If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Rescue broke Health and Safety Rules
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7183017.stm
There must be more to this story. It seems a prime example of backroom boys judging the man on the spot...
They'd be the first ones complaining if the girl had fallen to her death whilst he got his equipment on...
There must be more to this story. It seems a prime example of backroom boys judging the man on the spot...
They'd be the first ones complaining if the girl had fallen to her death whilst he got his equipment on...
0
Comments
Agreed. There are too many people in jobs such as his who are having second thoughts about doing the right thing, because of people who question everything someone does.
I can see both sides, the coast guard as they rightly point out dont want dead heros and he just wanted to do what was instinctively right.
It just seems a shame that the situation has led to him leaving.
Why has nobody demanded the sacking of the jobsworth who decreed that rules were broken?
Of course, and we used to send kids down mines, H&S gets a bad rep but it does try and stop people dying in the workplace. But of course I totally understand your point, I would have liked to have seen the man given something for saving the kid, but then perhaps he can discuss the issues with his manager later.
They're not gallantry awards and I wish people wouldn't muddle the two things up - you don't get an OBE for bravery, same as you don't get a VC for being good at your job.
I'm not against H&S per se - I think it's good. What I worry about is H&S getting in the way of doing good.
I'm off the view there's no greater love than laying down your life for your friends (unless it's laying it down for a complete stranger) and think that instead of rewarding courage we're at risk of institutionalising cowardice.
There is a middle ground, and in my experience most of the time H&S is silly or over the top its because someone doesnt understand it (or the law is written badly).
The basic principle is 'as far as reasonably practicable' which in rescue situations means people can take considerable risks, but you should do everything reasonable you can to minimise them.
yes, if she was secure and he went down because he was being gung-ho he should be disciplined. However, as she was in imminent danger he had to take a risk.
And as I understand H&S the basic principle is about 'minimisation of risk' which accepts that at times some people are going to do things which are incredibly dangerous. TBH I don't blame HSA, but how at times H&S is implemented by companies.
That's largely because of the no win no fee law suits, which is totally understandable given how uneven they are.
And then it seems that the man threw his toys out of the pram and went squealing to the papers. The coastguard say they know nothing about the reasons for his resignation and I believe them.
The coastguard are right- be broke the rules and the last thing they want is a dead coastguard. If he'd fallen and died there would have been an investigation into why he died and the coastguard service could have been criminally and civilly liable for a breach of the rules.
It's a shame that they've had such a public spat but I don't blame the coastguard service for doing what they have to do.
And yours and Budda's post point why there's a problem. he took a risk to save someone's life. I'd have said a dead coastguard is the second to last thing they want, the last thing they want is someone falling to their death, whilst a coastguard equips himself.
It's mad to discipline him because he took a decision that someone else's safety is more important than his own...
Unless your job is in the armed services
... but then you probably get it because someone has been bad at theirs...
I would however querey the way they went about it.
Yes he did something that goes against procedure and protocols.
Yes it worked.
Why the hell did the MCA then spend 9 months pissing people off with the investigation. By all means look into it, but my personnal experience with these things is it's not the questions asked and the investigation as such that's a problem, it's the time in then drags on for.
generally h&s works and it is there for everyones benefit but in real life situations you do whatever you can using your best discretion.
Not long into my new job I was walking alone one night in a small town. In the distance I saw something happening, and as I got closer I saw a fight. As I got closer still I saw the victim of said fight was a young girl who was having the shit kicked out of her by about 10 youths, with another 10 standing and cheering.
The "you must not intervene" directive floated around in my head for about half a second before I whipped my torch out, and ran towards them screaming "STOP POLICE, STOP" followed by "fuck off you bastards". Luckily they all ran and I got the girl to safety.
Only after did I remember that if it had gone tits up, i'd had been the one in trouble.
Luckily since then the force directives have changed, we've now been told we've got a duty to intervene in a situation if we think we can do something without getting our head kicked in, and whatever happens we'll be supported. Which is nice.
Because they have to by law. Employers are compelled to make sure that health and safety law is complied with.
If the coastguard had been disciplined or sacked he would have said so when he was mouthing off to the press. He didn't say that which implies to me that he wasn't disciplined or sacked. It implies to me that he's just thrown his toys out his pram like a spoilt little child.
It's a shame that the coastguard and the coastguard service couldn't have resolved this without going running to the press like a little child. It reads to me like he's just angry that he didn't get a medal for putting his life in serious danger.
If it was me, it's the length of time that would irritate me far mre than the investigation in principle.