Shocking Home eviction by corporate police, your views sort please.

Re 63

Altho’ I don’t know the timescale, my version of the event shows that there was much activity with friends, acquaintances, relatives, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, at that portion of the pond where the person had gone in. So, if true, there was some knowledge of the location of the drowning person.

I think you need your moral compass swung. Its showing a lot of deviation. But then if you’re happy sitting on the sidelines; that appears to be the default position of most in our charming and responsible society.

…it is the duty of each one of us to offer help within the limits of our ability in life threatening situations.

I don’t think anybody is disputing that but you are absolutely right when you say ‘within the limits of our ability’; realistically I don’t think many of us know what those limits are, especially when it comes to deep, cold, murky water.

I’m a very strong swimmer, have absolutely no fear of water and am used to swimming in the sea, I’ve even had a little ‘life guard’ training (when I was younger), but I don’t think I’d have gone into the lake in question if the boy hadn’t been visible. Going in clothed and without some sort of buoyancy-aid would have been suicide! Even if the boy was on the surface I’d have thought twice about going in without a life-ring or something.

If I’m ever in trouble and you are the only one around, .

OK so it’s a hot day you take a dip in a deep lake and get into trouble, this will almost certainly be because of thermal shock. A young man out in the park with his wife and two and a half kids jumps into save you. He manages to get you close to the bank where you are pulled out, he is exhausted and also suffering from thermal shock and whilst all the efforts are focused on you the young man slips under and drowns.

Please explain how you would feel about that.

The risks of drowning are very high

http://www.rospa.com/media-centre/press-office/press-releases/detail/?id=1179

RoSPA issues hot weather drowning alert
05/07/2013
Periods of hot weather are often linked to a spate of accidental drownings, particularly when they coincide with weekends, school holidays and bank holidays.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), the leading accident prevention charity in the UK, wants families to get out and about to enjoy the weather but to be extra vigilant around inland waters, such as rivers, lakes, lochs, quarries and reservoirs, which can be more dangerous than they appear.
There are about 260 accidental drowning deaths in inland waters each year – about 60 per cent of the total number of accidental water deaths.
In 2011, 22 teenagers aged 15-19 drowned accidentally in the UK, with the majority of these deaths happening in inland waters, according to the National Water Safety Forum’s Water Incident Database. And research funded by the RoSPA/BNFL Scholarship, of which the findings have been published today, has identified drowning risk factors to help determine the case for improving water safety and targeting campaigns, highlighting that teenagers and young men are at higher risk of drowning inland than other groups.

A Canadian study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977112

And that font of accurate “news”

Heatwave death toll reaches 13

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-heatwave-drowning-death-2060658

If I’m ever in trouble and you are the only one around, I’ll know to bend over and kiss my ass goodbye.

If you’re capable of, and can spare the time for, such contortions, I’ll know you’re not really in trouble.
Instead of kissing it, couldn’t you ride your donkey to safety?

So you hold that a policeman, who is not a trained lifeguard, is standing on the bank of a large and dangerous lake where, several minutes before, a boy disappeared from sight.

Nobody can give clear guidance as to where he went under.

Which part of the lake are you going to choose to swim around in, groping hopefully?

If, whilst you are so doing, the boy bobs up several hundred yards away, who would stand the better chance of: 1) seeing him (An observer on the shore with a higher sightline, or the guy in the water?) 2) reaching him (An observer on the shore who can run to the closest point on the bank then dive in, or an untrained ‘lifeguard’ swimming several hundred yards in a waterlogged uniform?)

What you advocate is much like the Beyond The Fringe Sketch of the wartime CO

Peter Cook: I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Get up in a crate, Perkins, pop over to Bremen, take a shufti, don’t come back. Goodbye, Perkins. God, I wish I was going too.

Jonathan Miller: Goodbye, sir — or is it — au revoir?

Peter Cook: No, Perkins.

Moggy

The point that I’m making, as you well know, is that it is the duty of each one of us to offer help within the limits of our ability in life threatening situations.

You can’t swim, so you would not be expected to help in this particular situation. If you had been a swimmer – before entering the water – you, presumably, would have felt the need for special lifeguard training? That’s a complete nonsense and a cop out.

If I’m ever in trouble and you are the only one around, I’ll know to bend over and kiss my ass goodbye.

It’s quite simple. In spite of the excuses you offer: “you’re told to stay off the ice, stay out of the buildng”. “You’re told not to risk your own life” etc. etc.
Who is doing the telling? Shouldn’t you be making up your own mind, quantifying the risk rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do ?

Since the boy went missing in 10′ of water, and I can’t swim, I wouldn’t need anyone to tell me what (not) to do. I note that you omit to mention that the report says that none of rescue service members were trained lifeguards, that the pond normally has lifeguards in attendance, but the boys had gone swimming after they went off duty, and the under-water visibility is measured in inches.

