Thread: How justified is this description?

This was posted at another place under the following description.

How Stupid Has England Become !

A 5-year-old British boy was stranded in a tree for 45 minutes while teachers followed school policy requiring them to "observe from a distance" instead of rescue him, the DailyMail.com reported.

The student was rescued from the tree when passer-by Kim Barrett saw him and helped him down.

But, school officials then reported the 38-year-old Barrett to police because they said she "approached the school in an inappropriate way."

"I stopped to ask him if he was OK, and it became clear that he'd been there since the end of playtime, which had been around half an hour earlier," Barrett told the Daily Mail. "I was immediately concerned. I walked over to the school with the boy and was met by the associate head. He didn't appear at all concerned, and was actually very patronizing, patting me on the arm and asking me, 'What do you expect me to do, exactly, dear?'"

The school confirmed they have a policy that prohibits staff from helping children who have climbed trees, in part because they don't want the child to get "distracted and fall."

more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...th-safety.html

The poster concerned added this: Is this where we are headed? Can't make this stuff up.

I do not consider that the school authorities acted stupidly in waiting for the properly trained and equipped emergency services to arrive and rescue the child. I consider that Kim Barrett was kind in helping the child down, but that she took several risks (not least to the child) in doing so. But primarily, I consider the conclusion that this serves as evidence that the British nation has become stupid, is unjustified. Mind you, I do consider that we can act pretty stupidly at times (eg: Iraq), but that tends to be the prerogative of our government rather than the common people

Anyway, what think ye? Americans and other nationalities welcome to give an opinion.

Yeah, I'm not big on the whole "hero" mentality that suggests one shouldn't wait for experts.
The situation was obviously not an emergency in which waiting increased the level of danger.

Liability trumps non-emergencies. The school acted properly; the passer-by didn't.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not

So, was the kid more likely to fall if the teachers merely watched and hoped he'd make it down, or if they went over and helped him down?

The kid was not likely to fall at all if they simply waited a little longer for the emergency services to arrive and get him down safely, which is what I understand the waiting teachers to have been doing. The dangers of touching someone else's small child are many, unforeseen, and overwhelmingly legal. What if she had been seen to 'touch him inappropriately' in the process of removing him from the tree?. And any adult not employed by the school, would have to have very good reasons for entering my school grounds. We have a gate man, and nobody enters or leaves the premises without the school's permission.

This situation could be reasonably seen from a number of perspectives. It is--to me--a matter of degree. How high up was the child? How complicated was the task? Part of the argument against the school's position is that while many areas of life are quite complex and require expertise, there's nothing particularly new about a child being stuck in a tree, nor is there much expertise needed (risk, yes--expertise, no) in getting him down. There are officials who are charged with handling situations like this, but they have only authority and perhaps equipment on their side. Deferring to authority and "proper channels" can be ridiculous when the task is clear--a great deal of humor writing has been devoted to just this kind of situation (see "Heller, Joseph. Catch-22."). It's not really possible to make a definitive judgment here without knowing the precise nature of the situation rather than just "stuck in a tree" as a description. I'm sure that a generic "stuck in a tree" description is what the school officials were thinking of (that is, "how will this look in the report?") when they decided to wait.

If anything, I would say this makes sense for a British school. It's less about stupidity or wisdom than the tendency to orthodoxy. Brits like to follow rules and they take serious offense when they see others not doing so. It's a feature of British humor to make light of this tendency, no? Aren't there a lot of well-known skits that feature an official of some kind "following the book" when the reality of the situation makes that stance seem ridiculous? I love the English dedication to social order that results in the world's finest queues, but I can also imagine a scene with the world ending like a disaster movie, fireballs and floods all around, while a group of Brits stands quietly waiting for the now-nonfunctioning escape pods.

Rassales, in this instance 'stuck in a tree' was quite clearly a situation where the child was reluctant to attempt the climb down. There is risk to the child associated with that situation, and the people best equipped and trained to deal with it are the emergency services. This was not an Armageddon scenario, and for all the gibes about British orthodoxy and forming orderly queues, you may be forgetting that this is a people who climbed bandaged and bruised aboard the underground trains the day after the 7th July bombings to show Al Qaeda they were not afraid of them. These were also the people who weathered the worst the mighty Luftwaffe could throw at them. I think you may find those characteristics somewhat useful in a real emergency. We did not stand about waiting for someone else to rescue us then, and we would not do so in any future disaster.

Originally Posted by Leo

Rassales, in this instance 'stuck in a tree' was quite clearly a situation where the child was reluctant to attempt the climb down. There is risk to the child associated with that situation, and the people best equipped and trained to deal with it are the emergency services. This was not an Armageddon scenario, and for all the gibes about British orthodoxy and forming orderly queues, you may be forgetting that this is a people who climbed bandaged and bruised aboard the underground trains the day after the 7th July bombings to show Al Qaeda they were not afraid of them. These were also the people who weathered the worst the mighty Luftwaffe could throw at them. I think you may find those characteristics somewhat useful in a real emergency. We did not stand about waiting for someone else to rescue us then, and we would not do so in any future disaster.

Honestly, Leo, I didn't mean any offense--seriously. This is an aspect of British culture that Brits themselves make fun of. That was my only point. I find your tendency to follow rules to be quite useful and admirable--but you yourselves make light of it on occasion. My doomsday scenario was my attempt at just that kind of humor--it was meant to be over-the-top and not taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Honestly, Leo, I didn't mean any offense--seriously. This is an aspect of British culture that Brits themselves make fun of. That was my only point. I find your tendency to follow rules to be quite useful and admirable--but you yourselves make light of it on occasion. My doomsday scenario was my attempt at just that kind of humor--it was meant to be over-the-top and not taken seriously.

No I didn't take offence Rassales - honestly, and I didn't think you meant to give any. I am aware that we often make fun of this aspect of our culture, I was just pointing out that it is one component of how we deal with difficult situations. We just sort of get on with it, and follow procedure wherever it is feasible. It's just the done thing. :lol: