Bizarre CG statements

[Observer]

A selection of statements by CGs following recent "incidents" reported in MCA press releases. Bizarre (to me) language highlighted in red.

Example 1 - after child rescued from inflatable boat:
<font color=blue>Yarmouth Coastguard Watch Manager, Mario Siano said,</font color=blue>

“This child is lucky to be alive, thanks to the fast response of Chapel St Leonard’s Coastguard. <font color=red>I urge parents not to let children take inflatable toys to the beach</font color=red>; it is only a matter of time before we have another fatality involving inflatable toys on the sea.

so where exactly are children supposed to use inflatable toys - in the bath?


Example 2- after father found drowned (I think) after going to rescue of his son and another boy
<font color=blue>Watch Manager Mario Siano said</font color=blue>

<font color=red>"Also If anyone is seen to be trapped on them, they should not attempt rescue themselves but should dial 999 and ask for the Coastguard, who can send specialist units to perform the necessary rescue."</font color=red>

so if your child appears at risk of drowning, CG recommends you should sit back and watch it happen while hoping the cavalry will appear in time? Get real!

Example 3 - after (reportedly) 34 children around Camber Sands reunited with parents by CG

<font color=blue>A Dover Coastguard spokesman said tonight:</font color=blue>

” The sea is still very cold and can catch people unawares. Despite the warmer air temperatures the sea demands respect as prolonged immersion in sea water can still cause hypothermia. <font color=red>But, above all - have fun!”</font color=red>

because I've been on a PR course and been trained to finish a lecture on an upbeat note

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[[3889]]

Why Bizarre?
1. Risk losing your child or don't allow him/her to use inflatibles - which would you choose?

2. The father died; The child was rescued by SAR services so the advice has been proved right.

3.The agency has to offer advice on safety in a concise manner to an audience with widely differing knowledge of the sea but doesn't want to be seen as negative -a reasonable enough aim.

I also think it unfair to criticise named individuals who represent an organisation on the forum, I think Mr Siano gave good advice.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[andyball]

I don't see what's bizarre.

1: Plenty of incidents every year with inflatables/beaches,luckily most aren't fatal, but it seems no odder than "Charlie says don't play with matches".

2: It seems more than once a year that someone dies while trying to rescue a child or animal- perhaps that will always happen, but no harm in pointing out how dangerous it can be.

3: The parents had 34 children & still found time to go to Camber Sands for the day?.ok that one's bizarre.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

They all seem sensible enough to me.

As to point 2, it doesn't say, "If you see your kid drowning", its refering to people being washed out to sea, trapped on an inflatable. No immediate risk of death- they can sit on it for a half hour till resuce turns up, and I'm sure the children would prefer a frightening wait to a dead father?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

General reply -

1. The sensible CG advice, which appears elsewhere, is actually to make sure children in inflatables are supervised and, in offshore winds particularly, inflatable is secured to the shore. I find it bizarre for a CG representative to "urge" that a toy should not be used for the purpose for which it is intended. It's like saying a child shouldn't use a bike on the road. He should have advised on how they can be used safely.

2. This incident related to children cut off by the tide not on inflatable. I certainly would not wait for rescue service to turn up if I believed one of my children was in real danger. I hope I would have the presence of mind to make a realistic assessment of the risk involved and chances of success - but one can never tell.

Also, the statement in this case started "This appears to have been a tragic accident that could have been so easily avoided." for which the sub-text is "Dad was a real plonker in going to the rescue of his son" when, in fact, he selflessly (albeit, as things turned out, ill-advisedly) put his own life at risk for his child. The unfortunate man's partner may find the implicit criticism and patronising tone offensive or at least insensitive.

3. The final sentence, tagged on to what is otherwise a statement about safety, is simply a non-sequitur. Conjunctions are supposed to link related not unrelated subjects. As I observed, it looks like it was added as an afterthought and, to my mind, appeared incongruous.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

as for pt 2); some years ago with a decent wind I took off from happisburgh on my windsurfer and was having lots of fun zipping out and back between sea palling and happisbugh until ... first a sar helicopter appeared asking if i was ok then the happisburgh inshore rnli appeared asking the same question. The source of all this activity was the happisburgh cg, cooped up in a hut with a pair of bins who was doing his job.

as far as i know, there are no longer cg lookouts on that part of the coast (the happisburgh cg hut has probably eroded into the sea) and on a good day the beaches are full of people enjoying themselves.