What would you opinion be of me if I was the only person around who, in a hazardous situation could have at least attempted a rescue of one of your close relatives, say a child or grandchild and I failed miserably to do so ?

“Failed miserably” Oh, what lovely emotive words they are. I don’t deal in “what-if” situations, while sitting safe in my living room at home, and I certainly wouldn’t take the word of a “freelance journalist” as gospel truth, which is what you’re doing (yes, I have read the report, but thoroughly.)

I believe that the current training for the ‘rescue’ services tends to be risk averse and there seems to be a fairly generous dollop of evidence to support that opinion.

Are firemen and policemen required to be trained lifeguards as part of their job description? If not, then your diatribe has no basis in fact.

I stick to my belief. Our duty to do something to help is inescapable. I’m quite surprised to find you in opposition.

You missed “if we can” out of that middle sentence; how, exactly, could I, a non-swimmer, help someone drowning in 10′ of water?

Shouldn’t you be making up your own mind, quantifying the risk rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do?

But the Police present at the tragedy in question shouldn’t have made up their own minds…

…but should have done what you are telling them to do?

What would you opinion be of me if I was the only person around who, in a hazardous situation could have at least attempted a rescue of one of your close relatives, say a child or grandchild and I failed miserably to do so ?

.

And how would that person feel if, in taking the risk to save their loved one, you lost your own life? And how would your own loved ones feel? These are difficult questions to answer because the implications are complex. I sympathise with arguments on both sides and if and when the moment were to come I have no doubt that many or maybe most of us would act instinctively and without calculating any risk. I don’t know, I have never been in the situation.

Or, possibly, couldn’t swim? If there’s a fire, you’re told to stay out of the building, or you’ll probably die; if someone falls through ice, you’re told to stay off, or you could be next; if someone’s drowning, and you can’t swim, you’re told not to risk your own life in a futile attempt to do something to help.
It’s so easy, when you have an agenda to hate the police, to accuse them of anything, when you don’t have all the facts.

It’s quite simple. In spite of the excuses you offer: “you’re told to stay off the ice, stay out of the buildng”. “You’re told not to risk your own life” etc. etc.

Who is doing the telling? Shouldn’t you be making up your own mind, quantifying the risk rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do ?

What would you opinion be of me if I was the only person around who, in a hazardous situation could have at least attempted a rescue of one of your close relatives, say a child or grandchild and I failed miserably to do so ?

I have no hate agenda for anything or anyone. I believe that the current training for the ‘rescue’ services tends to be risk averse and there seems to be a fairly generous dollop of evidence to support that opinion.

I stick to my belief. Our duty to do something to help is inescapable. I’m quite surprised to find you in opposition.

There are numerous cases where people have died trying to rescue people and dogs.

This one raises a point which probably applies in most cases.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/ohio-man-dies-trying-to-save-girl-from-drowning/

There is no one simple answer that covers all especially when you are not there at the time. “Boy drowns” does not make such a good story as “Boy drowns while people stand around watching.”

Whilst, of course, one hopes that any bystander would do their best to effect a rescue and that possibly you have a duty to society, you also have a duty to your family. Sad though it may be if the little girl in the above case had lost her life there would not now be 4 children without a father. I certainly wouldn’t like to be put into that position to make an instant decision and I certainly wouldn’t think I had the right or superiority to judge others. If I got into difficulty would I want somebody to loose their life trying to save me, absolutely and certainly not. I know that my life would be over if I had to live with the guilt of somebody dying trying to rescue me and that includes police/fire and ambulance services. I know this as I fell apart from the guilt of my brother dying of natural causes on his own. Would I try to rescue, well I would certainly hope so but I doubt very much in the Wanstead case if I would have been successful. Whether my wife, children and grandchild would think I had made the right decision if I died is another matter altogether. And I am sure what would be said in public by them would not necessarily be what they thought in private.

…if someone’s drowning, and you can’t swim, you’re told not to risk your own life…

I think the advice, for a long time, has been ‘do not to enter the water under any circumstances’…

…even if you can swim.

Well I agree but if that’s what they believe and is their view of the incident then who are we to quarrel with it. Their view is arguably the only one which really matters.

Interesting quote from the family:

“‘We believe that whatever God does is for the good, so if that’s the way he [God] was meant to take him [Moses] then it must be good for him and for us, because it was meant to be.
‘So there’s no blame, no pointing, because what was meant to happen, happened, and there was nothing anybody could have done to avoid it.’
Speaking of the police response she added: ‘Of course we would have liked it if they could have got their quicker. But we really appreciate what the police have done and they treated us and our religious beliefs with respect.
‘They waited for Jewish men to come [to the pond] to handle the body, and we really appreciate that.’

