Our new Wanker of the Week is, by popular demand, Chief Fire Officer Stephen Hunter of Tayside Fire and Rescue Service.
One of his firemen, 42-year-old Tam Brown, is the subject of an internal investigation because he breached safety rules during a rescue in the River Tay in Perth. He spent eight minutes in the cold water and at one stage feared that he would be swept to his death. But after dragging a 20-year-old woman to safety he was told by his employer that he had acted improperly by risking his life.
Mr. Brown, who has 15 years experience as a fireman, was hailed as a hero by the young woman's family but Tayside Fire and Rescue said that he had broken the brigade's 'standard instructions' on safety procedure. He said yesterday, "I was expected to watch that young girl die in front of me. As a father and a caring human being, I couldn't live with myself if I'd had to do that".
The woman, who has nor been identified, is believed to have jumped into the river, as a "cry for help". A member of the public called 999 and she was thrown a rope, but she was in danger of being sucked under by the current. Many drowning victims die before the emergency services arrive. Tam Brown said, "We had seconds to act. The girl was losing consciousness. We had one harness, so I put it on and went down 20ft on a safety line, grabbed her and held her out of the water. My colleagues tried to pull us towards the steps but the current was so bad and the rope was pulled so hard it snapped. I swam for the steps with her in my arms and we were pulled out."
The brigade's rules state: "Personnel should not enter the water." The fire crew should have used ropes and poles to save the woman, but Stephen Hunter admitted that fire engines in Perth were not equipped with the correct poles and ropes. Nevertheless he insisted that Tam Brown had broken the rules. "Fire-fighter safety is of paramount importance to us. Although our duties include rescue from flooding, there is no statutory obligation to carry out rescues from moving water. We are investigating exactly what happened, and once that is concluded we will consider what action is necessary. That could include disciplinary action".
Steve Hill, chairman of the Perth branch of the Fire Brigades Union, said, "Not one senior officer has congratulated Tam or the other officers who attended the incident that night. The crew should be elated they saved a life but they face disciplinary action instead. If Tam hadn't gone in, the public might have tried to save her and we could have ended up with several dead".
By our Wanker's own admission his fire engines don't actually carry the right equipment to do the job as instructed, and this is a managerial failure that itself ought to trigger disciplinary action. But even more intriguing is this expression "there is no statutory obligation to carry out rescues from moving water".
What does this mean, exactly? A fireman's job description doesn't say "if someone falls in moving water, rescue them"? I don't expect it says "if a cute ickle kitten gets stuck up a tree, climb up a ladder and get it down" either. It probably doesn't say "breathe regularly" but most firemen do.
And what does "statutory" mean? The Concise Oxford Dictionary says it's "required by statute", and a "statute" is "a written law of a legislative body". Now even someone like Stephen Hunter with scarcely enough brains to fill a spoon ought to be able to work out that very few bits of a fireman's job - or anyone's job, for that matter - are specified by act of parliament. Quite a lot of people manage to do their jobs without, and that could well include firemen who might be able to look at the title of the organisation they work for - "Tayside Fire and Rescue Service" in Hunter's case - and work out for themselves that this means they're supposed to put out fires and rescue people. It's not called the "Tayside Fire and Operative Preservation Service", for God's sake!
I have no doubt at all that Stephen Hunter would be quick to claim that his job requires him to put the safety and well-being of his officers above everything. What a good job his officers don't feel the same. He should take a leaf from their book, and consider the following …
Just claiming to be "following orders" is no justification for evil or stupidity, as many German war-criminals found out. If your job requires you to do something wicked or ridiculous, you have several options:
(a) Demand that your job description be altered.
(b) If that doesn't work, stand up for yourself like Tam Brown did. Disobey.
(c) And if that doesn't work, leave. Get another job.
Oh, and in case anyone wonders, The GOS has in his time done all three. He never regretted it.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite