Get-out clauses
Jul. 16th, 2009 08:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOne of the first rules as a spin doctor, when your organization has been made to look a complete tit, is to find someone else to blame, even if this means serious truth distortion.
So, step forward with the prize of the day, the spokesmen for Gloucestershire Police constabulary.
Police went to raid a house in Gloucester yesterday. On being informed that one of the residents was being tested for swine flu, they completed the search in boiler suits (blue), face masks and wearing protective gloves. Yep, our boys in blue are there to protect us.
Well, clearly, this made them a laughing stock. When neighbours enquired what kind of mysterious chemical weaponry was being stored at number 22 -- anthrax? terrorist bomb-making equipment? nitro-glycerine? — and on being told that it was a case of suspected swine flu, one wag said "seems a bit over-precautious just to be delivering tamiflu".
So, how do you get out of the situation where your police force look like a bunch of namy-pambies? Blame someone else!
A Gloucs police spokesman said that "We are following NHS advice..."
Oh really? That sounds good. But what advice might that be? Almost certainly not "if there is a suspected case of swine flu, dress in blue boiler suits, plastic gloves and face masks".
As far as I can see, the only advice even remotely relating to this (and it doesn't really apply) is "The Health Protection Agency (HPA) recommends that healthcare workers should wear a facemask if they come into close contact with a person with symptoms (within one metre) to reduce their risk of catching the virus from patients". The HPA also recommends that "The wearing of face masks by healthy people, who are not involved in caring for people who are ill, is not recommended."
So, er, in other words, the spokesman seems to have got the NHS confused with the HPA, and to have misinterpreted what the HPA actually said.
All of this is by-the-by of course. What we are really talking about is ultra-cautious risk assessment under the old principle of "no-one ever got sacked for buying IBM".
You might have thought that the police would have been a bit less keen to look like ultra-cautious twats after this report http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6652450.ece on July 7.
A man called for an ambulance. he was advised to leave his door open in case his condition worsened. He did so. The paramedic arrived six minutes later, saw the open door, and, fearing that the place was being burgled, carried out a 16-minute "risk-assessment" and then called for the police to arrive for support.
This was the London Ambulance Service's non-apologetic explanation for letting a man die because someone was scared to go through an open door, despite the face that he was answering an emergency call:
Clearly, when speaking to these people, we are from Venus and they are from Mars. Indeed, later on in the article, the Ambulance Service spells it out in black and white:
The "single responders" system was introduced, whether this is officially accepted or not, as a result of the government's beloved "targets" system. Ben Bradshaw, then a junior health minister, denied in December 2007 that “single responders” would put patients at risk. He said they could help to free resources and that emergency calls would be responded to more quickly.
Well, now we know differently, don't we?
And, irony of ironies, the man who died as a result of the Ambulance Service being more concerned about a paramedic encountering a burglar than saving a life was himself a chauffeur for the Metropolitan Police. I wonder if he had been allocated a blue boiler suit and facemask.
___________
So, step forward with the prize of the day, the spokesmen for Gloucestershire Police constabulary.
Police went to raid a house in Gloucester yesterday. On being informed that one of the residents was being tested for swine flu, they completed the search in boiler suits (blue), face masks and wearing protective gloves. Yep, our boys in blue are there to protect us.
Well, clearly, this made them a laughing stock. When neighbours enquired what kind of mysterious chemical weaponry was being stored at number 22 -- anthrax? terrorist bomb-making equipment? nitro-glycerine? — and on being told that it was a case of suspected swine flu, one wag said "seems a bit over-precautious just to be delivering tamiflu".
So, how do you get out of the situation where your police force look like a bunch of namy-pambies? Blame someone else!
A Gloucs police spokesman said that "We are following NHS advice..."
Oh really? That sounds good. But what advice might that be? Almost certainly not "if there is a suspected case of swine flu, dress in blue boiler suits, plastic gloves and face masks".
As far as I can see, the only advice even remotely relating to this (and it doesn't really apply) is "The Health Protection Agency (HPA) recommends that healthcare workers should wear a facemask if they come into close contact with a person with symptoms (within one metre) to reduce their risk of catching the virus from patients". The HPA also recommends that "The wearing of face masks by healthy people, who are not involved in caring for people who are ill, is not recommended."
