10 year old boy drowns, CSOs do nothing!

[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.