Fire Brigade can't go in 3ft Water!

[kestrelx]

25 firemen banned from saving bird stuck in pond | The Sun |News

Health and Safety rules mean fire brigade can't use their initiative and go in 3ft of water!

This article talks about them being unable to save a seagull!

But in the recent past 2 people have drowned because the firebrigade arn't aloud to go in 3 ft of water!

A few years ago I called in a neighbour who'd gone out leaving a pan on the cooker! There was no fire! 3 Fire engines turned up and it took about 10 officers to remove the window to go in and turn off the cooker! Seemed like a waste of resources!

This could happen in Accrington!

[Less]

Good grief, well done, couldn't imagine your posts getting any worse, as usual, you've proved me wrong!

[claytonx]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

25 firemen banned from saving bird stuck in pond | The Sun |News

Health and Safety rules mean fire brigade can't use their initiative and go in 3ft of water!

This article talks about them being unable to save a seagull!

But in the recent past 2 people have drowned because the firebrigade arn't aloud to go in 3 ft of water!

A few years ago I called in a neighbour who'd gone out leaving a pan on the cooker! There was no fire! 3 Fire engines turned up and it took about 10 officers to remove the window to go in and turn off the cooker! Seemed like a waste of resources!

This could happen in Accrington!

How do they know the water is 3ft deep do they have a measuring stick with depth marks on it, I suppose one of the firemen will have been on a day course to be able to judge the position.

[Eric]

Obviously someone phoned the fire department in the first place. Why not just wade into the water and free the damned bird. Health and Safety seems to have gone beyond the bounds of what many call common sense. When our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought (sometimes literally) for safe working conditions in the factories and the mines, I don't think that they had this sort of bs in mind.

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by claytonx

How do they know the water is 3ft deep do they have a measuring stick with depth marks on it, I suppose one of the firemen will have been on a day course to be able to judge the position.

Because a bloke from a wildlife rescue centre waded in and saved the gull and he deduced that the water was approx 3ft deep!

When someone rang this in and said it was a gull trapped by plastic in water. Why didn't the fire brigade just tell them to phone the RSPCA instead of wasting the time of the fire brigade!

[Less]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Why didn't the fire brigade just tell them to phone the RSPCA instead of wasting the time of the fire brigade!

Why didn't someone just grab one of the high powered air rifles you were wittering about last week, put the bird out of it's misery, problem solved, no danger to anyone?

[susie123]

Originally Posted by claytonx

How do they know the water is 3ft deep do they have a measuring stick with depth marks on it, I suppose one of the firemen will have been on a day course to be able to judge the position.

This is in a very public area so there probably is a measuring stick somewhere and if the water were very deep elf'n'safety would probably have had it fenced off.

And who put the plastic in the water in the first place?? A human probably.

If I may, a very gentle aside to Kestrel... I find that your habit of ending every sentence and every thread title that you post with an exclamation mark! gets in the way sometimes of my reading your posts with the attention that some of them deserve. I suggest you might get a better reception on Accyweb if you refrained from this habit and tried a few other punctuation marks instead... or none in the case of thread titles. Just a thought...

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Health and Safety rules mean fire brigade can't use their initiative and go in 3ft of water!

This article talks about them being unable to save a seagull!

But in the recent past 2 people have drowned because the firebrigade arn't aloud to go in 3 ft of water!

A few years ago I called in a neighbour who'd gone out leaving a pan on the cooker! There was no fire! 3 Fire engines turned up and it took about 10 officers to remove the window to go in and turn off the cooker! Seemed like a waste of resources!

This could happen in Accrington!

Yet another non-story from the redtop rag based on a falsehood, leading to a 'let's bash the health and safety rules' again.

First of all, the HSE do NOT, per se, make these rules. They investigate accidents, incidents and near misses and apportion blame if safety procedures are lax.

It's usually the idiots who don't know how to create risk assessments that are to blame. The kind of people who write 10 pages about how to deal with wet floors in kitchens when a simple 'Danger - wet floor' sign is perfectly adequate.

Of course Firemen are allowed to wade into 3ft of water if human life is at stake, point here is we are talking, to quote Michael Parkinson, about a 'bloody bird'. There is no telling what debris, pothole, sinkhole or any other danger may have been submerged in that 'shallow pond'. Do you seriously expect a public servant to risk life or limb over what is basically a rodent of the air?

Does the person who called the fire brigade live in Trumpton? Did he expect Pugh, Hugh and Barney Mcgrew to turn up, save Sally Seagull and return her to a grateful Windy Miller?

Anyone with common sense would have called the RSPCA not the emergency services...it wasn't an emergency.

As for your cooker example, seems perfectly reasonable to me, these guys know all about the dangers of backdrafts, flashovers, and unattended pans on cookers. I'm also guessing that these engines were equipped differently to allow for any eventuality, although not being a fireman i'm prepared to be wrong on that one.

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Eric

Obviously someone phoned the fire department in the first place. Why not just wade into the water and free the damned bird. Health and Safety seems to have gone beyond the bounds of what many call common sense. When our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought (sometimes literally) for safe working conditions in the factories and the mines, I don't think that they had this sort of bs in mind.

i think the ultimate case of health and safety gone too far is soldiers serving in afghanistan having to wear high visable jackets over their camoflauge gear

[Less]

Originally Posted by susie123

I find that your habit of ending every sentence and every thread title that you post with an exclamation mark!

