Group Bicker about Police, Driving and Politics...

[OILY PAWS]

[
Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.
I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.
I'm not paid to be a hero.
I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.
I'll get an earful if I do.
There are endless H&S recommendations for me to adhere to in working practices, in order that I may go home at the end of the day.

Nearly what I would have typed..........

I'm (was) paid to manage the risks my crew(s) could be exposed to, if I commit them in Breathing Apparatus in to a building, before they enter the building and each subsequent compartment they do a risk assessment they make an informed judgement on the hazards in that compartment, and what the risk to them is, and they decide if it's safe to enter, regardless of what or who's in there , it's not a game of Russian Roulette, the emergency services are no more paid to risk their life than a Bricklayer or a Postman.........and if you do..........you have to be prepared for the incoming..........

[Red Herring]

[
Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.
I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.
I'm not paid to be a hero.
I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.
I'll get an earful if I do.

I"m not paid to give my life so that another may live, however I may risk my life in the belief that it may help another to live.
I'm not paid to be a hero, however a consequence of my job is that some might consider my actions heroic.
I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks, however on occasion they may be necessary.
I get an earful if I do, however I may not be able to live with myself if I did not.

[vonhosen]

..........however I may not be able to live with myself if I did not.

That sounds like a better risk to take.

[MGF]

Emergency service drivers are not paid to take risks. They are paid to do a job that by it's very nature involves risk, and most of the time they go to great lengths to keep this risk at a minimum

So they are paid to do a job that necessarily involves risk but not paid to take those risks? Seems to me if risk is part and parcel of the job then those risks are being paid for.

The fact remains those in the emergency services are paid to take risks with their lives regardless of who does the risk assessment. Members of the public are not paid to take risks with their lives even if they choose to do so subsequent to carrying out their own risk assessment.

I believe that is the point JB was trying to make rather than claiming that firefighters have no say over risks because they are being paid to be exposed to them.

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.

Some more than others but that seems to be JB's point. The emergency services are being paid to respond to an incident. The general public are not. Any risk emergency personnel take on is paid for. Any risk the general public take on is not.

I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.

It obviously isn't a job requirement but at no point in this thread has anyone claimed it is. Merely that if you do risk your life to save others in the course of your duties you will be paid for it. That is clear from the my post which you have quoted so why labour an irrelevant point?

I'm not paid to be a hero.

As above

I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.

And again

I'll get an earful if I do.
There are endless H&S recommendations for me to adhere to in working practices, in order that I may go home at the end of the day.

But the risks are there. The risks are much higher in some jobs than others and (at the risk of repeating myself in the face of this sideshow), you are are paid to take those risks.

...the emergency services are no more paid to risk their life than a Bricklayer or a Postman.

They are when they respond to an emergency though. The bricklayer and postman in that scenario is not acting in their capacity as an employee and so not getting paid. Is this starting to sink in?

Seems to me some people are hung-up on a concept that has not been suggested in this thread.

[Red Herring]

..........however I may not be able to live with myself if I did not.

That sounds like a better risk to take.

There are all sorts of reply one could make to that, some of which are probably banned by the moderators. The duty to save life is fundamental in the role of most emergency service personnel. To suggest that it is possible to do so without an element of risk on the most part would be unrealistic, and is generally the preserve of some H&S jobsworth whose priority is the protection of their job rather than their duty towards the public.

I'm not suggesting that the emergency services are expendable or that they should not take as little risk as possible, however there comes a point when you either need to do your job or pack up and go home, and if your view is the latter then you shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

[vonhosen]

..........however I may not be able to live with myself if I did not.

That sounds like a better risk to take.

There are all sorts of reply one could make to that, some of which are probably banned by the moderators. The duty to save life is fundamental in the role of most emergency service personnel. To suggest that it is possible to do so without an element of risk on the most part would be unrealistic, and is generally the preserve of some H&S jobsworth whose priority is the protection of their job rather than their duty towards the public.

