There were three items, which have come out of this election, which gave me great satisfaction. No more will we have to see that wagging finger from the leader of the Opposition (how Cameron resisted the temptation to reach forward and snap it off, I’ll never know.) For five years (at least) I won’t have to look at the smug smirk on “Balls-up’s” face, as he tried to airily dismiss his failings. It was with deep satisfaction that I witnessed Salmond’s comments (about him telling Labour how to run the country) coming back to bite him, with Cameron pointedly talking to Sturgeon, and not him.
I now await 20p being slapped onto the price of petrol, and the latest “revelations” about diesel getting 50p added, and the promise of no income tax increase being got round by the usual ploy of not raising tax thresholds.

Supermarine noted it as a requirement, and an amendment (not a modification, so possibly issued as a DTD circular) from 10-11-41.

You are a truly wonderful person with a very well balanced attitude which does you great credit. The following is specially for you in your self appointed role as uncritical supporter of our ‘boys in blue’.

Ah, the time-dishonoured twisting of something to suit your own twisted agenda. I am defending the inaction of seven non-members of the police force, that’s all, but that, of course, cuts no ice with you.

my eye was drawn to a headline in the Independent newspaper on sale by the exit:
“Thousands of police under investigation for allegations of brutality against members of the ethnic community”
I expect you’ll find some ludicrous excuse.

Actually, I shall do something which you find utterly impossible, and wait for the evidence; then (and only then) will I decide what action I feel should be taken.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is still, thankfully, the rule, in this country, however much you hate the idea.

What is “asinine” is expecting somebody, who doesn’t have the faintest idea what they’re doing, to dive (literally) headlong into a situation, and thrash about causing double the trouble for anyone else.
During my time as a first-aider, while I was away on holiday, a man fell, at work, and hurt his leg, so, without consulting another aider, he was shoved into a car, and taken to hospital. It transpired that he had a broken leg, with a fracture that could have become complicated (and extremely dangerous) with the open break breaking through the skin, due to mishandling; a first-aider would have immobilised it.
When a man went into an epileptic fit, we had onlookers trying to grab him and restrain his flailing movements, completely unaware that his muscle movements could be so severe that, if restrained, he could break his own bones.
When some workers had to get into restricted spaces, they were in the habit of gripping a thermometer in their teeth; one day a man slipped, and the thermometer broke, so I arranged for him to go to hospital as a precaution. The under works manager told him to go back to work, as “He’ll be alright.” I told him to put it in writing in case of having to give evidence at an inquest. He went to hospital, and was given the all-clear, but we got a message back, from the hospital, that we’d done the right thing, because ingested mercury can be fatal.
In my time, I have saved lives, and serious injury, which is why I refuse to accept lectures from an ill-informed amateur on the way to behave in the workplace.

It is my opinion that altho’ few, there are some obligations from which it is impossible to escape.

And one of those is obeying the rules at your place of work

Trying to help someone in distress is one of them. For example, the RNLI know all about that. Some would comment that they are paid professionals. That is by the by. They venture out in extreme conditions putting their own lives in grave danger and stop at nothing to effect a rescue.

And for that they undergo rigorous training in how to effect a rescue, something you seem determined to forget (or ignore.)
For several years, I was a first-aider at work, and, as well as the normal cuts and bruises, we had to learn how to immobilise a fracture, treat someone undergoing an epileptic fit, and how to get a patient, with a probable broken neck, onto a stretcher without making them a quadriplegic. One of the greatest pains was the enthusiastic (but ill-educated) volunteer, who would want to lift a head, to insert a cushion, or give someone a drink, often alcohol, while we just wanted them left alone, in our care.

To answer your question, if, in attempting to help someone in extremis, I then require assistance, I hope that I would get it but, that is a matter for my would be rescuer.

So you are happy for your would-be rescuer to exercise his/her judgement in effecting (or not) a rescue, but not the staff at Hampstead Heath; if that isn’t double standards, I don’t know what is.

Judged by the comments on this forum it is plain to me that the ethical behaviour and sense of obligation that I and most of my contemporaries grew up with is no more.

Yet the RNLI (and presumably, even though you refuse to not mention their immobility, in this incident) and ambulance service still have that “obligation.” Funny that.

For me personally, it is a question of a moral imperative. Your quote of my words exactly summarise my attitude.

You’ll forgive us if your “moral imperative” comes across as a convenient stick with which to beat the police.
I had hoped that this had been left to wither, but obviously you can’t let it go, so perhaps there are a few things you need to know. The impression is that you’ve never been on Hampstead Heath, so let me put you straight on a few items.
1/.The Hampstead Heath ponds are, literally, that; they are not swimming pools; my late aunt lived 15 minutes walk from the Heath, and she always hammered home to me how dangerous the ponds were, since we always passed one during our walks. Reeds and weeds grow in ponds, and can be lethal; had the pond in question been cleared, or haven’t you bothered to ask?
2/. The pond appears to be “The Men’s Pond,” into which nobody under 8 is allowed to enter, neither is anybody under 16 without the company of an adult, and it needs lifeguards on duty during the time it is open.
3/. Somebody complained about the (possible) lack of lifebuoys, but, if you can’t see somebody, where do you throw it (and have you tried to throw one of them over 10 feet?) There’s also the possibility that, with the lifeguards off duty (and the pond, presumably closed,) any rings are locked away to stop the great British public helping themselves.
4/. The police, for whom you have such contempt, are the Hampstead Heath Constabulary, which is NOT (REPEAT – NOT) part of the Metropolitan Police Force, which makes your comments about the Commissioner and his excuses book even more fatuous. They are employed to keep the Heath free of crime, and administer its bye-laws, but, in the event of a major problem they are supposed to pass it on to the Met. As employees of the Heath, they will have been made fully aware of the dangers of the ponds, and, if they were told to stay out of them, that is what they would have been expected to do, or find themselves unemployed in very short order.
Now, I’m sure this won’t stop you wittering on about “moral responsibilities,” but I can only hope that those whose minds are not completely closed will understand.

Basically, it means the “meeja” don’t have to move far, in order to get an ever-ready quote, plus pretty posed pictures, to fill their “news” programmes and “news”papers.
In a few weeks, when the political version of “Strictly Come Dancing” is over, their holidays will also be over, and they’ll have to do a real job. Yes, I’m a cynic.

No, I would not enter any strange water unless to try to help someone in need. Much like yourself – I don’t think !

And (just as wearily) I repeat, I CANNOT SWIM, so would be completely useless in any water rescue, in fact I would certainly become a complete liability, and need rescuing myself, so I believe it’s my moral responsibility to leave it to others.

You quote the Daily Mail, but you seem to have missed this bit:-

A spokesman said: ‘The heath constabulary officers are here to enforce bylaws in the park, they are not trained lifeguards and the water is dangerous and very murky, so they are advised they are not to go in until proper assistance arrives.
‘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.
‘It is a complete tragedy but these are the facts behind it.’

Funny how you make no mention of the paramedics and firemen, who also were there, but harp on, incessantly, only about the “failures” of the police.
Strange, too, how you said (item 69):-

I’m a strong and able swimmer who wouldn’t swim unless I knew that particular water very well.

yet you castigate (only) the police for going by the same criteria.
But of course you don’t have an anti-police agenda; we quite understand.