If that's true (of the emergency services), it's unbelievable, but from reading the whole story it looks like a case that a member of the public left him lying face down in the water for five or ten minutes before the emergency services arrived when she could have saved him.

(Not too sure about The Blaze - it looks like a right-wing anti-Obama American organisation. Haven't you quoted from this before?)

Nope, never quoted from that before. I was in a rush this a.m. and it was the first link I could find. Didn't bother with the rest of the site. (Not really important in this context).

Here's a U.K. based one. ClickThrough

Sadly, as you will see, the man was not dead, and the Coroner said "there was a chance ‘albeit a slim one’ he could have been saved had the emergency services intervened sooner", so who knows?



Actually, I've just noticed that this link goes to the Daily Hate, so probably not TOO different from the Blaze thingy. (I'll try and find another).

I saw this at the time and was sickened by it. Not only by the "emergency services" in this case but also by the public who stood by as well.

Air Ambulance, 3 paramedics aboard, not used.
Two Ambulances plus a 'first responder' Ambulance, 5 paramedics.
Two Fire engines with 13 Firefighters. Not Used
Water Support Unit, carrying two Water Support Officers, carrying waterproof immersion suits, thermal wear, breathing systems, two rafts, paddles, personal locators, and 12 life jackets. (not used on Mr Burgess)




Cowards

Suppose this is the net result of our 'thought free society' - where someone else has to make all the decisions for you so someone is always to blame, My old dad was on the Ambulance service many years back. One of his proudest achievements was attending the local swimming pool where some lad had jumped off top board and somehow missed. Dad and his mate decided that the youth might have broken his back - so, they carefully pushed their stretcher under him and carried him just over half a mile to the (thankfully) nearby hospital. That was on the basis that the effect of shoving in an d out of the vehicle, which wasn't too well sprung was a bigger risk. It worked!

His view, the emergency service was there to get the injured to hospital as rapidly and as safely as possible. Ironically, he was well on board with 'safety' - had the real message drummed into him in the forces -you are doing a dangerous job, which must be done, but at all times think; its your life as well.

Assess the risk scrap the rules...

That was an embarrassingly badly managed situation and there are many more positive examples to demonstrate the conduct that day was not the standard expected.

'In a life or death situation, where close proximity was demanded, it would've been achieved you may rest assured' - I'm not at all assured

Wonderful thing, hindsight......

Sadly, the responders achieved proximity, but failed in the basic personal function thereafter. Process got in the way of outcome.

I don't find any aspect of that sort of situation the slightest amusing. I've been there, done that (but do not wear the T-shirt).

Nor do I, what I found amusing was your trite assurance. You've been in the emergency services, really? Big deal - get over it or polish your campaign medals.

Sad
You know nothing about me, so get off your horse and have some human respect.

The article now says the public school in question is in West Sussex.

I'm not really sure how you could have an age limit at the skatepark as suggested by the parents. You'd need enforcement officers there all the time and everyone who used it would need to prove their age. I don't think they've really thought this through.

Yes it is - that's how we learn, looking back. Dreadful pity that so many times we don't.

While agreeing about the infeasibility of enforcing an age limit I would suggest that, should such a limit be set, it should be to bar under 14s. It's not a child friendly environment.

As regards the willingness of emergency services to take chances......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20015659

Some of them, like that copper who thought he'd beat Ian Tomlinson to the ground, take chances and get away with it. Filth

Even Phil Bennet couldn't sidestep like that!!!!!

A jury found him not guilty, by the way. His Chief sacked him.

Firstly the evidence was massively flawed and the doctor who testified got struck off shortly after being found to be dishonest as well as incompetent. Secondly, the murderer resigned before he could be sacked which I believe he had done before which is how he was able to keep returning to the MET.

I may not care, but calling a man found not guilty a criminal has risks you should consider, however you feel about the verdict. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

As for the dismissal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627


Now can we get back to the issue of sensible emergency service responders and their attitude to saving victims?

Fair point on the resignation, but to be fair once they reached "gross misconduct" they didn't bother going any further. As for calling him a murderer, I would quite happily stand up and say it to his face. He killed a man in cold blood, whether intentional or not, and has wriggled himself off the hook.