The police 'service'. ****ing wussies.

retired_princesspouty · 09-21-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:
in the eyes of the police organisation, anyone wearing a PCSO uniform who hasn't had the appropriate water / lifesaving training CANNOT swim, even if they actually can if they're not on duty.

Isn't that what Bert's saying - that such an attitude is hard to justify?

retired_ks reddy · 09-21-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:
in the eyes of the police organisation, anyone wearing a PCSO uniform who hasn't had the appropriate water / lifesaving training CANNOT swim, even if they actually can if they're not on duty.

I see that a month later the police were still taking lifesaving training seriously.

retired_nini59 · 09-21-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by ericcantona7:

I didn't read that if it was in there, if true, then if the fishermen had a better chance of getting him then it makes more sense for them to go in. The whole "they shouldn't go in if they aren't trained" is just pathetic though, as long as they can swim then they should be able to drag him out without training, it's not that difficult.

The fishermen didn't get him out until he'd already drowned. This may well have been avoided if the coppers had helped them out. </BLOCKQUOTE>

the time it would have taken the PCSOs to get there suggest to me that he'd already have drowned anyway, the fisherman would surely have been in the water already looking for him. There's no sense of the times involved in the article, but a couple of people flapping around in the water if they aren't great swimmers would just create more havoc.

But yeah the chief's explanation and justification is just bizarre.

retired_traci29 · 09-21-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Retro:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:
in the eyes of the police organisation, anyone wearing a PCSO uniform who hasn't had the appropriate water / lifesaving training CANNOT swim, even if they actually can if they're not on duty.

Isn't that what Bert's saying - that such an attitude is hard to justify? </BLOCKQUOTE>

i've yet to see him actually say that, so i presumed that he wasn't actually saying that.

retired_ks reddy · 09-21-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ericcantona7:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by ericcantona7:

I didn't read that if it was in there, if true, then if the fishermen had a better chance of getting him then it makes more sense for them to go in. The whole "they shouldn't go in if they aren't trained" is just pathetic though, as long as they can swim then they should be able to drag him out without training, it's not that difficult.

The fishermen didn't get him out until he'd already drowned. This may well have been avoided if the coppers had helped them out. </BLOCKQUOTE>

the time it would have taken the PCSOs to get there suggest to me that he'd already have drowned anyway, the fisherman would surely have been in the water already looking for him. There's no sense of the times involved in the article, but a couple of people flapping around in the water if they aren't great swimmers would just create more havoc.

But yeah the chief's explanation and justification is just bizarre. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The PCSOs arrived while the fishermen were searching.

And the kid's family got there faster than the 'trained' police officers did.

retired_princesspouty · 09-21-2007, 02:30 PM

Fair enough - it's true that it's just how I've interpretted what he's been saying.

retired_abess · 09-21-2007, 02:30 PM

The first rule of lifesaving is don't put yourself in unnecessary danger. I can fully understand why these officers didn't dive in and try to rescue the poor kid. Better one person dies than three.

retired_princesspouty · 09-21-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Serpico:
The first rule of lifesaving is don't put yourself in unnecessary danger. I can fully understand why these officers didn't dive in and try to rescue the poor kid. Better one person dies than three.

It was 6 feet of water which is far more dangerous to a 10 year old boy than an adult police officer.

retired_katie14 · 09-21-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

The first rule of lifesaving is don't put yourself in unnecessary danger. I can fully understand why these officers didn't dive in and try to rescue the poor kid. Better one person dies than three.

That's what the police are trying to get at. There's been loads of instances where people have gone in to rescue someone only to drown themselves.

I'd still probably jump in though.

retired_ks reddy · 09-21-2007, 02:32 PM

The Police Federation have decided it's not their fault, it's the government's:

"Paul Kelly, chairman of the Police Federation in Manchester, said PCSOs do not have the same level of training as police officers to deal with life-saving situations.

He said: "The message is clear and unambiguous - it's the government, they are trying to fool the public.""

The police 'service'. ****ing wussies.

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

The police 'service'. ****ing wussies.