Group Bicker about Police, Driving and Politics...

[OILY PAWS]

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, noone has suggested that these decisions are made by anyone other than yourself (although there will be parameters set by your employer within which you will be expected to work).

And, definately repeating myself now, the fact that the decisions are made on the ground by yourself doesn't mean you are not being paid for what you do as a consequence of those decisions even if this involves a risk to your life. OP thinks differently and that is what I was challenging.
As I have said you appear to be reading too much into JB's very simple statement.

Repeat away..............post as many browbeating and pseudo superior posts............you're still wrong



and


before you bother with a verbose reply for daring to have an opinion which differs to yours...........right or wrong............I'm entitled to it, and you fortunately, can't change that..........Has it sunk in yet

[James]

At least MGF posted a smiley (helps with reading tone of post)

You seem very tetchy Oily Paws. Everything ok?

[James]

Ive changed the title, I may sticky it as a permanant stress relieving thread

[OILY PAWS]

At least MGF posted a smiley (helps with reading tone of post)

You seem very tetchy Oily Paws. Everything ok?

Fine mate, fine, I'm au fait with Internet Forum Etiquette,

the requisite smiley isn't there.

[Red Herring]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and mine is that there should be no place for cowards in the emergency services. Of course these days we are far to PC to say such things, especially as legislation means they can probably then seek redress for "hurt feelings" and hide behind H&S guidelines. This seems to cover most things.....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9325278

and if you want more detail.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/ap ... heguardian

Just about sums things up....

[vonhosen]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and mine is that there should be no place for cowards in the emergency services. Of course these days we are far to PC to say such things, especially as legislation means they can probably then seek redress for "hurt feelings" and hide behind H&S guidelines. This seems to cover most things.....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n9325278

and if you want more detail.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/ap ... heguardian

Just about sums things up....

He is to blame for her death, nobody else.

I don't want to work beside gun ho officers.
My feelings aren't hurt by your comments, strength doesn't lay in having no healthy fear or value for your own life.

Whilst doing my job my life is mine to give where I am willing to, you are not entitled to expect me to lay it on the line at any time. That's not what I am paid or expected to do. There is nothing cowardly about that. It's rational choices being made.

[OILY PAWS]

I am really at a loss here................this is a simple concept to grasp.......no-ones actually paid to risk their life...........and i'll refer you to my earlier post about contracts along with occupational standards.......I notice nobodies asked the blatantly obvious question yet either...



RH, was that the "E" equivalent of a white feather............. or simply fishing for a response

[jbsportstech]

I also share MGF's view that police and fire are paid to do a job where there is going to be a level if risk to their lives whether the renumuration is right for that level of risk is certainly debatable.

I am not sure this thread can have any constructive use as I think arguments have been put and people are sticking to their own opinion which we are all entiltled to

[James]

Yeah I think this thread is brick walling a bit too.

The way I look at it is that every day police deal with many unique incidents, all of them totally unique in their format. It can only ever be down to the officer there and then to make a decision there and then based on the circumstances. Many different resolutions may exist so there may be many ways of dealing with the same problem, none of them any worse or better than the other.

The only issue comes when neglect of duty is found to have taken place, but that would take some pretty extreme neglect, ile failing to perform emergency aid on a cardiac arrest etc.

Some people are willing to go further than others in differing situations. It doesnt make them right or wrong, just different. But trying to be a hero does have it's cost. There is nothing wrong with healthy, logical, balanced decision making.

[MGF]

I am really at a loss here......

I think that explains everything It's ok if you can't keep up.

Maybe this will help

"The recent offer of 4% (£10 a week take home pay) is an insult to our members who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the public."

Seems to me Andy Gilchrist, former FBU General Secretary has made the link between pay and risk to life by asking for more money for it.....

. t appears from your response you clearly thought that those points weren't addressing your point (I having already agreed that we are paid for it with my first sentence), so why would you then assume or claim that's what my intention was ?

I believed they were addressed to me (and still do) but also that they weren't relevant. If it was the case they weren't addressed to me then you had plenty of opportunity to clarify this beforehand. Instead you chose to talk about fishermen.

Anyway to salvage something from this mess I will attempt to do one of these poll things so we can vote on what we would do when faced with an emergency vehicle that wants to get past.

[Red Herring]

He is to blame for her death, nobody else.

I don't want to work beside gun ho officers.
My feelings aren't hurt by your comments, strength doesn't lay in having no healthy fear or value for your own life.

Whilst doing my job my life is mine to give where I am willing to, you are not entitled to expect me to lay it on the line at any time. That's not what I am paid or expected to do. There is nothing cowardly about that. It's rational choices being made.

The husband pulled the trigger, that much is true. The police and ambulance staff had over an hour to go in and stop her bleeding to death. The police not only stopped the ambulance crew going in, but chose not to themselves because they thought it to dangerous.

I chose this example because it illustrates my point.
A police officer in the UK is not routinely armed. This is something they elect to do, a speciality that has it's own perks in terms of pay and duties, but also has it's own risks. The police carry guns for only one reason, to allow them to deal with armed criminals. They don't carry a gun to deal with someone armed with a snooker cue, or even a baseball bat, they carry one to deal with a criminal who also has a gun. The officer therefore knows that the only reason he is being trained to carry a gun is so that he can confront a criminal with a gun. There is no other reason for it. For them to then arrive at the scene of an incident where someone is telling them they have been shot, is telling them that they are bleeding to death, and is telling them that the gunman is lying dead next to them, to then decide not to go in just in case there is a criminal in there with a gun beggars belief. Just who did they think was going to save the woman's life? Yes there is a risk she was lying, yes there was a risk there might be a criminal with a gun, and yes there was a risk to the police officers life if that was the case, but why on earth did they elect to become a firearms officer if they were not prepared to accept that risk?

"I don't want to work beside gun ho officers." Where exactly did that come from Von? I don't think anybody has suggested you should, and I'm not particularly bothered about your feelings either. If the hat fits wear it.

[vonhosen]

He is to blame for her death, nobody else.

I don't want to work beside gun ho officers.
My feelings aren't hurt by your comments, strength doesn't lay in having no healthy fear or value for your own life.

Whilst doing my job my life is mine to give where I am willing to, you are not entitled to expect me to lay it on the line at any time. That's not what I am paid or expected to do. There is nothing cowardly about that. It's rational choices being made.

The husband pulled the trigger, that much is true. The police and ambulance staff had over an hour to go in and stop her bleeding to death. The police not only stopped the ambulance crew going in, but chose not to themselves because they thought it to dangerous.

I chose this example because it illustrates my point.
A police officer in the UK is not routinely armed. This is something they elect to do, a speciality that has it's own perks in terms of pay and duties, but also has it's own risks. The police carry guns for only one reason, to allow them to deal with armed criminals. They don't carry a gun to deal with someone armed with a snooker cue, or even a baseball bat, they carry one to deal with a criminal who also has a gun. The officer therefore knows that the only reason he is being trained to carry a gun is so that he can confront a criminal with a gun. There is no other reason for it. For them to then arrive at the scene of an incident where someone is telling them they have been shot, is telling them that they are bleeding to death, and is telling them that the gunman is lying dead next to them, to then decide not to go in just in case there is a criminal in there with a gun beggars belief. Just who did they think was going to save the woman's life? Yes there is a risk she was lying, yes there was a risk there might be a criminal with a gun, and yes there was a risk to the police officers life if that was the case, but why on earth did they elect to become a firearms officer if they were not prepared to accept that risk?

"I don't want to work beside gun ho officers." Where exactly did that come from Von? I don't think anybody has suggested you should, and I'm not particularly bothered about your feelings either. If the hat fits wear it.

An armed officer is just as entitled to only take risks that they feel are necessary & appropriate, as any other officer. They shouldn't be expected to take on unnecessary risks just because they carry a gun.

If you are an armed officer, you want (as much as possible) to deal with people you suspect are armed on your terms not theirs. You want the odds stacked in your favour, not theirs.

You don't have to go into situations that you feel you are ill trained for, or ill equipped for.

Not all firearms officers are trained to the same levels.
Not all firearms officers are equipped to the same levels.

Some will only be trained & equipped to surround & secure someone who they have reason to believe is dug in with hostages. It may take some time before a sufficient sized team trained & equipped to dig em out can get there, be briefed & get the job done.

[MGF]

The police and ambulance staff had over an hour to go in and stop her bleeding to death. The police not only stopped the ambulance crew going in, but chose not to themselves because they thought it to dangerous.

Dangerous for whom?

If he had been alive and they had stormed the building what do you think her chances of survival would have been?

I cannot see from the report that this was just about the safety of the emergency service personnel.

There was a case that the Police had not handled the situation properly and if they had've done they may have gained access earlier but I don't see this as a particulalrly good example of cowardice.

[James]

I cannot see from the report that this was just about the safety of the emergency service personnel.

Reports / press / taboids etc all stand for diddly squat when you actually speak to a member of the afore mentioned services and learn what actually happens in their roles...

Its a bit like the armed forces I think, nobody outside the service can or will ever understand how or why it operates in the way it does. All I see are people doing sterling, amazing jobs every day yet being bollocked and serenaded for it by the government via superiors and the press...

[MGF]

Yes but if RH is using the report, without additional information, in support of his point, he is relying on the information in the report to come to his conclusions.

If he has additional information to supplement the report then that would be helpful to forming a view one way or the other.