One of the recurring themes, that serves to annoy all those who oppose the Nanny state, is the "health and safety" excuse used by all manner of jobsworths to refuse to do something and used by councils and insurance companies to screw the hapless voters out of ever more cash.
Sadly, aside from the financial and life sapping consequences of the health and safety culture that Nanny has constructed, there are at times real dangers from it that prove to be fatal.
Gabrielle Grady, a five year old girl, was recently trapped for almost two hours in a car that had plunged into the river Avon because health and safety rules prevented police from entering the water to rescue her.
West Mercia police stated that safety regulations barred normal police officers from jumping into rivers to try to save people (although they did enter the water to rescue her brother who had managed to get out of the car). Hence 97 minutes were lost whilst a police dive team were located and transported to the scene (they took 12 minutes, once on site, to rescue Gabrielle).
Gabrielle's funeral was held yesterday.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Deepest sympathies to the Mother and the little boy.
ReplyDeleteHopefully cases like this may encourage the Police to re-consider such rules.
It is indeed a sad story and a sad reflection on our society.
ReplyDeleteIt also begs the question as to what is the quality of today's police recruits....I could not imagine, say just twenty years ago, a police officer just standing by and letting a child drown, nor anyone else for that matter.
It is up to Nanny to actually back those that take a calculated risk for the common good....I personally feel we need a strong government to put an end to the no win no fee conditional fees industry that has destroyed our society.....Sadly, this case is not an isolated incident....I have read of many such cases and wonder, whatever happened to the duty of care our emergency services used to have?
I read of one case recently where a young family were trapped in a burning house, the police officers present(2) would not attempt any type of rescue on 'elf'n'safety grounds, they further compounded their lack of care by stopping neighbours from attempting a rescue...What a sad nation we have become.....The police force used to recruit brave young people that would put theirselves at risk in the name of public service....When did it all go wrong?....Too many bearded, guardian readers promoted straight into senior posts with no experience on the beat, but a good degree in criminology...Could that be part of the problem.....I can understand why a young constable with a wife and family to support, if told by senior officers, if you try it and hurt yourself you're on your own, may not go in but, surely its that senior officer that is in the wrong...Life can never be without risk and the police's role, by definition, can be dangerous, as is the case of the fire service and coastguard.
Let’s hope that when the officers involved eventually take their early retirement through depression or stress that they can look back and reflect on what utter bastards they were.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScotty,
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that jumping into water to save a drowning child is taking the moral high ground. It is an action that almost anyone would take regardless of the consequences.
To allow a child to drown for fear of being reprimanded, losing a job or perhaps being looked over for future promotion is abhorrent.
It's down to two things - 'Personal Injury' lawyers and kerrching....
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, I don't think the ultimate fault is down to the police. Let's assume that one of the reasons that prompts someone to join the police force is that they want to help fight for justice for people. This is admirable.
ReplyDeleteBut the laws they sign-up to enforce are not created by them; nay, they are created by those far above, that sit in heated leather chairs in comfortable offices. And these laws are not created with the intent to help people remain free and safe - I think we can all agree on this.
I read that dozens of new laws are created daily, meaning that an act - moral or not - that was once free, can become illegal with one key-stroke.
Sure, our guys in blue can do what any moral human should WANT to do - jump in to save the drowning child, but how long will they remain employed by Her Majesty's Constabulary if they repeat such bravery?
Police - and non-police - have two choices in this country: comply and stay out of prison, or dissent and enjoy a new life behind bars.
Our nanny/litigious/bully state is destroying the very stuff that makes us human.
The word often used here is "dysfunctional" and I think this case just about sums up how dysfunctional our society has become and how dysfunctional many of its individual members have become. How could any decent person stand idly by for all that time knowing that a child was probably dying, without making some sort of attempt to rescue her. I am utterly disgusted.
ReplyDeleteI suppose those involved have clear consciences because they have managed to tick the right boxes and all the paperwork is in order. How they can sleep at night I just do not know.
What a sad, sad state of affairs and may those that create such stupid rules rot in hell, and even that is too good for them.