I'm not suggesting that the emergency services are expendable or that they should not take as little risk as possible, however there comes a point when you either need to do your job or pack up and go home, and if your view is the latter then you shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

Pack up & go home is what I intend to do at the end of each working day.
My first duty is to my own safety, that is the first rule of any first aid. Only when that is sufficiently catered for (to my satisfaction) can I then help others.

[vonhosen]

Emergency service drivers are not paid to take risks. They are paid to do a job that by it's very nature involves risk, and most of the time they go to great lengths to keep this risk at a minimum

So they are paid to do a job that necessarily involves risk but not paid to take those risks? Seems to me if risk is part and parcel of the job then those risks are being paid for.

The fact remains those in the emergency services are paid to take risks with their lives regardless of who does the risk assessment. Members of the public are not paid to take risks with their lives even if they choose to do so subsequent to carrying out their own risk assessment.

I believe that is the point JB was trying to make rather than claiming that firefighters have no say over risks because they are being paid to be exposed to them.

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.

Some more than others but that seems to be JB's point. The emergency services are being paid to respond to an incident. The general public are not. Any risk emergency personnel take on is paid for. Any risk the general public take on is not.

I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.

It obviously isn't a job requirement but at no point in this thread has anyone claimed it is. Merely that if you do risk your life to save others in the course of your duties you will be paid for it. That is clear from the my post which you have quoted so why labour an irrelevant point?

I'm not paid to be a hero.

As above

I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.

And again

I'll get an earful if I do.
There are endless H&S recommendations for me to adhere to in working practices, in order that I may go home at the end of the day.

But the risks are there. The risks are much higher in some jobs than others and (at the risk of repeating myself in the face of this sideshow), you are are paid to take those risks.

...the emergency services are no more paid to risk their life than a Bricklayer or a Postman.

They are when they respond to an emergency though. The bricklayer and postman in that scenario is not acting in their capacity as an employee and so not getting paid. Is this starting to sink in?

Seems to me some people are hung-up on a concept that has not been suggested in this thread.

Yes we respond to emergencies, but we won't always be able to help because there are times that we consider the risk is too great to us.

Of course I don't expect a fisherman to attend a burglary in progress, but then the last time I looked at any jobs risk table, his job was more than 6 times riskier than mine, so it's a moot point saying he isn't expected to take any risks associated with my job.

[OILY PAWS]

Is this starting to sink in?

Nope............post what you like............where you like, I know my job, I wouldn't dream of preaching to you about your chosen employment path......because I don't do it day in day out, I know what is required of me, and what does happen, phrasing like that does nothing to promote reasonable discussion.........what little credibility you had..........is no more


Has that Sunk in?

[MGF]

Yes we respond to emergencies, but we won't always be able to help because there are times that we consider the risk is too great to us.

At what point was it suggested that you did? Please point it out as the comments you are making appear wholly irreleavnt to JB's point.

Of course I don't expect a fisherman to attend a burglary in progress, but then the last time I looked at any jobs risk table, his job was more than 6 times riskier than mine, so it's a moot point saying he isn't expected to take any risks associated with my job.

That last sentence is incoherent. A fisherman may take risks in the course of his employment and those risks may be greater than those you take in your employment but that is another irrelevant point.

On his day off, should he be sitting at a red light when an emergency vehicle turns up and wants to get past, any risks to his own life by going through the red light will not be part of the risks associated with his employment. He will not be paid to take that risk.

Employment = risks = paid for.

MOP going through red light = risk = not paid for.

Emergency vehicle driver going through red light = risk = paid for

This isn't a difficult concept to understand so maybe you're being obtuse?

Is this starting to sink in?

Nope............post what you like............where you like, I know my job, I wouldn't dream of preaching to you about your chosen employment path......because I don't do it day in day out, I know what is required of me, and what does happen, phrasing like that does nothing to promote reasonable discussion.........what little credibility you had..........is no more


Has that Sunk in?

Firstly, your opinion of my credibility is neither here or there. What we think of each other is irrelevant. Let's go back to the beginning and quote what was actually written.

Its seems crazy to risk your life for a blue light driver to me.

Fortunately they are quite prepared to risk theirs for yours, or your families, or anybody else for that matter.

Yes but they are trained and paid to do so.

Trained.......yes...........paid to risk their life......Nope

Seems to me JB is merely stating that a member of the public should not put his life at risk by going through a red light and is not convinced by your response that the driver of an emergency vehicle is, and I quote 'Quite prepared to risk theirs for yours...'. The difference he says is that they are 'trained and paid to do so'.


You have then purported to establish that drivers of emergency vehicles, somehow manage to cease being in the pay and under the control of their employers, when they risk their lives help others.

It is nonsense to claim that the risk to life associated with one's duties of employment are not paid for.

At no point whatsoever has the amount of risk been clarified. I would suggest the risk associated with going through a red light is quite small). It appears Von and OP have made a presumption that there is a suggestion that the risk is unlimited or determined by public opinion. That has certainly not been the case here.

[vonhosen]

Yes we respond to emergencies, but we won't always be able to help because there are times that we consider the risk is too great to us.

At what point was it suggested that you did? Please point it out as the comments you are making appear wholly irreleavnt to JB's point.

Of course I don't expect a fisherman to attend a burglary in progress, but then the last time I looked at any jobs risk table, his job was more than 6 times riskier than mine, so it's a moot point saying he isn't expected to take any risks associated with my job.

That last sentence is incoherent. A fisherman may take risks in the course of his employment and those risks may be greater than those you take in your employment but that is another irrelevant point.

On his day off, should he be sitting at a red light when an emergency vehicle turns up and wants to get past, any risks to his own life by going through the red light will not be part of the risks associated with his employment. He will not be paid to take that risk.

Employment = risks = paid for.

Where have I said I'm not paid for the risks in my employment ?

The control over the level of risk I wish to take responding to any emergency lays with me. Not those who employ me or those seeking my help.

Risk isn't defined or dictated to me.

MOP going through red light = risk = not paid for.

Emergency vehicle driver going through red light = risk = paid for

This isn't a difficult concept to understand so maybe you're being obtuse?

I haven't mentioned me not being paid for my employment.

The greatest risk for some Police officers at work is spilling their coffee.

Perhaps it's you being obtuse.

[MGF]

Where have I said I'm not paid for the risks in my employment ?

As I said, your last point about the fisherman was incoherent so the best response I could muster was to restate my point. As my point is uncontroversial perhaps you can explain why you quoted me when making the irrelevent points below?

Emergency service drivers are not paid to take risks. They are paid to do a job that by it's very nature involves risk, and most of the time they go to great lengths to keep this risk at a minimum

So they are paid to do a job that necessarily involves risk but not paid to take those risks? Seems to me if risk is part and parcel of the job then those risks are being paid for.

The fact remains those in the emergency services are paid to take risks with their lives regardless of who does the risk assessment.Members of the public are not paid to take risks with their lives even if they choose to do so subsequent to carrying out their own risk assessment.

I believe that is the point JB was trying to make rather than claiming that firefighters have no say over risks because they are being paid to be exposed to them.

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.
I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.
I'm not paid to be a hero.
I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.
I'll get an earful if I do.
There are endless H&S recommendations for me to adhere to in working practices, in order that I may go home at the end of the day.

If you want to add, at best, tangential points there was no need to quote me. By doing so I am bound to think they are aimed at the point I am making. Which is a simple one. See above.

The control over the level of risk I wish to take responding to any emergency lays with me. Not those who employ me or those seeking my help.

Risk isn't defined for me.

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.

[vonhosen]

Where have I said I'm not paid for the risks in my employment ?

As I said, your last point about the fisherman was incoherent so the best response I could muster was to restate my point. As my point is uncontroversial perhaps you can explain why you quoted me when making the irrelevent points below?

