Help debunking or providing details (UK first responders questions)

So, I received an email from a friend today titled ‘Sovereign Man, Notes from the Field’ by Simon Black. In in it there were a variety of stories about UK first responders that seem…well, a bit implausible, at least if they are supposed to be examples of every day occurrences in the UK and not one off fuckups. Here is what was sent to me (I’m cutting out some of the political bits, but cutting and pasting as it was sent to me…I assume it was cut and pasted from SovereignMan, which I presume is a blog or website of some kind):

What I’m looking for here is some details. Did the above happen? Is it an example of how things actually are wrt fire and rescue in the UK these days? Or, if they did happen, was it merely and example of one off fuckup-ery on the part of those who responded? I mean, shit happens, and sometimes folks screw up.

-XT

You actually read further than the title? I assume out of sheer amusement?

Sounds more like typical rant stuff, but…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7006412.stm - this suggests Jordon was already gone/submerged when the police arrived; do you expect ordinary uniformed policeman to wade in and look for a submerged body in a small lake (as opposed to rescuing someone thrashing in the water?)

Simon Burgess drowned after firemen refused to wade in 3ft deep lake due to health and safety rules | Daily Mail Online - this says there were no signs of life; also mentions further down the page that the reason the girl was not moved was because the ground was too slippery; presumably the risk of dropping a dangerously injured patient down a hill might be balanced with the risk of not moving her.

So what I see is that the situations seem absurd in hindsight, but at the time, there were somewhat legitimate reasons for not acting.

I know when I have taken first aid and safety-rescue training (not for professionals) they warn you to be safe first - many deaths, especially drowning or falling through the ice, occur when the person who jumps in to help becomes a victim themselves. Jordon, for example, jumped in to help his sister who was recued by other bystanders. It is even more absurd to die trying to recover an already dead body.

While children in very cold water may revive after a long time (IIRC the record is half an hour?) in general, once a person has been under a few minutes, it’s a body recovery situation.

I remember that the Alison Hume and Jordon Lyon cases, perhaps because they are so rare, but more likely because they were used by certain newspapers ahem the Daily Mail as a stick to beat the drum of “Health and Safety gone Mad”.

Here’s more about Alison Hume:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/fire-chief-defends-rescue-failures-1.1017112

This article is reporting the inquest into her death. Contrary to the material you quote in the OP, a paramedic and a fireman made it down into the collapsed mineshaft but were unable to do much until a civilian specialist rescue unit could get there.

Here’s more about Jordon Lyon:

The two bystanders were not actually full police officers, but Police Community Support Officers (basically three weeks training, here’s a uniform, go and cycle the streets being impotent - no power of arrest or anything like that). You can read the rest in the link. Seems the debate is about whether officers should be required to jump into a lake, and search around to try and find a person who is not visible on the surface.

There’s not much of anything to go on about the other two cases, just a surname and unnamed 14-year-old.

A pinch of salt required I feel.

Searching on burgess emergency pond brings up several accounts. This one notes that after being advised the victim had been in the water for close to ten minutes, an official decided “that as there is no visible sign of life, this is a ‘body retrieval’ exercise rather than a rescue.” This may have been a poor assessment, as it seems to show ignorance of the mammalian diving relflex, but given that assessment it is perhaps unfair to blame the following delays for costing the man’s life. I think one could more accurately call into question the aforesaid assessment (which is a matter of proper competence/knowledge rather than beaurocratic roadblocks) or even that bystanders on the scene did not attempt to reach the body right away.

Similarly, searching on alison hume and jordon lyon will bring up articles on those incidents, from which you can gather more complete information.

The Daily Mail is a pathetic ‘newspaper’ that relies entirely on the following:

  • stories that alarm its readers (SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!)
  • stories about the Royal family (especially Diana)
  • stories about immigrants and travellers
  • stories about victims of crime (especially pensioners)

They would go crazy if an immigrant traveller could be implicated in Diana’s death. :smack:

Here’s an example of the quality of their ‘research’ (bolding mine):

Actress Dame Judi Dench has hit out at today’s culture of health and safety that has seen traditional childhood games like conkers banned in schools.

usual Daily Mail crap

it turns out that:

  • conkers has not been banned in any school
  • neither have any other childhood games
  • one Headmistress told pupils to wear goggles when playing conkers

Searching on 14-year old girl in London collapsed while in the middle of a cross-country competition brings up this article (yep, the good old Daily Mail). The top blue bar in IE combined with the URL seem to say the paramedic refused to carry her because he had a bad back, but I don’t see that idea addressed anywhere in the article. It does point out that the ambulance had trouble finding the exact location and then was prevented from getting close to her by fencing and gates. What I’m seeing, both in the article and Black’s blog, is a tendency to use sensationalist comments while leaving out part of the story.

Yes, it is suprising that this was labelled a recovery after only 10 minutes! The protocol here (in Canada) is 90 minutes - up to and before 90 minutes, it’s a rescue. Afterwards, it’s recovery. Many, many people survive after 10 minutes or more under water.

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
You actually read further than the title? I assume out of sheer amusement?
[/QUOTE]

I like to be able to rebut emails like this, or to argue/discuss them when people send them to me. Generally, I look on Snopes or similar sites, but I’m in transit today so I figured I’d ask here to see if any UK dopers had any first hand knowledge/ammunition about the email. Seems a good call, since a lot of 'dopers DO seem pretty good at tracking this stuff down.

Also, like with the 9/11 CT threads, it’s good to get this information out there, even if in this case it’s a bit silly. It shows how stories can be twisted first by a sensationalist media and then by someone looking to make some political point (presumably, Sovereign Man is trying to make some point about socialist institutions in the UK, or about bureaucracy and how it’s stifling individual response under the weight of a system that doesn’t want to take any risks…or something).

Thanks to everyone! Appreciate the facts on this.

-XT

This reminds me of the first (and last) episode of Baywatch I ever saw. Someone goes under at the beach. The Baywatch crew pull him out within minutes. They try CPR for about 30 seconds, then give up. I thought then that no emergency team could be this incompetent. I guess I was wrong.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
According to the UK’s Daily Mail…
[/QUOTE]

There’s your problem. :slight_smile:

Did you read any part of the thread?