Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Drowning

DrowningThose of you who, having gone for a swim or who have fallen into water, find themselves in difficulties in water may find themselves in an even worse predicament in the future.

Nanny has decided that a policy of "you're on your own chum" is now to be implemented for water based "risk situations".

As such, Nanny's chums in the Devon and Cornwall Police have decreed that police officers in the region must not to hold out a hand to drowning swimmers in case they are pulled into the water themselves.

Errmmm...isn't that down to the individual police officer to make that judgement call, according to the circumstances and his/her capabilities in the water?

Clearly not!

The decree, quite unsurprisingly, comes in a health and safety policy document which says officers should also think twice before throwing a lifebelt.

You will recall that this policy of "you're on your own chum" has been tested in Greater Manchester, where two police community support officers did not enter a lake to try to save Jordon Lyon a ten-year-old boy from drowning. They were told their training had not equipped them with the skills to go in the water.

The document, Health And Safety - Water Safety - states:

"Devon and Cornwall Constabulary does not

expect or require any member of staff

to enter water in a rescue attempt of any

person or animal under any circumstances.

The task of rescuing members of the public

or animals from water lies primarily with

other emergency services that are equipped

and trained to undertake such tasks
."

As if to add insult to injury, the health and safety Gestapo also decree that staff should not throw a lifebelt into the water, until they have completed a "dynamic risk assessment".

What utter BOLLOCKS!

But Graeme Hicks, a member of Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, thinks it's bollocks as well:

"It's quite unbelievable that a police officer

could walk past an incident like that and ignore it.

If a child drowned in Cornwall

in those circumstances

we would come under criticism and it

concerns me that there are

policies like this in place
."

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said:

"No organisation can expect staff to risk their lives."

What planet does this guy live on?

Firemen, the armed forces, police officers, traffic wardens, the waiter who served me a tough steak the other week etc etc all risk their lives on a daily basis...that's what these jobs are about!

6 comments:

  1. Compared to other public services the police get big bucks because of the risks of the job. Now that 'ealth & safety have removed those risks why should we continue to pay then big bucks. A 40% reduction in pay seems about right especially considering no formal qualifications are required to be a police officer not even GCSE English or Maths.

    Why do we continue to pay these molly-coddled work-shy trouser-shiners that purport to uphold the law when the only law they seem to bother with is employment legislation (theirs) and health and safety for a cushy life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sure Nanny has put this 'Elf'n'safety rule in place so that if a Police officer did try to rescue someone and got injured, Nanny could get out of paying compensation for this misadventure as the officer was told not to attempt a rescue.
    You would have to be a pretty callous person though to stand and watch a person drown without doing anything to help....this is what Nanny relies on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:50 PM

    Another tragic goose step towards dehumanization

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tonk said...

    "You would have to be a pretty callous person though to stand and watch a person drown without doing anything to help....this is what Nanny relies on."

    Oh I don't know Tonk! I can think of a few people who, were they in such a predicament, would be eminently suitable as subjects to test the rules of personal safety for would be rescuers. To the point where any intervention at all to assist them could be considered anti-social.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grant,

    Yes I can think of a few myself now you mention it. lol
    There is always the classic gag; How do you stop Nanny from drowning?
    Answer: Take your foot of her head.

    I doubt if many more George Medals will be awarded to our police if Nanny tells them they must not take risks or be brave even if they want to.

    If it wasn't so serious an issue it would be laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lord of Atlantis3:19 PM

    I was utterly appalled by the conduct of those so-called community support officers who stood by and allowed a 10 year old child to drown, because they hadn't received the appropriate training. I seem to recall that the excuse, "I was following orders", was very popular about 60 years ago and, in my opinion, it is as valid now as it was then. I wonder how this pair sleep at night, not to mention the
    jobsworths who dream up these barmy rules, including the decision makers of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary?
    My own attitude in that sort of situation would, rightly or wrongly, to have been to done what I could to have helped whoever was in trouble and to have said stuff health and safety! How very different the response by
    9 year old Jayden Camber of Northfleet, who dived into a pool whilst on holiday to rescue non-swimmer Anthony Danson (44) who had strayed out of his depth, or Daniel Rodd (15) and his brother Jason (13) from Ipswich, keen bodyboarders, who swam into action, despite their mother telling them not to, when a lady had an asthma attack 30 yards from the shore, and who ended up rescuing two other adults as well,
    who had gone to her aid and got into difficulties themselves.
    Rec 0 Page 1

    ReplyDelete