So, i wonder if there isn't an awful lot of frustration, possibly anger, about the inability of the cg to catch these incidents and it shows in his statement ....

all imho, of course

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ecudc]

I had a close shave at studland chasing after a stupid inflatable ball in an offshore wind when I was around 8 or so. Got far to far out and then was too tired to swim all the way back in. Luckily a passing mobo picked me up. My answer would be that if you must buy your kid an inflatable toy, supervise them at all times because kids don't really think properly when their favourite inflatable in being blown to France. Better still limit inflatable toys to swimming pools.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mickshep]

Bizarre????????? Sorry observer but your way off base here. Inflatable toys are just that, Toys, As a kid I watched parachutists leaping from planes, Within days my pals and I had made our own toy chutes to fasten behind our pushbikes, they worked great but I'd not think of jumping out of an aircraft with one, Inflatable toys are for swimming pools only, As for the sad case of the father who went after the two youngsters, The CG was 100% correct, let the experts do their job. He'd have been better off watching from the shore and being in a position to guide the life boat to them via his mobile etc, When I go into schools to talk to youngsters about beach safety (which I do) we always finish on an up beat note, our job there is to educate, not scare to death. Mick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[graham]

The advise not to chase an inflatable being blown out to sea is sound advise.

I chased one in a motorboat recently that was being blown along at 6 knots in not a lot of wind.

More than once kids have been safely rescued after parents have drowned.

The problem is that non boaty people dont appreciate the danger of an offshore wind.

I think picking holes in the cg officers statements is being cynical.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

I've found that the CG stations tend to tell things as they are which can sound bizarre whereas their official pr people are more circumspect and skilled with language eg Mark Clark. I don't doubt for a minute that they are deeply distressed by the loss of life but the changes wrought, since the formation of the MCA, moved the CGs away from local areas into offices which leaves them with local blind spots. They have become a reactive force. The Sea Smart campaign is the "new" CG actively practising prevention as a substitute for a pair of eyes on the shore but, sadly, the first really good summer since, what, 1999? and the toll of needless tragedy continues. Another of Blair's beloved initiatives which have not stood up or a supine and craven management in thrall to a false vision?

I mention this because the closure of the west coast of scotland cg stations was bitterly resented at the time for precisely that reason: a lack of local presence.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

A number of us are more than a bit fed up with Nanny State telling us what we can and can't do. But - and its a big 'but': its not at all funny for the rescue services to have to pull yet another drowned body out of the sea because basic safety rules were ignored. Its not at all funny - in fact it can be deeply traumatising for those who are involved.

The Police have the same problem: I am as fed up as the rest with the apparent obsession the Police have with catching speeding motorists, rather than chasing the criminals who raid our boats, for example. But the Police have the job of clearing up the mess after a fatal accident - of sorting out the magled remains, and telling the bereaved relatives.

And that, I can assure you, is not funny at all.

So I think we can allow the CG and other rescue services just a little bit of leeway if they get a bit shirty about it all.

When things have gone fatally wrong theirs is a job I very much doubt if I could cope with.... could you?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

you do raise a point (about coping with emergencies). very few have any training and, yet, there is a very good chance that at some point in time, you may wish you had .... some water sports training organisations eg paddi demand it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MCA_Bloke]

Well, working in the MCA office which deal with the clueless press and media about safety afloat you may forgive us for occasionally issuing statements which may seem blindingly obvious to boaty people. But go inland just a short way and you'll find plenty of people who don't have a clue about behaviour at the coast and on the water. We have to put things in Janet and John language to get it out to a wider audience. Just think how sad it must have been for the Stranraer lifeboat team to find the father (34) and son aged 12 together lifeless in the water after the recent Loch Ryan incident. We don't know why or how it happened as yet - but no one wants a repetition. Mt belief is that the Coastguard are entitled to get a whole lot more shirty when safety is an issue.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Re: Marine ignorance

Good point about the total ignorance of even the basics of sea safety in a large part of the populace: highlighted by a story from Swanage Lifeboat some years ago called to an angling boat suffering engine problems off St Albans. The owner complained his engine was running but going much more slowly than before. It was checked and found to be in good order - simply the tide had turned, and they now had a strong foul tide. 'Whats the tide' asked the hapless skipper. The LB Coxn explained about the moons influence on the sea level

'Thats interesting' was the response - 'does it happen often?'

The Coxns reply does not appear in the official report.

<hr width=100% size=1>