"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:47:43 +0000, michael adams wrote:

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...

Unless (as I mentioned upthread) you secure the bottom end of the line
somewhere near the base of the chimney, lift the helicopter and slowly
move so that the line comes close to the person in distress, and then
send someone down to rescue them ? Negating the pendulum effect ?

"The line comes close to the person in distress".

I somehow suspect that while rescuing the chap was the first priority,
a second proiority which ran it pretty close was not to attempt anything
if there was the slightest chance it was seen to knock him off the
chimney.

Well I was typing in a nice comfy chair ...

If this was at the height of the Blitz nobody would bat an eyelid. But
nowadays with "loved ones"demanding resignations, tabloid monstering,
and compo chasing lawyers nobody would want to take the risk.

I think that's a tad unfair. But ultimately if there are no guidelines to
adhere to, it follows that anything attempted could be characterised as
risky in hindsight. Arguably that is one purpose of guidelines ...

I pick up the occasional free newspaper when travelling on the tube.Not necessarily
for reading but to line plastic bags to be put in the wheelie bin.

We believe you, truly really we do.

I always read a book on the train, I got through "Danubia" in
around 2 months, a title that definitely deserved better treatment
than it got from the publisher by way of colour illustrations,
maps, lists etc. Free newspapers really are the last resort of
the terminally bored. Most people are using their phones or laptops
in any case.


The front page of Tuesday's "Evening Standard"
featured a large picture of Fire Brigade Commissioners Dany
Cotton, all in the public interest naturally so she could be identified
in the street, who was condemned for showing "remarkable insensitivity"
for merely pointing out that the FB were simply following established
procedures at the time.

Cotton also told the enquiry that nothing different would be done in hindsight.

Given all the questions that remain to be answered, if they ever will
there's no reason to claim that anything should necessarily have been
done any differently. Might there have been a stampede with people
crushed etc etc ? Anyone whose working life can involve making life
and death decisions needs to adopt a stone cold attitude to all such
decisions otherwise they'd soon mess up, and get eaten up in the
process.
The same goes for the medical profession - as soon as a surgeon stops
regarding operations as technical challenges involving pieces of meat
and patients as ongoing experiments they're in trouble.
The fact that Joe Public so easily mistakes this for
callous indifference is merely a symptom of the media
propagating an atmosphere of overweening sentimentality
in pursuit of inclusive "human interest" stories with
which everyone, most especially those at the back of the class
can readily identify.


Conversely, the chimney guy was characterised as possibly having mental problems

In fact he certainly had done previously.

and possibly being drunk at the time - so that's all right then..

It would explain how he ended up like that.

He simply slipped backwards possibly as the ladder became
detached

Although I'm pretty sure I saw one reference to his being
drunk I very much doubt he could have successfully scaled
the chimney in that condition unless it was very slow acting
alcohol
The point I'm making is that such "facts" are irrelevant to the
actual problem of rescuing him from the chimney. Whereas
in mentioning them at all there may be a suggestion that
a) it was all his own fault anyway, and b) being mentally
unstable and possibly drunk he presented extra danger to
the rescuers. Both of which considerations are as I say
totally irrelevant.


michael adams

.....