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.

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?

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?

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.

Is the reference you are using publicly available?

File no. AVIA 15/1629 in the National Archives, Kew.

The company’s name was F. Hills and Sons; the aircraft needed modifications done before it was considered fit ti fly, and trials didn’t start until 1943. The top wing was never slipped, and indications are that it was never intended. If the concept worked, Hills wanted to try it on the latest Mark of Hurricane, rather than an old Mk.I (which, incidentally, when delivered was fitted with fabric-covered wings, making it useless.) Camm made it plain he wanted nothing to do with it, so Hills were on their own.

How else to you explain why we only hear about the exploits of these individuals, once they have died ?

Because you can’t (in the legal sense) slander or libel the dead, and those with money can afford the most expensive legal teams, then tie up the opposition for so long that they go bankrupt. Maxwell ruled by fear of legal action (and its cost,) and his behaviour only came to light after his “accidental” suicide.

IT IS NOT THERE JOB TO BREAK IN DOORS. Their job is to enable the bailiffs to gain entry without obstruction or violence!

Sorry, but that’s emotive nonsense; if the bailiffs have been inside the property before (and we have no way of knowing if that’s the case,) they are empowered to gain re-entry by any means, and the tools used by the police are likely to cause the least amount of damage to life and limb (and that’s what matters, not bricks and mortar.)