Is Health and Safety paramount?

[TykeMerc]

My question remains, because nobody has attempted to answer it: do the police have a right to prevent people doing something dangerous? They may be tasked with saving people, they may have a duty to try, etc, but do they have a right to prevent people doing something they assess as dangerous by force?

Probably, if they feel that the persons actions will endanger others they can take reasonable action to prevent that.

[BrowneIssue]

Do the police have any right to prevent someone trying something brave but dangerous? If so, from where comes this right?

Were these people going about their lawful business? No, it would have been trespass. So, the Police should stop them. That, however, would be a silly argument.

Do the Police have a duty to protect people from themselves? Yes, probably. If the copper at the scene was fearful the brave volunteers would themselves need rescuing, then the copper surely did the right thing?

There is also the case that the copper is just another citizen. Would it be right for neighbour A to prevent neighbour B from making a pointless sacrifice? I think so, so why can't a copper?

If, instead of being a copper, it had been an off-duty fireman who had said "Nah, not worth it, mate. Stop here" it would be a non-issue.

We don't know the full details. Are we talking a 19 year old community support officer or an experienced copper "who's been there, done that" and knew what they were doing?

Anyway, all this talk of "rights". What "rights" would these be then? We are in the UK, not on American telly.

[TheBigD]

The question doesn't really have a black and white answer. If the copper was "right" to stop people endangering themselves, and putting additional pressure on the emergency services, then in my view, he had "the right", to do it.

Does he have a leagal right to stop people entering the building? I don't know, but I would assume he would, in the same way tha they can close roads/corden off whole or parts of buildings etc.

[Mich the Tester]

Surely it’s possible for the policeman to object to their actions verballly, i.e. point out the dangers and point out that strictly they may be acting against health and safety regulations, but without actually stopping people from helping? Why not tell them ‘you’re not really allowed to do that, but I’m not going to arrest you if you do’?

Sure, it’s sometimes up to the police to protect people against themselves, but it’s not their job to prevent a voluntary act of bravery by an adult that could save someone’s life.

It looks to me like some numpty’s followed all the rules instead of engaging his brain and letting people decide for themselves. What a shame.

[TheBigD]

Not sure I agree with that. If the policman lets a load of people into the building, who then get trapped, the Fire Service are then tasked with getting them out, putting themselves in additional danger.

Surely the Police, as the first on the scene, have a duty to contain the situation enabling the fire service to carry out their job as effectivly as possible when they arrive.

[expat]

Not sure I agree with that. If the policman lets a load of people into the building, who then get trapped, the Fire Service are then tasked with getting them out, putting themselves in additional danger.

Surely the Police, as the first on the scene, have a duty to contain the situation enabling the fire service to carry out their job as effectivly as possible when they arrive.

So the fact that other people are "tasked" with looking after your safety gives the authorities the right to forbid you to take risks that they don't like?

I did not at any point speak of people having the "right" to their actions, I spoke of them having the liberty to do so, versus the authorities' right or otherwise to curtail that liberty.


I am concerned that people seem to be taken for granted not as free individuals but as cogs in the machine: when I ask whether the police had the right to stop them, most posters acted as if the question had been, "were the police right to?". The first is a question of liberty versus authority; the second is just a judgement made by the police for people, but it assumes that this judgement is theirs to make and enforce.

[expat]

Surely it’s possible for the policeman to object to their actions verballly, i.e. point out the dangers and point out that strictly they may be acting against health and safety regulations, but without actually stopping people from helping? Why not tell them ‘you’re not really allowed to do that, but I’m not going to arrest you if you do’?

Sure, it’s sometimes up to the police to protect people against themselves, but it’s not their job to prevent a voluntary act of bravery by an adult that could save someone’s life.

It looks to me like some numpty’s followed all the rules instead of engaging his brain and letting people decide for themselves. What a shame.

Congratulations, you have understood. I suspect it's your Dutch heritage.

[Board Game Geek]

AFAIK, the police have the right to stop anyone whose actions may cause direct or indirect harm to themselves or others.

Obviously that's a huge generalisation and it wouldn't be possible to write an exhaustive list of all possible situations.

That's why the case needs to be assessed on the merits/demerits of the situation at hand.

That's not something we can do, since none of us were there,

Only those present can at least try to assess the situation, and some will do it emotionally and irrationally, others will do it based on experience, training and logical deduction.

But back to the question, did the Police have the right ? I don't know the full remit of their duties under law.

Should they have the right ? Yes of course they should.

Why ?

Because as the general public, we place our faith and trust in them to protect us, based on their training and professionalism.

Whatever your view about the Police, they are "human" beyond the uniform, and as humans we all share the same hopes and dreams, fears and loves.

Those men and women in uniforms that day were not just police men and police women. They were wives and husbands, and quite probably have their own families as well. No doubt the same thoughts were going through their minds as well.

If they prevented anyone from attempting a rescue, it would be been because the situation was so dire that to do so would have resulted in further loss of life.

Finally, should I have the liberty to perform a rescue ?

If there is no one else there to advise accordingly, then yes of course. The decision rests solely with me, and if I cock it up and get others injured or killed, then I should be held liable.

If there is a professional present, who can advise accordingly, then as a member of the public, I should defer to their skill and experience. I may not agree with them, but they are vested authority.

Of course, emotions do run high and in desperate times, people will take additional risks.

[expat]

AFAIK, the police have the right to stop anyone whose actions may cause direct or indirect harm to themselves or others.

Obviously that's a huge generalisation and it wouldn't be possible to write an exhaustive list of all possible situations.

That's why the case needs to be assessed on the merits/demerits of the situation at hand.

That's not something we can do, since none of us were there,

Only those present can at least try to assess the situation, and some will do it emotionally and irrationally, others will do it based on experience, training and logical deduction.

But back to the question, did the Police have the right ? I don't know the full remit of their duties under law.

Should they have the right ? Yes of course they should.

Why ?

Because as the general public, we place our faith and trust in them to protect us, based on their training and professionalism.

Whatever your view about the Police, they are "human" beyond the uniform, and as humans we all share the same hopes and dreams, fears and loves.

Those men and women in uniforms that day were not just police men and police women. They were wives and husbands, and quite probably have their own families as well. No doubt the same thoughts were going through their minds as well.

If they prevented anyone from attempting a rescue, it would be been because the situation was so dire that to do so would have resulted in further loss of life.

I respect and admire the police as people for what they do, but I find your point of view distastefully fascist.

Should they have the right ? Yes of course they should.

Why ?

Because as the general public, we place our faith and trust in them to protect us, based on their training and professionalism.

No! where was the bit where I "placed my trust in them to protect me" to the extent that I am happy to give them the right to forbid any of my actions? Not in my social contract!

I do not place unlimited faith and trust in them. You cannot argue that I do so, and therefore they have the right to do anything....


But (sigh) you just don't get it. Liberty? Is it in your game parameters?

[realityhack]

In a sense, W(BGG)S...

Police can, with reasonable force, prevent an individual from taking action that could cause harm to themselves or others, which would include stopping such a rescue if they judged it to be too dangerous to be attempted by amateurs.

Not saying it's right, and if it was my family in that building I'd probably punch a policeman out cold to get past them into the house, and worry about the consequences afterwards.