Jobsworths rule.
Discussion
The three most dangerous words in the English language; 'Elf and safety"
text
Lifeboat team rapped for using 'unsuitable boat' to save drowning girl
A lifeboat crew who rescued a drowning schoolgirl is facing disciplinary action for breaching health and safety rules.
The Hope Cove coastguard team in South Devon defied orders not to take the 17-foot inflatable to sea when they saw a 13-year-old being swept out to sea by a rip current.
The boat had recently been repaired and was awaiting a seaworthiness inspection.
Despite battling through waves to rescue the teenager bosses at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency were furious on their return and confiscated their boat.
All the volunteers have now been threatened with disciplinary action.
Recently retired coastguard Dave Clark, aged 54, said: "Everyone in the village is very angry. They feel the crew are being punished for trying to save a life.
"Anyone would have done the same thing when they saw the girl in trouble but when they came back their boat was taken away.
"Lives could be lost because the boat has been removed and locked up."
When the MCA withdrew the boat in June volunteers were so anxious for its return they paid for the repairs themselves.
At the start of the rescue on Tuesday, Hope Cove Station Officer Ian Pedrick, 49, asked for permission to use the boat because the girl was already 150 yards out to sea.
The crew then lost radio contact with coastguard headquarters at Brixham and, before being given the green light, went ahead with the rescue.
The boat has been in service without any problem for 15 years and carried out 91 successful rescues between 2000 and 2005 and around ten a year in the two summers since.
A spokesman for the MCA said: "The general purpose boat at Hope Cove was suspended from operational service on June 11 because of health and safety concerns regarding the structural integrity of the hull. Search and rescue effectiveness will not be compromised by the suspension of the general purpose boat."
text
Lifeboat team rapped for using 'unsuitable boat' to save drowning girl
A lifeboat crew who rescued a drowning schoolgirl is facing disciplinary action for breaching health and safety rules.
The Hope Cove coastguard team in South Devon defied orders not to take the 17-foot inflatable to sea when they saw a 13-year-old being swept out to sea by a rip current.
The boat had recently been repaired and was awaiting a seaworthiness inspection.
Despite battling through waves to rescue the teenager bosses at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency were furious on their return and confiscated their boat.
All the volunteers have now been threatened with disciplinary action.
Recently retired coastguard Dave Clark, aged 54, said: "Everyone in the village is very angry. They feel the crew are being punished for trying to save a life.
"Anyone would have done the same thing when they saw the girl in trouble but when they came back their boat was taken away.
"Lives could be lost because the boat has been removed and locked up."
When the MCA withdrew the boat in June volunteers were so anxious for its return they paid for the repairs themselves.
At the start of the rescue on Tuesday, Hope Cove Station Officer Ian Pedrick, 49, asked for permission to use the boat because the girl was already 150 yards out to sea.
The crew then lost radio contact with coastguard headquarters at Brixham and, before being given the green light, went ahead with the rescue.
The boat has been in service without any problem for 15 years and carried out 91 successful rescues between 2000 and 2005 and around ten a year in the two summers since.
A spokesman for the MCA said: "The general purpose boat at Hope Cove was suspended from operational service on June 11 because of health and safety concerns regarding the structural integrity of the hull. Search and rescue effectiveness will not be compromised by the suspension of the general purpose boat."
fadeaway said:
Yes, but from MCA's point of view the boat could have sank, drowning all the crew. The girl would then have drowned too. And their insurance would have been invalid as they had used unapproved boat.
Hopefully just MCA making the right noises in public. Well done to the crew though
Thats what I was thinking. The organisation has to be seen to obey all the rules. Behind closed doors I'd hope it's "Good job lads. Gonna have to do some form flling in now though so keep your heads down."Hopefully just MCA making the right noises in public. Well done to the crew though
This'll be to do with insurance I'd imagine - If something had happened that boat and the guys on board drowned then because they didn't have the necessary paperwork to say the boat was seaworthy, neither boat nor loss of life would have been covered. Sadly this is the case with a lot of these health and safety measures. Its a sad reflection on our society when saving the life of a young girl is seen as a bad thing to have done.
ETA: Woops too late
ETA: Woops too late
Edited by patmahe on Friday 15th August 09:57
Moreymach said:
Particulary like this bit
' The crew then lost radio contact with coastguard headquarters at Brixham and, before being given the green light, went ahead with the rescue'
Good on em !!
its people like that who made this country great...' The crew then lost radio contact with coastguard headquarters at Brixham and, before being given the green light, went ahead with the rescue'
Good on em !!
its idiots like the jobsworth who decided to lock up the boat rather than giving them a slap on the wrist and a wink that have made this country what it is today!
