Do the emergency services over react sometimes?

[swee'pea99]

Sorry, I thought I'd just add the most pertinent point for you there. You missed it out somehow.

The answer by the way, as we know, was 3. But God forbid we exaggerate.

Well, ok, only seven actually shot him (as opposed to, say, three); but 52 others were in attendance. God forbid we trust the Guardian, but then again, the Daily Mail has the same number, so it would appear that the answer 'we' know is rather wide of the mark...whoever 'we' are.

 

[addictfreak]

[quote name='swee'pea99' timestamp='1289921912' post='1470154']
Well, ok, only seven actually shot him (as opposed to, say, three); but 52 others were in attendance. God forbid we trust the Guardian, but then again, the Daily Mail has the same number, so it would appear that the answer 'we' know is rather wide of the mark...whoever 'we' are.
[/quote]


It does sound a lot, but dont forget many of these officers would be manning cordons to ensure public safety. Also the police will have significant command and control resources at an incident of this nature.

 

[swee'pea99]

It does sound a lot, but dont forget many of these officers would be manning cordons to ensure public safety. Also the police will have significant command and control resources at an incident of this nature.

It does, doesn't it? And if they were on cordons to ensure public safety, did they have have to be armed? "In all, 59 officers armed with more than 100 guns surrounded his flat, the inquest heard.'

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Do you attend many armed incidents Swee'pea? Do you do much command and control of said incidents?

I grant you it looks a lot for one man, but Dunblane was done by just one nutter with a gun. Hungerford was the same. And we've had two similar major sprees this year too. So the commander was allocating sufficient resources I'd say, based on what MAY have transpired. Happily, with that wonderful gift of hindsight, we see that it was maybe heavy handed.

Any incident commander does best to have far too many resources than too few. And why do we have armed men on cordons? Obvious I'd have thought, in case said nutter with gun tries escaping the cordon at that particular location.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to be the "Monday morning quarterback"... but try being on the ground when a major incident breaks and you're not quite sure which way it'll go.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[swee'pea99]

Sorry but I don't buy that. Nor do I buy the 'it may look easy from the comfort of your armchair' line. As for Dunblane and Hungerford...what? What do those incidents have to do with this one? 

It seems to me perfectly legitimate to question why 59 heavily armed men (plus a helicopter) were needed to deal with one sad individual who was quite clearly going nowhere. How was the guy going to 'escape the cordon', given that he was besieged in a back bedroom at the time? What exactly MAY have transpired that would have required the presence of 59 armed police?

I object to this kind of policing not least because of the sheer waste of resources. But more importantly, because of what it tells us about the mindset of policing in this country: still riven with a fundamentally macho/quasi-military mindset, which loves high speed car chases, firearms and helicopters, but all too often just can't be arsed with the basic mundanities of actually improving the lives of the ordinary people who pay their wages (and finance all that fancy hardware). Cyclists, say, who come in whining about getting bullied on the roads by knuckle-dragging peanuts.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

There's so much wrong with that way of thinking, and so many misconceptions that it's not worth me going on. You're the kind of guy who would have whinged if this harmless barrister had have escaped his house and slotted 17 other people because there was only one firearms unit there.

As I say, damned if we do, damned if we don't. Nobody allocates resources because it's a giggle, believe it or not, and no emergency co-ordinator has that gift of hindsight that you have right now.

 

[swee'pea99]

'slotted'? 

No, I agree. Not worth your going on. Not at all.

 

[Archie_tect]

As I say, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

That about sums it up CT. But it's the proportional response which is sometimes lacking... whenever and wherever it happens.

 

[domd1979]

Don't know about over reaction, but I experienced a distinctly underwhelming reaction Monday lunchtime. Walking to town at lunchtime, I cross over at a pedestrian crossing, adjacent to a roundabout, van driver waiting at the crossing is on his (hand-held) mobile. Lights go green and he joins the queue for traffic lights 100 yds down the road. Waiting at the next half of the crossing is PC Plod in his patrol car - so went over and explained van driver on phone. "Thanks for letting us know" he says and drives off without bothering to do anything. Blue lights and a whizz round the roundabout and he could have had and dealt with van driver on phone. I wasn't in the least bit impressed.

 

[Spinney]

[quote name='swee'pea99' timestamp='1289926725' post='1470285']
'slotted'?
[/quote]

Exactly what you would expect it to mean in the context.

I've heard it before...

 

[buggi]

4 to 5 firemen per engine, one which of was probably a paramedic also

if only 4 on each, that's 8 men, one of which was probably deployed to the landrover (so 3 on) and each fireman has a certain role, i.e co-ordinator, paramedic, in charge of breathing apparatus, Chief etc.

If the call was that multiple people were in the water, the fire bridage would send more than one engine, plus the boat. the police would be there to take statements and the ambulance would be there to treat the patients.

does that help?

o yea, also, they have to use up the budget sometimes.

 

[ACW]

if you watched the program coppers last night on ch4 you would understand the "dammed if you do dammed if you don't" statment

 

[swee'pea99]

Exactly what you would expect it to mean in the context.

I've heard it before...

I know what it means.

So have I.