Emergency service drivers are not paid to take risks. They are paid to do a job that by it's very nature involves risk, and most of the time they go to great lengths to keep this risk at a minimum

So they are paid to do a job that necessarily involves risk but not paid to take those risks? Seems to me if risk is part and parcel of the job then those risks are being paid for.

The fact remains those in the emergency services are paid to take risks with their lives regardless of who does the risk assessment.Members of the public are not paid to take risks with their lives even if they choose to do so subsequent to carrying out their own risk assessment.

I believe that is the point JB was trying to make rather than claiming that firefighters have no say over risks because they are being paid to be exposed to them.

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk.
I'm not paid to give my life so that another may live.
I'm not paid to be a hero.
I'm not paid to take unnecessary risks.
I'll get an earful if I do.
There are endless H&S recommendations for me to adhere to in working practices, in order that I may go home at the end of the day.

If you want to add, at best, tangential points there was no need to quote me. By doing so I am bound to think they are aimed at the point I am making. Which is a simple one. See above.

The control over the level of risk I wish to take responding to any emergency lays with me. Not those who employ me or those seeking my help.

Risk isn't defined for me.

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.

The first sentence of my reply was in response to your post (that's why it's quoted), that being

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk

The sentences that followed were simply a statement of what those risks mean for Police officers.

You then appeared to intimate that emergency services were some sort of high risk occupation, my reference to fishermen is that that's a high risk occupation, not being in the emergency services.

Perhaps it's you reading too much into simple statements rather than others.

[MGF]

The first sentence of my reply was in response to your post (that's why it's quoted), that being

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk

The sentences that followed were simply a statement of what those risks mean for Police officers.

Yes of course. Easy to say that now but it would have been more helpful to clarify your compressed, confused even, response earlier on.

You then appeared to intimate that emergency services were some sort of high risk occupation, my reference to fishermen is that that's a high risk occupation, not being in the emergency services.

Not at all and I would suggest this is further evidence of you reading too much into the comments and perhaps not reading all of them. (Remember, OP was talking about emergency service workers risking their lives for the public). All I have said is any risk to life that any employee is exposed to in the course of his employment is being paid for regardless of who does the risk assessment. Everything else you have imagined.

Perhaps it's you reading too much into simple statements rather than others.

The purpose of quoting, as you well know, is to direct your response to an individual so it cannot come as a surprise that I will respond to those comments as if directed at myself. So not really an example of me reading too much into comments being made. Seems like you have gone off half-cocked on this one.

[jbsportstech]

MGF thanks for clearing spelling out the argument.

Oily and von and all emergency service workers do a fantastic job and take risk daily for members of the public.

My point was the average driver should not be forced/bullied to risk their life or commit a motoring offence to make way for a emergency vehicle.

That is also the guidlines published by a traffic officier of the D&C Police and the Met guidelines.

Once again thank you MGF.

[vonhosen]

The first sentence of my reply was in response to your post (that's why it's quoted), that being

Every job has some risks, so we are all paid to do a job that entails some risk

The sentences that followed were simply a statement of what those risks mean for Police officers.

Yes of course. Easy to say that now but it would have been more helpful to clarify your compressed, confused even, response earlier on.

You then appeared to intimate that emergency services were some sort of high risk occupation, my reference to fishermen is that that's a high risk occupation, not being in the emergency services.

Not at all and I would suggest this is further evidence of you reading too much into the comments and perhaps not reading all of them. (Remember, OP was talking about emergency service workers risking their lives for the public). All I have said is any risk to life that any employee is exposed to in the course of his employment is being paid for regardless of who does the risk assessment. Everything else you have imagined.

Perhaps it's you reading too much into simple statements rather than others.

The purpose of quoting, as you well know, is to direct your response to an individual so it cannot come as a surprise that I will respond to those comments as if directed at myself. So not really an example of me reading too much into comments being made. Seems like you have gone off half-cocked on this one.

Having addressed your point with the first sentence, I'm not going to start a fresh post to add a few other more generic comments. It 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 ?
Unless it were for no other reason than to be obtuse & argumentative ?