This report in the Daily Mail this week ....
The public have ' unrealistic expectations' that police will put themselves in danger to protect ordinary people, according to new safety guidelines for officers. The Health and Safety Executive caused outrage by declaring that officers confronted with dangerous situations while fighting crime or trying to guard the public 'may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable risk'. Its guidance published yesterday firmly plays down the need for officers to show bravery in the course of their duty if they make a 'personal choice' not to.
It states: 'There is often an unrealistic public expectation that officers and staff will put themselves at risk to protect the public.' The document concedes that 'very occasionally in extreme cases', police may be justified in putting themselves in jeopardy - in which case they may be let off without being prosecuted under health and safety laws.
The report - which has the backing of senior police chiefs - prompted anger and astonishment last night. Paul Beshenivsky, whose police officer wife Sharon was shot dead by armed robbers in 2005, condemned the HSE as 'meddling do-gooders', saying: 'At the end of the day a police officer's job does involve putting your life on the line. Sharon knew that, and she got killed.'
He told the Mail: 'The public are not allowed to take the law into their own hands, and now the crazy health and safety brigade want to stop the police dealing with criminals as well. Where would you draw the line? Would you say, "That shoplifter that looks on drugs, he might have a knife, I'll walk away from that one?" The whole thing is madness.'
Police forces have been subject to health and safety legislation since 1998. But it is the latest document's advice on risk-taking by individual officers that has caused anger. The report says police officers 'may, very occasionally in extreme cases, decide to put themselves at risk in acts of true heroism'. In these 'rare circumstances', the HSE adds, 'it would not be in the public interest to take action against the individual'.
But it adds: 'Equally HSE, like the Police Service, recognises that in such extreme cases everyone has the right to make personal choices and that individuals may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable risk.'
The guidelines have been backed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the rank-and-file Police Federation. But Sid Mackay, a retired Met Police Chief Superintendent whose daughter, PC Nina Mackay, was stabbed to death on duty in 1997, said: 'They claim it is "unrealistic" for the public to expect the police to face danger, but that's what the public believe the police are for, and rightly so.
'The HSE will never understand, because they are completely risk-averse, but they have got their fingers into operational policing and they think they're the experts. The police are choking on paperwork, carrying out endless risk assessments for every operation, and then we wonder why they have become so cautious.'
Anthony Ganderton, the stepfather of ten-year- old Jordon Lyon who drowned in Wigan in 2007 after he jumped into a pond to save his stepsister, also attacked the guidelines. Two police community service officers who arrived at the scene stood on the bank and radioed for help instead of jumping in to rescue the children, because they were not appropriately trained so risked breaking health and safety rules.
He told the Mail: 'The point is they should do whatever they can to help people in trouble, especially when there are children involved.'
Sid Mackay is absolutely right: we absolutely do expect police officers to put themselves at risk in order to protect members of the public - because that's what they're for. If they can't accept that, they shouldn't have joined up in the first place.
It's a fine frame of mind we've allowed ourselves to slide into, isn't it, where we actually encourage people to take up jobs and then decide not to do the bits they don't like? Or, to be fair to the many policemen who will, and do, put their safety on the line when need arises, we encourage people to take up jobs and then try to stop them doing the bits that might cause complications like invalidity pensions or compensation payments.
Sometimes it's not pusillanimity that waters down people's jobs, but the belief that technology must always be better than people. Airline pilots hardly have to lift a finger these days except to say "Roger" down the microphone and grope the stewardesses because the planes practically fly themselves. And then there is that pinnacle of absurdity, the "guided busway" where the bus driver still has to work the accelerator and brake but needn't bother to steer because the road does it for him.
What the hell is the point of that? Does it get the passengers there any quicker? - no. Does it enable the bus company to leave any bits off the bus to save money? - er, no. In fact it means adding extra bits to the bus, the little side-wheels to contact the guiding track, so it's actually heavier and more expensive.
Perhaps it's safer? Well, again, the answer is no. Buses do have accidents, of course. They hit other vehicles, or other vehicles hit them, or the driver is drunk, or he forgets he isn't supposed to go under low bridges. But when did you last hear of an accident because a bus driver forgot to turn the steering wheel?
To someone like the GOS who is a bit of a connoisseur of the absurd and pointless (indeed, according to Mrs.GOS he's fairly absurd and pointless himself), this latest lunacy from the Health and Safety Executive is particularly piquant, and he eagerly awaits its logical extensions.
Expect in the next few months further reports from the HSE instructing that lifeboats should not be launched if the sea is even a little bit rough, that the RAF should do all its pilot training on the ground in simulators, and driving instructors should give their lessons sitting in the back seat just in case.
And then there's the big one. The army. Imagine what the HSE are going to say about Afghanistan, and soldiers walking about carrying dangerous guns, and going into places where someone might chuck a bomb at them. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. Just an accident waiting to happen. At the very least soldiers should have their guns taken away, in case they shoot someone.
The really sad thing about the advice to police officers is that they're more than halfway down the road already, and people have died because of it. At least one woman was stabbed to death by a lunatic while police stood outside carrying out a risk assessment. And in another incident officers refused to enter a house in case there was a dog inside. There wasn't, you understand, but there might have been, so they decided not to go in just in case.
Meanwhile innocent people are being harassed, abused, threatened and assaulted in their homes and on their streets, and the brave few who try and stand up for themselves often end up in the cells for their trouble, like the 71-year-old crippled woman who poked a hoodie in the chest recently. Because the risk assessment says it's far safer to arrest an innocent civilian than it is to tackle a criminal.
Which reminds us. There's been a certain amount of media coverage of the story about two off-duty cage-fighters on their way to a stag do - in drag. A couple of drunken louts had a go at them, and got well hammered for their pains. Everyone thinks it's hilarious - well, so do we.
But what we can't understand is this: why haven't the cage-fighters been arrested? What are the authorities thinking of? We can't have people just defending themselves whenever they feel like it ...
Oh, wait. I think I know the answer. The police were going to arrest them, but the risk assessment said it was too dangerous so they should find an old lady instead.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS