Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to James George,
Sure I won’t be 100% correct on everything
No, no. I'm pretty sure you will be.
</yeah_right>
-
A pretty good piece from TVNZ.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Jackie Clark,
if they had been allowed to, they would have been down there like a shot, without thinking of the risk to their own lives.
Well they would have been keen as hell but they wouldn’t be disregarding the risks. The difference being that they are trained to manage the risks they are likely to face. So they wouldn’t be going gung-ho but at a measured trot, if you get my drift.
ETA: After all, the idea is to rescue the victims, not create further dangers.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to 3410,
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Ah yes. If they were found in disparate areas that suggested they were working rather than say huddled together.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to giovanni tiso,
If they died of asphyxiation after the first explosion, the story may be told by the position in which they are found
Depending upon the extent to which decomposition has set in, there may be some clues from tissue/blood analysis.
Lucy, you seem to be the resident test-tube baby - any thoughts?
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Matthew Poole,
They've been out there (the instant fix brigade). They went silent after the second explosion but, yeah, I expect we will hear a lot more of it soon. I rather suspect that the shock jocks will use the Paul Henry defence ("But I'm only voicing what other people think") in making some fairly silly and not least premature statements on culpability. Taking refuge at PAS seems to be the sensible option.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to st ephen,
Of course if my own son was down there I’d want to don the breathing gear and go in, without waiting for permission from some arse-covering bureaucrat. I wouldn’t expect or want anyone else to be responsible for my actions.
Understandable sentiment especially for the families but, to carry on with your hypothetical, if something goes wrong and you become a victim, too, then some other poor bugger has to rescue you as well. So you may well absolve me from the responsibility of your decision but as a rescuer, I would have to deal with the consequences. And I could have been rescuing your son instead of dealing with you. Again, this is why we need incident management leadership that may seem less passionate about the rescue than the families, simply because a purely emotive response can lead to unnecessary deaths.
-
because I really don’t want to hear people implying that he’s doing a bad job because he won’t risk the lives of those who’re safe and well, and that some other officer might be a little less concerned with doing the job properly and rather more concerned with keeping the families and the meedja happy.
Amen.
While any member of a rescue team wants to get on with the job (and some may even want to take unnecessary risks to do it), the whole reason for having someone higher up making these hard - and they are pretty gut wrenching - decisions is so that we don't end up with even more bodies. After seeing Knowles performance, I'd do rescue work for him anyday because I know he's not going to risk my neck without having thought it through fully.
Oh dear – and it looks like National Radio is going to be pushing the “frustrated families” line hard this morning, with a side of Phil Goff “raising questions” about mine safety.
Not often I get mad at Morning Report but even the Susie Ferguson with Knowles interview this morning just grated:
Ferguson: But the longer this goes on, the less likely it is you're going to get a good outcome. How long are you prepared to keep people there?
Knowles: I'm not going to put a time limit on people's lives.
Ferguson: Are you confident in your own leadership?FFS.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Sacha,
Interesting article. Thanks for pointing it out. A couple of bits caught my attention especially.
Slowed motor traffic — “traffic calming” — is one of the department’s goals for new bike lanes, to the annoyance of many drivers.
“I was shocked; I thought there had been a big accident,” Mr. Steisel said of a back-up on Carroll Street that he later attributed to a new bike lane. “I guess I wasn’t paying attention.”
Oh the irony....