This response is really sad for the main reason that it abdicates personal responsibility for one’s actions and just passes it to an imaginary person in the sky (a bit like ISIS).

While I respect people of any religious belief (just as I respect people without any religious belief) it seems strange that people still believe in 2015 superstitious religions made up in the last couple of thousand years to explain natural events.

I live on the South Coast and over the years we’ve had a handful of instances where the police or fire and rescue have arrived in response to a call and then stood by as someone drowned – in one particular instance – because, allegedly, they hadn’t had the ‘right’ kind of training’ to enter water four feet deep. In other words they bottled out.

Or, possibly, couldn’t swim? If there’s a fire, you’re told to stay out of the building, or you’ll probably die; if someone falls through ice, you’re told to stay off, or you could be next; if someone’s drowning, and you can’t swim, you’re told not to risk your own life in a futile attempt to do something to help.
It’s so easy, when you have an agenda to hate the police, to accuse them of anything, when you don’t have all the facts.

Tony,

I know the story, at least the versions I’ve read. This was as blatant an example of terminal stupidity as any I’ve come across. Terminal stupidity always seems to feature in these cases.

None of that really matters. I’m more than aware of the instinct of self preservation and how powerful it is but, there is, or should be, a moral imperative at work. An imperative that altho’ we might be crapping our pants at the prospect, means that we must do everything we can to help someone in mortal danger.

I would bet my life that if you were the only person around passing a blazing house and someone screamed from a top window for your help you would do whatever was in your capacity, to help.

Any normal person would. It is an instinct as powerful as self preservation. I live on the South Coast and over the years we’ve had a handful of instances where the police or fire and rescue have arrived in response to a call and then stood by as someone drowned – in one particular instance – because, allegedly, they hadn’t had the ‘right’ kind of training’ to enter water four feet deep. In other words they bottled out.

I’m saddened that so few seem to agree.

John, I agree with you that hopefully most people would instinctively try to help someone if they could see they were in trouble or in mortal danger.

In this totally avoidable case (and I am sorry to say case of real stupidity) the bystanders couldn’t see where he had gone under….had anyone else gone in this might have resulted in further unnecessary deaths.

If the waters had being clear enough to see even a few yards, or to see where that chap was, then you and I (without any training) would have just have just dived in to help.

The people in your example on the south coast who didn’t try to help in just 4 feet of water just seem to lack basic judgement when it was just easier to help straight away rather than wait for help.

Interesting quote from the family:

“‘We believe that whatever God does is for the good, so if that’s the way he [God] was meant to take him [Moses] then it must be good for him and for us, because it was meant to be.
‘So there’s no blame, no pointing, because what was meant to happen, happened, and there was nothing anybody could have done to avoid it.’
Speaking of the police response she added: ‘Of course we would have liked it if they could have got their quicker. But we really appreciate what the police have done and they treated us and our religious beliefs with respect.
‘They waited for Jewish men to come [to the pond] to handle the body, and we really appreciate that.’

Tony,

I know the story, at least the versions I’ve read. This was as blatant an example of terminal stupidity as any I’ve come across. Terminal stupidity always seems to feature in these cases.

None of that really matters. I’m more than aware of the instinct of self preservation and how powerful it is but, there is, or should be, a moral imperative at work. An imperative that altho’ we might be crapping our pants at the prospect, means that we must do everything we can to help someone in mortal danger.

I would bet my life that if you were the only person around passing a blazing house and someone screamed from a top window for your help you would do whatever was in your capacity, to help.

Any normal person would. It is an instinct as powerful as self preservation. I live on the South Coast and over the years we’ve had a handful of instances where the police or fire and rescue have arrived in response to a call and then stood by as someone drowned – in one particular instance – because, allegedly, they hadn’t had the ‘right’ kind of training’ to enter water four feet deep. In other words they bottled out.

I’m saddened that so few seem to agree.

A reply that is high on bleak rationality but, utterly lacking in moral responsibility. Your sentiments are wrong.

Did you have a chance to read the full story John?

Did you know for example that visibility in the water was about six inches and you could barely see in front of your face?

From the Daily Fail (sorry to quote this rag 😉

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3041417/Teenager-drowns-going-swim-friends-Hampstead-Heath-pond-hottest-day-year.html

The salient facts being:-

‘He was swimming away from the designated area and out of hours so there were no lifeguards on duty.

‘There are signs everywhere warning people not to go into the water at these times.

‘Visibility in the water is about six inches, it’s very murky, and you can barely see in front of your face.

‘He had swum out over a ten foot drop and was about 20 feet from the side when he experienced difficulty – you have to be a strong swimmer to be out there