So, er, in other words, the spokesman seems to have got the NHS confused with the HPA, and to have misinterpreted what the HPA actually said.
All of this is by-the-by of course. What we are really talking about is ultra-cautious risk assessment under the old principle of "no-one ever got sacked for buying IBM".
You might have thought that the police would have been a bit less keen to look like ultra-cautious twats after this report http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6652450.ece on July 7.
A man called for an ambulance. he was advised to leave his door open in case his condition worsened. He did so. The paramedic arrived six minutes later, saw the open door, and, fearing that the place was being burgled, carried out a 16-minute "risk-assessment" and then called for the police to arrive for support.
This was the London Ambulance Service's non-apologetic explanation for letting a man die because someone was scared to go through an open door, despite the face that he was answering an emergency call:
A spokesman for London Ambulance Service said that two “single responders” had been sent to the address in cars, an ambulance crew and a duty officer. “The first member of our staff to arrive carried out a full on-scene risk assessment and requested police assistance due to safety concerns,” the spokesman said.
Clearly, when speaking to these people, we are from Venus and they are from Mars. Indeed, later on in the article, the Ambulance Service spells it out in black and white:
We have a duty of care to treat patients but we also have to look after our staff,” he said. “In this case the medic conducted the assessment, had safety concerns and decided to call for back-up.”
The "single responders" system was introduced, whether this is officially accepted or not, as a result of the government's beloved "targets" system. Ben Bradshaw, then a junior health minister, denied in December 2007 that “single responders” would put patients at risk. He said they could help to free resources and that emergency calls would be responded to more quickly.
Well, now we know differently, don't we?
And, irony of ironies, the man who died as a result of the Ambulance Service being more concerned about a paramedic encountering a burglar than saving a life was himself a chauffeur for the Metropolitan Police. I wonder if he had been allocated a blue boiler suit and facemask.
___________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 10:41 pm (UTC)Well, now we know differently, don't we?"
Well, not really.
This single case, however absurd, doesn't mean that other patients weren't seen quicker and the recipients of life-saving treatment, because two paramedics were in two places rather than one.
Titmus
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 03:15 pm (UTC)PJ
Spot off
Date: 2009-07-19 08:51 pm (UTC)This single case certainly doesn't mean that other patients weren't seen quicker, etc. Both you and I know (not living in a cave in Spain, as we don't) that it certainly doesn't mean that they were, either.
My recent experience of NHS box-ticking involves going through a windscreen at around 25 mph, which is actually a hell of a lot of fun, although I wouldn't recommend it to everybody. I ended up with a scalp wound, which serves me right. "You have to stay right here until the paramedics arrive," said Plod. "But I only live two hundred yards away," said I. "You're going to get these guys into serious trouble if you walk away," said Plod.
I must have been concussed. I actually gave in. I spent a pointless two hours in A&E having my chest shaved by a (male and disappointinly cleavage-free) nurse, thus ticking another stupid box and costing a mere couple of thousand for no reason whatsoever, because I don't like to cause professionals unnecessary pain.
My point, I think ... and I have dealt with the Gloucestershire police via their IT department, and they seem to be quite sane compared to the average public servant ... is that the second "single responder" would quite likely have been wasting his or her time outside another house, with another open door, and another dying person inside.
I exaggerate, of course. But it's no use hiding behind the shield of "efficiency" if every single poor sod behind that shield is going to be bureaucratically battered to death for "not following due process."
That way madness lies. Or at least the Civil Service and a gold-plated pension.
O tempora, O mores
Date: 2009-07-19 08:27 pm (UTC)due to? If these worthless cretins cannot even make the simple distinction between an adjectival sub-clause and an adverbial sub-clause, then how, precisely, did they squeeze through the preliminary interviews in the first place?
This entire moral catastrophe is at least free of your beloved passive tense:
"A full on-scene risk assessment was carried out after the arrival of a member of our staff, this being the first arrival, and concerns falling within the ambit of safety considerations dictated that assistance should be requested via the appropriate channels. In this particular case, it was clear quite soon after arrival that it was appropriate to contact the police for further advice on safety matters."
There. No confusion between "due to" and "owing to" at all.
These people are rank amateurs.