Best phone camera 2017
click here PCSO's do not try to save child.
Police chiefs say the PCSO's were right not to try and save the boy as they had not been trained to deal with such an incident.
Personally I would have expected any decent member of the public to have tried, let alone a public servant.
Are the police chiefs defending the indefensible?
I am a retired policeman and I certainly don't remember going on any courses where I was taught to jump into a pond to save a life unless that was the common sense course that everybody goes on!
Beggars belief doesn't it.
Covering their backs more like.
An person who joins a public service- should expect to act to save life with or without official approval.
This is a like an individual who may be a trained First Aider- if approached by a co worker for- lets say an aspirin for their hangover- is not allowed to offer medication[As that firms First Aider]
If he/she is wise they may indicate where the individual may go to seek the medication for them selves.
So long as they are not acting in an 'Official Capacity'
Initially,i was outraged as well.The two anglers who jumped in were not "trained" either. But as any other member of the public,or myself would do,they jumped in anyway.
On reflection,the two pcso's got there after the boy had dissapeared from view for some time.
"The alarm was raised and the PCSOs arrived on the scene. Police said they could see no sign of Jordon in the water, so they radioed trained officers for help"
Mind you,trained or not most people would still dive beneath the surface to try to find a young child in the hope that it was not too late.
Probably a health & safety compliance issue !!!
I'd like to know more facts before passing judgement. For instance, if the PCSOs could swim or not, and why the anglers didn't try to rescue the boy. The situation may well have been too difficult for all of them, which is why fully trained officers were needed.
It will be on their consciences for the rest of their lives – that is if they have a conscience!
In a situation like this it’s up to the individual to decide whether or not he or she is prepared to risk their life for somebody else, a uniform means very little. I can’t image for one minute that the PCSO’s feel good about the outcome but it really isn’t up to you or I to pass judgment.
Also i have lost count of the number of reports of people diving into a lake or river to cool off,only to become entangled in weed and ultimately drown.
As Earthsea says,we need to know all the facts.
I think the incident proves the point rather well. The untrained boy jumped in to try to save his sister, and drowned. Fishermen usually know how to swim.
I am trained, and I worked as a life-guard, so I know the dangers. If you're not trained, you may put others in danger as well as yourself. If you're not trained, but you are a competent swimmer, or you know the water is not deep, then yes, of course you should jump in, but only as a last resort, if there is no branch or rope to throw. However, if you're a non-swimmer, or a poor swimmer, then you should not put yourself AND OTHERS in danger. A drowning adult is MUCH harder to rescue than a drowning child. A 10-year old could easily drag you under if you're not a strong swimmer.
"Rescuing a drowning person is the last resort and you should do everything possible to avoid getting into a dangerous situation in the first place. If you have to make a rescue attempt, think of your own safety first and never put yourself in danger. If the rescue is too dangerous, wait until the emergency services arrive."
Without being there, it is impossible to assess what the situation was, but there is no good reason to be outraged about the behaviour of the officers without knowing the full story.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.