10 year old boy drowns, CSOs do nothing!

[luke-p]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7008077.stm

Completely outrageous... When I heard this on the news I was really ****** off :@
Like what the hell is that about, you don't need training to go into a pond and try to save a little boys life, so what if they would have lost there jobs, I'm sure every one on this forum would have at least tried to save him...

[Lycan]

Indeed, but they were untrained in what to do,


"The alarm was raised and the CSOs arrived. Police said they could see no sign of Jordon in the water, so they radioed trained officers for help."

If they can't see him, they don't know where to go to look, instead choosing to aid the girl who was pulled out to avoid hypatherma.

infairness the two anglers could of jumped in and didn't....

[FlyingJesus]

They'd have been taking a big risk to look for someone whose position they didn't know, with no training and no knowledge of how to get themselves out alive let alone with someone else. It's not like it was a garden fish pond.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think these 'police' are the new type of policeman David Blunkett created, hence they are known as Blunketts plastic bobbies'

[Concentric2]

I think they should have at least swum out to see if they could see any sign of him.

However, I think it's unfair to say that they stood by whilst the boy drowned - they couldn't see any sign of him.

[Virgin Mary]

Um, I'd understand if it was the ocean or the Loch Ness, but it was a 6ft deep pond...

[Lilian]

Poor Lad :(

[cocaine]

PCSO's aren't legally required to do that, they aren't trained.

They're also allowed to do a risk assessment.

[DiscoPat]

Stop being stupid, if you cant see the boy then its stupid to randomly jump in the watr because theres less of a chance you can see him if your in the water, also its called officer safety.. Also its no good if you jump in the water to save the boy and end up puting your life at risk as that wont help the other emergency service officers as they will have another problem in hand. Personally I would of gone in but thats cause im a reasonably good swimmer but I still agree with what the community officers done there.

[lAdmire]

okay.
i am not the greatest swimmer & i would've jumped into save him.
they did the wrong thing.
you do not need to be trained to learn how to jump in the water & save a boy.
wow.
they should feel very guilty.
letting a boy die while they are there watching.

[Concentric2]

okay.

i am not the greatest swimmer & i would've jumped into save him.
they did the wrong thing.
you do not need to be trained to learn how to jump in the water & save a boy.
wow.
they should feel very guilty.

letting a boy die while they are there watching.

But they couldn't see him? He was already under. I agree they should have got in and had a look, but it's not like he was right in front of them splashing around shouting help.

[Mentor]

What the hell does the training have to do with anything, plenty of people have saved lifes without "training". Basic human decensy does not requre training, thats a pretty pathetic and cowardly excuse in my opinion.

[Nixt]

Okay, they're not trained, okay they might lose their job. I am not trained in water rescue, but I'd sure as hell jump in. I'd also sacrifice my job, however important it was to me, to save a little boy's life.

That's regardless of if I could see him or not. If I knew he was in there, it wouldn't make a difference.

[Lycan]

it was more important for them to focus on the child th anglers pulled out as they coudn't see the boy, you say that but the anglers weren't trained and they didn't jump in to get him... so don't judge the csos and not judge the others who were there

[Mentor]

it was more important for them to focus on the child th anglers pulled out as they coudn't see the boy, you say that but the anglers weren't trained and they didn't jump in to get him... so don't judge the csos and not judge the others who were there
The anglers (who unlike the csos did save one person from drowning) didnt make up stupid and pathetic excuses though. Thats the difference. Its bad enough the Cso's didnt jump in, but trying to make excuses for it is low by any standard.

[Nixt]

it was more important for them to focus on the child th anglers pulled out as they coudn't see the boy, you say that but the anglers weren't trained and they didn't jump in to get him... so don't judge the csos and not judge the others who were there

I'm not judging anyone. Any person there who didn't choose to jump in and try to find him - they did the wrong thing. The thing is though, people will have looked to the CSOs for help, if they don't go in people will probably follow suit.

[Lycan]

The anglers (who unlike the csos did save one person from drowning) didnt make up stupid and pathetic excuses though. Thats the difference. Its bad enough the Cso's didnt jump in, but trying to make excuses for it is low by any standard.


Surely its unfair to say they did save someone when the other didn't, even a CSO would save a girl they could see ... the point is they coudn't see the boy.

[Fifteen]

Yeah, I seen that on the new the other day, it's sly, anyone would jump in the water to save someone. They could of done somthing. grr.

[Nixt]

Surely its unfair to say they did save someone when the other didn't, even a CSO would save a girl they could see ... the point is they coudn't see the boy.

Who cares if you couldn't see him? You know he's in there, you know he's drowning but you don't just stand there and wait for others to come a long. Anyway, their main excuse was that they were not trained in water rescue.

[Mentor]

Surely its unfair to say they did save someone when the other didn't, even a CSO would save a girl they could see ... the point is they coudn't see the boy.
Facts ain't necessarily fair, there just the truth, and thats it. The fishermen DID save the little girl and get her out the water. The CSO's did not. They then proceeded not to even attempt to go in after the other kid. It doesnt mean the anglers are in the right ether, but at least they appear to have done SOMTHING... and im goning to go out on a limb and say i doubt they were trained for that ether.

[Lycan]

Facts ain't necessarily fair, there just the truth, and thats it. The fishermen DID save the little girl and get her out the water. The CSO's did not. They then proceeded not to even attempt to go in after the other kid. It doesnt mean the anglers are in the right ether, but at least they appear to have done SOMTHING... and im goning to go out on a limb and say i doubt they were trained for that ether.


They did do something, they called for more officers (trained) an ambulance. whos to say they didn't try to go in, they may of radioed requesting to go in... without being there you are unable to judge exactly what happened. which is why i'm defending them... i would of tried saving but i wasn't there, and nor were you.

[Nixt]

They did do something, they called for more officers (trained) an ambulance. whos to say they didn't try to go in, they may of radioed requesting to go in... without being there you are unable to judge exactly what happened. which is why i'm defending them... i would of tried saving but i wasn't there, and nor were you.

They called for more officers, the five minutes that took those officers took to arrive could of been the five minutes in which they could of at least tried to save the child. If I radioed and ask for permission, and they said no - I'd do it anyway. Actually, thinking about radioing in and asking would not cross my mind...

[Mentor]

They did do something, they called for more officers (trained) an ambulance. whos to say they didn't try to go in, they may of radioed requesting to go in... without being there you are unable to judge exactly what happened. which is why i'm defending them... i would of tried saving but i wasn't there, and nor were you.

... as I'm guessing working a telephone to ring an ambulance is something they were actually trained in ?
A 10 year old boy was prepared to jump in to save someone... yet none a group of fully grown adults, were prepared to do the same thing. Short of a full scale terrorist attack happening a few feet away from them theres nothing that will change my mind on how utterly pathetic that is.

[Lycan]

They called for more officers, the five minutes that took those officers took to arrive could of been the five minutes in which they could of at least tried to save the child. If I radioed and ask for permission, and they said no - I'd do it anyway. Actually, thinking about radioing in and asking would not cross my mind...

you would, maybe they started to but coudn't see him. where are they meant to go?!, strong undercurrent or deep merky waters would of made it impossible to locate the boy without proper equipment! ... without being there you can't pass a comment.... this is something the officers will have to live with forever... doesn't need the world telling them they didn't do enough.

[Nixt]

you would, maybe they started to but coudn't see him. where are they meant to go?!, strong undercurrent or deep merky waters would of made it impossible to locate the boy without proper equipment! ... without being there you can't pass a comment.... this is something the officers will have to live with forever... doesn't need the world telling them they didn't do enough.

They didn't 'start' going in. I wouldn't care if I couldn't see him, I would not care about a 'strong undercurrent' and murky waters. I'd ask where he went in, and I'd go in. If there is the slightest chance of saving a life, regardless of the impediments a decent person would go in. I don't need to have been there, I know that in any situation they should of went in.
I am not telling them they didn't do enough, I am telling you - as you seem to be defending their actions when, to be quite honest, they are undefendable.

[Lycan]

They didn't 'start' going in. I wouldn't care if I couldn't see him, I would not care about a 'strong undercurrent' and murky waters. I'd ask where he went in, and I'd go in. If there is the slightest chance of saving a life, regardless of the impediments a decent person would go in. I don't need to have been there, I know that in any situation they should of went in.
I am not telling them they didn't do enough, I am telling you - as you seem to be defending their actions when, to be quite honest, they are undefendable.

You wern't there and is therefore impossible for you to say anything against them, the only facts are that a boy was underwater and out of site of two CSOs who could not see or locate the boy from the shore, a girl was taken out of the water by anglers and was cared for by the csos under help arrived, the help was callled by the CSOs.

Everything else is just speculation, which is what your posts are soley, ethically anyone would go in... but when it comes down to it... who knows.

[Mentor]

You keep defending the cso by adding in all these possible factors as to what may have made them not go in. But, the factors are irrelevent. A 10 year old boy was prepreared to jump in to save someone. The csos were not. Thus there is no way of avoideing the logical concuision that the cso's were AT least more cowardly and pathetic than a 10 year old kid.

[Antony]

As I work for the Police Force which covers this incident, I fully back up what our Assistant Chief Constable said in the press conference. PCSO's are not trained to jump into a pool to save lives, they are not trained with life saving skills for one, and number two the boy could not be seen. The lake was the size of a football pitch. When the PCSO's arrived he had already gone under the water, as stated in the conference - Where would they have jumped into? Where abouts? The PCSO's did not stand their while he drowned, they could not see him. They immediately radio'd in for backup and officers were on the scene within 5 minutes.

As the attention from the anglers was being drawn to the daugher, they would probably have not noticed where the kid went down, and as I previously mentioned. The kid was already under the water when the PCSO's arrived.

Their are numerous versions of the story you can look to :-

Anyone in their right mind would not leave a child to drown? - It's stated a lot in most jobs, if you do ever see a serious incident involving water, don't endanger yourself and call for help. A lot of people would say this is ridiculous but why cause three people danger, when it could only be one with assistance on the way?

Secondly, a colleague who I work with says, well why was a mother letting her 10 year old son take her young daughter near the pond to play? It's blatantly a danger hazard?

Either way, what the PCSO's did was lawful and fully within what they are trained to do. They did not stand their and watch, and did everything they could possibly do.

Slate me if you want ... But it's the logical way of looking at it.

[e5back2k7]

They are such *****s. They are probably like "oh not again" and don't do anything about at and they fail to realize how the family feel each time.

[Mentor]

As I work for the Police Force which covers this incident, I fully back up what our Assistant Chief Constable said in the press conference. PCSO's are not trained to jump into a pool to save lives, they are not trained with life saving skills for one, and number two the boy could not be seen. The lake was the size of a football pitch. When the PCSO's arrived he had already gone under the water, as stated in the conference - Where would they have jumped into? Where abouts? The PCSO's did not stand their while he drowned, they could not see him. They immediately radio'd in for backup and officers were on the scene within 5 minutes.

As the attention from the anglers was being drawn to the daugher, they would probably have not noticed where the kid went down, and as I previously mentioned. The kid was already under the water when the PCSO's arrived.

Their are numerous versions of the story you can look to :-

Anyone in their right mind would not leave a child to drown? - It's stated a lot in most jobs, if you do ever see a serious incident involving water, don't endanger yourself and call for help. A lot of people would say this is ridiculous but why cause three people danger, when it could only be one with assistance on the way?

Secondly, a colleague who I work with says, well why was a mother letting her 10 year old son take her young daughter near the pond to play? It's blatantly a danger hazard?

Either way, what the PCSO's did was lawful and fully within what they are trained to do. They did not stand their and watch, and did everything they could possibly do.

Slate me if you want ... But it's the logical way of looking at it.
I take it the 10 year old boy who did jump in, and did save his sister, then must have been fully trained in all these disaplin's ?
Plus no ones saying they did anything unlawful, its what the didnt do that has annoyed people.

[Antony]

I take it the 10 year old boy who did jump in, and did save his sister, then must have been fully trained in all these disaplin's ?
Plus no ones saying they did anything unlawful, its what the didnt do that has annoyed people.

Well surely people who are saying they watched someone die is unlawful?

The 10 year old boy jumped in after his sister, because he wanted to save her? The anglers jumped in after the girl, why not one for the girl and one for the boy? It's a heated situation. No-one but the people their that day can explain what exactly happened and what was going through their minds, all I'm saying is, the PCSO's arrived on the scene. The boy was already submerged into the water and they called for backup? What if they couldn't swim? That would have resulted in 3 lives lost?

There is no requirement for PCSO's that they must swim...