Got to confess I'm a touch addicted to the old ! Myself.

It gives a wonderful expression to the frustration that I couldn't call a person exactly what I thought because this is a family site.

Mind you, I also have a thing about brackets, as in,

(Back in the good old days, we could curse and swear as much as we liked, (but then folk introduced their kids to the site.) this in turn caused problems, to solve the problems swearing was banned, (I would have banned kids), (it's a bit like letting women into working mens clubs, they are dying now)).

Yes well looking back at the above, too much of a good thing gets a little tedious, can't guarantee it from birdman, I however will try to refrain from, ! & (), if it makes it easier for you perhaps other members will refrain from:-

-/:;()£&@".,?!'[]****#%^*+=_\|~€$¥•

It may just make reading a little more difficult,
But YOU will be happy.

[susie123]

Originally Posted by Less

Got to confess I'm a touch addicted to the old ! Myself.

It gives a wonderful expression to the frustration that I couldn't call a person exactly what I thought because this is a family site.

Mind you, I also have a thing about brackets, as in,

(Back in the good old days, we could curse and swear as much as we liked, (but then folk introduced their kids to the site.) this in turn caused problems, to solve the problems swearing was banned, (I would have banned kids), (it's a bit like letting women into working mens clubs, they are dying now)).

Yes well looking back at the above, too much of a good thing gets a little tedious, can't guarantee it from birdman, I however will try to refrain from, ! & (), if it makes it easier for you perhaps other members will refrain from:-

-/:;()£&@".,?!'[]****#%^*+=_\|~€$¥•

It may just make reading a little more difficult,
But YOU will be happy.

Less, don't be naughty, I've never had a problem with your punctuation, or with most of your posts for that matter, you know that.

Folks can use what punctuation they like, it's a free country (or am I being controversial there?), I was merely offering some friendly advice to the birdie.

And I certainly WON'T be happy if people stop using all those punctuation marks because nothing will make any sense at all.

[Less]

Originally Posted by susie123

And I certainly WON'T be happy if people stop using all those punctuation marks because nothing will make any sense at all.

so, (iyve shorted the poste))' yo: didnee mound any-owt sorta anythin> udder than makin sentch£

Do you see? We can all make it up!!!!

At least as far as Grandma he was trying, just as what I am!!!

None of us are edificated enough to know when to put a:-

: or a. ; so please, if someone tries encourage them, we are all terribly unedificated, (ooh brackets (my favourite) try to put up with us).

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by susie123

Less, don't be naughty, I've never had a problem with your punctuation, or with most of your posts for that matter, you know that.

Folks can use what punctuation they like, it's a free country (or am I being controversial there?), I was merely offering some friendly advice to the birdie.

And I certainly WON'T be happy if people stop using all those punctuation marks because nothing will make any sense at all.

Well the thing you referred to susie, if anything it should have ended in a ? not ! It couldn't happen in Accrington? would have been better

[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by Guinness

Yet another non-story from the redtop rag based on a falsehood, leading to a 'let's bash the health and safety rules' again.

First of all, the HSE do NOT, per se, make these rules. They investigate accidents, incidents and near misses and apportion blame if safety procedures are lax.

It's usually the idiots who don't know how to create risk assessments that are to blame. The kind of people who write 10 pages about how to deal with wet floors in kitchens when a simple 'Danger - wet floor' sign is perfectly adequate.

Of course Firemen are allowed to wade into 3ft of water if human life is at stake, point here is we are talking, to quote Michael Parkinson, about a 'bloody bird'. There is no telling what debris, pothole, sinkhole or any other danger may have been submerged in that 'shallow pond'. Do you seriously expect a public servant to risk life or limb over what is basically a rodent of the air?

Does the person who called the fire brigade live in Trumpton? Did he expect Pugh, Hugh and Barney Mcgrew to turn up, save Sally Seagull and return her to a grateful Windy Miller?

Anyone with common sense would have called the RSPCA not the emergency services...it wasn't an emergency.

As for your cooker example, seems perfectly reasonable to me, these guys know all about the dangers of backdrafts, flashovers, and unattended pans on cookers. I'm also guessing that these engines were equipped differently to allow for any eventuality, although not being a fireman i'm prepared to be wrong on that one.

It has been standard practice for donkeys years, that a minimum of two Fire Appliances attend all house fires.
As for the Tip Rat in a pond, or a cat up a tree, why should any one risk life or limb, when a good shot will solve the problem. Too many tree & bunny huggers, creating problems that don't exist.
Retlaw.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

It has been standard practice for donkeys years, that a minimum of two Fire Appliances attend all house fires.
As for the Tip Rat in a pond, or a cat up a tree, why should any one risk life or limb, when a good shot will solve the problem. Too many tree & bunny huggers, creating problems that don't exist.
Retlaw.

What's with the using of pejoratives ... "tree & bunny huggers" ... as if they constitute an argument? This sounds like a response one would get from the NRA. I can't see anything wrong with having compassion and respect for the creatures we share the planet with, or, with having a concern for the environment in general.