Elf and Safety should have left it at stopping urchins going up chimneys and climbing into working weaving looms. It was good, up to a point. Now they have to justify their existance by producing ever more pointless and petty rules. And worse, it gives those of limited intestinal fortitude something to hide behind.
IMO of course.
IMO of course.
By coincidence, there's more:
More
Couple told their charity cake sales are a 'business'
A woman who has raised hundreds of pounds for charity by selling tea and cakes in her front garden has been so successful that her local council is to treat her as a "business" and has ordered her to take out insurance worth millions.
Diane Tovey sets out tables and chairs in the garden of her two-bedroom holiday home at Humberston Fitties chalet park, near Cleethorpes, Lincs, eight times a year to sell her famed lemon drizzle and walnut cakes to passers-by.
Over the past two years her 30 pence buns and £1.20 tea and scone offering has helped raise around £900 for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI).
Having given up work following a life-saving triple heart bypass operation, the 52-year-old sees the initiative, on Bank Holidays and Heritage weekends, as her way giving something back.
But now officials have told Mrs Tovey and her husband David, 63, that their charity effort constitutes "business activity", contravening the tenancy agreement on the land where their chalet sits.
North East Lincolnshire Council told the couple their cake sale could also constitute a "nuisance to neighbours".
It said it might give permission for occasional cake sales but only if the couple took out public liability insurance in case of untoward incidents such as customers being "poisoned".
The couple have since contacted several insurance companies and been told it would cost £150 a year for the necessary £5 million of public liability cover.
"I raise funds for the RNLI because they are one of the bravest groups of people on the planet and I appreciate lifesavers after what I have been through," Mrs Tovey said.
"It is my way of thanking everybody who saves lives and now the council turn round and say we need public liability insurance.
"I'm only baking in a glorified wooden shed after all.
"Surely that is not running a business."
Mr Tovey added: "I wouldn't mind if we were getting bus loads of visitors but there's hardly a crowd round here.
"We have had to stop baking cakes to sell and the council are even quibbling over our tables in the garden on planning grounds."
But a council spokesman said: "The council, as owner of the Fitties, is subject to the same regulations and law in terms of licensing, retailing and general requirements in terms of running a business regardless of whether it is for profit or otherwise.
"Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
An RNLI spokeswoman added: "It will be a great shame if Diane and David have to stop their fund-raising.
"Over the years they have shown great dedication to raising money to help us save lives at sea and their cakes have obviously proved very popular."
More
Couple told their charity cake sales are a 'business'
A woman who has raised hundreds of pounds for charity by selling tea and cakes in her front garden has been so successful that her local council is to treat her as a "business" and has ordered her to take out insurance worth millions.
Diane Tovey sets out tables and chairs in the garden of her two-bedroom holiday home at Humberston Fitties chalet park, near Cleethorpes, Lincs, eight times a year to sell her famed lemon drizzle and walnut cakes to passers-by.
Over the past two years her 30 pence buns and £1.20 tea and scone offering has helped raise around £900 for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI).
Having given up work following a life-saving triple heart bypass operation, the 52-year-old sees the initiative, on Bank Holidays and Heritage weekends, as her way giving something back.
But now officials have told Mrs Tovey and her husband David, 63, that their charity effort constitutes "business activity", contravening the tenancy agreement on the land where their chalet sits.
North East Lincolnshire Council told the couple their cake sale could also constitute a "nuisance to neighbours".
It said it might give permission for occasional cake sales but only if the couple took out public liability insurance in case of untoward incidents such as customers being "poisoned".
The couple have since contacted several insurance companies and been told it would cost £150 a year for the necessary £5 million of public liability cover.
"I raise funds for the RNLI because they are one of the bravest groups of people on the planet and I appreciate lifesavers after what I have been through," Mrs Tovey said.
"It is my way of thanking everybody who saves lives and now the council turn round and say we need public liability insurance.
"I'm only baking in a glorified wooden shed after all.
"Surely that is not running a business."
Mr Tovey added: "I wouldn't mind if we were getting bus loads of visitors but there's hardly a crowd round here.
"We have had to stop baking cakes to sell and the council are even quibbling over our tables in the garden on planning grounds."
But a council spokesman said: "The council, as owner of the Fitties, is subject to the same regulations and law in terms of licensing, retailing and general requirements in terms of running a business regardless of whether it is for profit or otherwise.
"Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
An RNLI spokeswoman added: "It will be a great shame if Diane and David have to stop their fund-raising.
"Over the years they have shown great dedication to raising money to help us save lives at sea and their cakes have obviously proved very popular."
Saddle bum said:
But a council spokesman said: "The council, as owner of the Fitties, is subject to the same regulations and law in terms of licensing, retailing and general requirements in terms of running a business regardless of whether it is for profit or otherwise.
"Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
So this insurance will cost £150. I wonder how large the council's annual budget is, and where in it they could find £150 to fund the necessary insurance(lets face it thats one business lunch. Think of the positive PR they could have bought with a headline like "Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
"Council helps pensioners contribute to the RNLI"
Tossers.
When i went bunjee jumping in the US, i had to sign a disclaimer saying i wouldn't sue them if i got hurt / died.
Do they have that option? I know that you can be clamped because the presence of a sign means you accepted a 'contract' whether you saw the sign or not. Surely they can put a sign up saying "You are responsible for the risk associated in eating this scone". ?
Do they have that option? I know that you can be clamped because the presence of a sign means you accepted a 'contract' whether you saw the sign or not. Surely they can put a sign up saying "You are responsible for the risk associated in eating this scone". ?
I was speaking to an 'elf an' safety bloke in the pub a while ago and I was amazed at how enthusiastic he was about his job.
I don't do a particularly dangerous job but I'd like to think that I have the savvy to be able to make a decision based on common sense in order to reach any objectives. If it all went the way of the pear, I wouldn't be inclined to sue anyone due to me being to idiotic in the first place, but according to this bloke, these 'rules' need to be in place to manage the 'lowest common denominator'. Strikes me a bit like speed limits really.
It's nice to know that the entire population is being judged by the bottom feeders.
There is a phenomenon called natural selection. It should be allowed to do it's job! The less morons in existence would mean a better happier life for thoise with the sense to be accountable!
I don't do a particularly dangerous job but I'd like to think that I have the savvy to be able to make a decision based on common sense in order to reach any objectives. If it all went the way of the pear, I wouldn't be inclined to sue anyone due to me being to idiotic in the first place, but according to this bloke, these 'rules' need to be in place to manage the 'lowest common denominator'. Strikes me a bit like speed limits really.
It's nice to know that the entire population is being judged by the bottom feeders.
There is a phenomenon called natural selection. It should be allowed to do it's job! The less morons in existence would mean a better happier life for thoise with the sense to be accountable!
scotal said:
Saddle bum said:
But a council spokesman said: "The council, as owner of the Fitties, is subject to the same regulations and law in terms of licensing, retailing and general requirements in terms of running a business regardless of whether it is for profit or otherwise.
"Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
So this insurance will cost £150. I wonder how large the council's annual budget is, and where in it they could find £150 to fund the necessary insurance(lets face it thats one business lunch. Think of the positive PR they could have bought with a headline like "Consequently all of the leases must and do prohibit business use of any kind...If we consent to something and the tenant is not insured and a customer submits a claim against Mr Tovey, as the land is ours and we are party to the agreement we could be pulled into proceedings and potentially be liable as well."
"Council helps pensioners contribute to the RNLI"
Tossers.
Taxpayers money shouldn't be spent on a whim as you suggest.
problem with the news, there is always so much more they dont tell you, for me its the bits they leave out which are so much more interesting. I use to work for one of the ambulance services, and the stories you found in papers would be a real pee boiler, but the facts were so selective they were so far from the truth as to be unreal.
Much as we like to laud the common hero, I suspect there is so much more underneath this tale that would paint a very different picture if it came out. Even though there volunteers, the RNIB would still owe a duty of care to them, you can imagine the headlines if the boat had sank and was deemed to be unseaworthy in those conditions, these guys do a dangerous enough job, but to do it without the right equipment is even worse.
I have no idea why they dont have the right boat for the conditions, I would assume there is some basis for calculating the types of life boats needed, numbers and where they are moored and maybe these RNLI volunteers would be used/qualified (whatever the term) up to a certain level of rescue conditions, and other more suitably qualified RNLI teams would be called upon when needed. PLus there is always the possibility that they potentially put others at risk if they were then forced to make decisions about who to rescue, the original person in danger or the crew members of the RNLI boat that went out breaching orders and their limitations.
Great they were successful, but whose to say the girl wouldn't have been rescued anyway.
Much as we like to laud the common hero, I suspect there is so much more underneath this tale that would paint a very different picture if it came out. Even though there volunteers, the RNIB would still owe a duty of care to them, you can imagine the headlines if the boat had sank and was deemed to be unseaworthy in those conditions, these guys do a dangerous enough job, but to do it without the right equipment is even worse.
I have no idea why they dont have the right boat for the conditions, I would assume there is some basis for calculating the types of life boats needed, numbers and where they are moored and maybe these RNLI volunteers would be used/qualified (whatever the term) up to a certain level of rescue conditions, and other more suitably qualified RNLI teams would be called upon when needed. PLus there is always the possibility that they potentially put others at risk if they were then forced to make decisions about who to rescue, the original person in danger or the crew members of the RNLI boat that went out breaching orders and their limitations.
Great they were successful, but whose to say the girl wouldn't have been rescued anyway.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff