Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Police defend drowning death case

Police chiefs have defended two community support officers (PCSOs) who stood by as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a pond.

 

Jordon Lyon leapt into the water in Wigan, Greater Manchester, after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties on 3 May.

 

Two anglers jumped in and saved Bethany but Jordon became submerged.

 

The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident.

 

Jordon was playing at the edge of the pond, known locally as John Pit, off Wigan Lower Road, in Standish Lower Ground, with his two brothers, stepbrother and stepsister on 3 May.

 

He was trying to support Bethany as she struggled in the six-feet-deep water before slipping from view.

 

Anglers managed to pull Bethany out but Jordon slipped from view before they could get to him.

 

The alarm was raised and the PCSOs arrived on the scene. Police said they could see no sign of Jordon in the water, so they radioed trained officers for help.

 

If I had been walking along a canal and seen a child drowning I would have jumped in

Anthony Ganderton, stepfather

 

Members of Jordon's family also rushed to the scene to join the search.

 

He was eventually pulled from the pond but despite attempts to resuscitate him he was later pronounced dead in hospital.

 

A verdict of accidental death was recorded.

 

His mother, Tracy Ganderton, and stepfather Anthony, of Bluebell Avenue, Wigan, wanted to know why the PCSOs did not try to rescue Jordon and why they did not give evidence at the inquest held by deputy West Manchester coroner Alan Walsh.

 

Mr Ganderton told the inquest: "I don't know why they didn't go in. I can't understand it.

 

"If I had been walking along a canal and seen a child drowning I would have jumped in.

 

"You don't have to be trained to jump in after a drowning child."

 

Mrs Ganderton said on Friday that the PCSOs in question should be named.

 

"If you're walking down the street and you see a child drowning you automatically go in that water.

 

"You don't care if you're going to lose your job or not, you don't care do you.

 

"I want them to be named. I want to know why they didn't go in, I want to know why they weren't at the inquest when I had to turn up there, and go through the pain of it all.

 

"I want to know why they didn't have to be there as main witnesses.

 

"They should have to be there. They shouldn't have a job."

 

In a statement after the hearing, Det Ch Insp Phil Owen, of Wigan CID, who led the investigation into Jordon's death, said: "PCSOs are not trained to deal with major incidents such as this.

 

'Tragic incident'

 

"Both ourselves and the fire brigade regularly warn the public of the dangers of going into unknown stretches of water so it would have been inappropriate for PCSOs, who are not trained in water rescue, to enter the pond.

 

"This was a tragic incident where a young boy lost his life and we would once again want to pass on our heartfelt condolences to Jordon's family."

 

Paul Kelly, chairman of the Police Federation in Manchester, said PCSOs do not have the same level of training as police officers to deal with life-saving situations.

 

He said: "The message is clear and unambiguous - it's the government, they are trying to fool the public.

 

"They take a person and dress him up as a police officer but they just don't have the same powers.

 

"Every single police officer I trained with left training school with a life-saving certificate of some sort."

 

He said the PCSOs might not have been able to swim and in that case they should not have risked their lives.

 

But he added: "People throw themselves into rivers and ponds to save people every day because it's the right thing to do.

 

"This is an accident waiting to happen again."

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/engl...ter/7006412.stm

 

Published: 2007/09/21 12:21:27 GMT

 

© BBC MMVII

 

This fucking stinks, just because they weren't trained they couldn't act? Absolutely woeful excuse and goes to show all PCSOs are good for is walking down the street looking "official"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Too true, nearly applied a while back but when I saw the limitations on what they can do I thought it was an absolute waste of time and money.

 

The sad fact is if these 2 bottlers had gone in and saved the poor lad they'd have probably have got into a lot of trouble from their superiors for acting when they shouldn't have. Who the fuck promotes a policy of doing nowt in situations like this? Fucking beauracratic morons.

 

I'm not a trained dog handler for example but I wouldn't sit back and watch a kid being mauled to pieces by a dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Too true, nearly applied a while back but when I saw the limitations on what they can do I thought it was an absolute waste of time and money.

 

The sad fact is if these 2 bottlers had gone in and saved the poor lad they'd have probably have got into a lot of trouble from their superiors for acting when they shouldn't have. Who the fuck promotes a policy of doing nowt in situations like this? Fucking beauracratic morons.

 

I'm not a trained dog handler for example but I wouldn't sit back and watch a kid being mauled to pieces by a dog.

 

A trained police officer would likely sit back and watch the kid be mauled to death by the dog, then call in a helicopter and 20 armed response officers to shoot the dog (and probably get a promotion for it). :huh:

 

 

I can understand why their superiors wouldn't want to criticise them for doing this, perhaps. But defending them for it is frankly pitiful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then, with the greatest respect, how much do we really know about this??

 

It was a lake? so what was the temperature of the lake?? was it a flowing lake??

 

Could the officers swim?? did they have or have access to any rescue or survival equipment?

 

My point here is it's all too easy to jump on a band wagon, but depending on the circumstances (details of which have not been provided) you may be expecting 2 people to automatically endanger their own lives on the spot. It's not a requirement to be able to swim to do the job, and to start saying that you absolutely must go and jump in if you can't well that's not helping the situation, it's only making it worse.

 

What may be happening here is people hung up to dry because they didn't endanger their lives, and as much as many of our instincts would tell us to do so, often without even thinking, since when did circumstances like this become a required part of the job? there's nothing written or otherwise to say 'If someone's life is in danger you MUST put your own at risk to attempt a rescue'

 

We don't know the facts here, so maybe the judging is best left until the time comes that we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Too true, nearly applied a while back but when I saw the limitations on what they can do I thought it was an absolute waste of time and money.

 

The sad fact is if these 2 bottlers had gone in and saved the poor lad they'd have probably have got into a lot of trouble from their superiors for acting when they shouldn't have. Who the fuck promotes a policy of doing nowt in situations like this? Fucking beauracratic morons.

 

I'm not a trained dog handler for example but I wouldn't sit back and watch a kid being mauled to pieces by a dog.

 

A trained police officer would likely sit back and watch the kid be mauled to death by the dog, then call in a helicopter and 20 armed response officers to shoot the dog (and probably get a promotion for it). ;)

 

 

I can understand why their superiors wouldn't want to criticise them for doing this, perhaps. But defending them for it is frankly pitiful.

 

Fop = Master of Partisanship :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was only 6 feet deep and there was two of them the risks on their lives was extremely low so if not wanting to risk their lives is their argument they deserve sacking. Actually they deserve sacking for not helping the 2 anglers, they acted so why couldnt these 2 tossers.

Edited by Barton7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...