not dive down.

opps.....more confusing over the exact location if yswim

There is a difference between life-saving skills and diving into a pool of (unknown) water to find a child who has disappeared from view, and has been lost from view for several minutes.

It would have been fantastic if the PCSOs had had a gung-ho attitude and dived in and managed to save the lad. They would have been heroes.

In reality, it more likely would have meant one or other of the PCSOs getting into difficulties themselves, possibly drowning themselves.

FWIW, I think ALL the emergency services are moving away from heroics when they're on jobs.