I must first f all make it clear that my heart goes out to the parents of the child in question. Since it is clearly too much trouble for our 'wonderful' police officers to get wet and rescue a 9 year old girl from drowning in the river, what confidence can we have that they will do something really risky, like respond to a house being burgled, an armed robbery at the bank, or any other crime? In my opinion, the policemen in question, who stood by and allowed this to happen ought to be charged with manslaughter. I cannot see it happening, though, I can already hear their defence,'We were just following orders / procedure', and we know where we've heard that one before, don't we? I can see no reason why those at the top who are responsible for this abhorrent policy shouldn't be in the dock, charged with corporate anslaughter either.
ReplyDeleteThe really sad thing is that this is not the first case of its kind and I very much fear it won't be the last either. Incidents such as this bring into question our claims to be a 'civilised' society
"The valiant never taste of death but once."
ReplyDelete* A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
ReplyDelete* A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
OK, there are occasions when a police officer has to harm a human - but the essence of Asimov's laws give a fair idea of priorities.
"The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave."
ReplyDelete-Douglas MacArthur
What a bunch of twats!! I hope they all drown in cars because people acted to stupidly to bother saving them.
ReplyDeleteBesides...surely stopping anyone else from doing the rescuing would be infringing on that person's rights?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Besides...surely stopping anyone else from doing the rescuing would be infringing on that person's rights?"
What rights? Any rights we had have been steadily whittled away by Zanu Liebour, and if they get back in it will only get worse!
So, was it SAFER for the child to be left in the vehicle? Are the Police not charged with the publics safety?
ReplyDeletethese tossers should all keel hauled!
The fact is, morally, there isn't any human alive that has any right to deny someone their moral choices. That includes trying to defend oneself or trying to save someone else's life.
ReplyDeleteYet, infuriating, if you were there when the girl was drowning in the car, and you tried to stop her, the police would do everything they could to stop you - because to save her is against 'Health and Safety', and is thus illegal.
There is nothing good about this. It is evil, immoral, inhumane, and so, so wrong.
I question who would want to join the police force if these are the kind of laws that they are charged with enforcing. In a free world, I wouldn't hire a private police firm that worked in this way. And in a free world, they wouldn't get very far.
Scotty Stevens said...
ReplyDelete"The fact is, morally, there isn't any human alive that has any right to deny someone their moral choices. That includes trying to defend oneself or trying to save someone else's life.
Yet, infuriating, if you were there when the girl was drowning in the car, and you tried to stop her, the police would do everything they could to stop you - because to save her is against 'Health and Safety', and is thus illegal."
If you were to try to save the child against police 'advice', you would probably be arrested, fingerprinted, have your DNA taken and kept on record until the day you died, bunged into a cell for hours, and be charged with obstructing the police, or maybe even something under anti-terrorism laws, for the public good, of course!
There is nothing good about this. It is evil, immoral, inhumane, and so, so wrong.
Scotty Stevens also said...
"I question who would want to join the police force if these are the kind of laws that they are charged with enforcing."
The kind of jobsworths that enjoy bossing others, and making their lives Hell.
Scotty Stevens also said...
"In a free world, I wouldn't hire a private police firm that worked in this way. And in a free world, they wouldn't get very far."
Agreed, but alas, despite being nominally a democracy, this country is no longer free.
Lord of Atlantis said:
ReplyDelete"Agreed, but alas, despite being nominally a democracy, this country is no longer free."
Indeed, sir, indeed.
If the police aren't allowed into the water to try and save someone, they aren't going to be able to stop "Joe Public" from doing so - provided he/she got there quickly.... It would be worth getting subsequently arrested just for the chance to publicly humiliate these jobsworths.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a regular vistor to 2 of the police blogs, but I realised how quickly the "we're really just humans trying to do our job" mantra falls down when I was (foolish?) enough to make some criticisms on a similar story concerning people trapped in a burning building.
They were quickly removed from my bookmarks, and I'm now another in the long line of FORMER supporters of the police force, NOT the "service" it's now become.