[barking]

Sorry if I reported it incorrectly. The point remains however that the ambulance services protocols put the safety of their staff over those of injured members of the public. I think I heard of heated exchanges between police officers demanding paramedics to attend to people and they refusing to do so. Is that not correct?

[who-knows95]

i cannot comment on that, as a first aid guy, i can refuse treatment to anyone. i'm not sure if it's the same with paramedics.

but, of course "ambulance services protocols put the safety of their staff over those of injured members of the public." doing the maths, if those paramedics were shot while doing work, now you just have even more people injured and require more medics.

police can be armed, with direct contact to support, medics aren't.

the ethics, and legal standing around paramedics refusing to treat wounded civi or other are buried deep within code.

[barking]

I do have a bit of a problem with this. If I were ever trapped in a building on fire I would hope it happened in somewhere like New York where the fire department would put themselves in harm's way to rescue me. In London, and I could be wrong, I believe that they would wait until it was safe to enter and by then I'd probably be dead.

[who-knows95]

there is a very real difference between a terror attack, and a normal call out.

the reason why the area was delegated hot was because of reports of gun fire/ramming.

sadly, your logic isn't correct, we still have firefighters burn to death while trying to rescue civis.

--https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/grenfell-tow...

"A firefighter at Grenfell Tower prepared to die when his oxygen almost ran out during the attempted rescue of a 12-year old girl because the fire lift failed, the public inquiry has heard."

many people died in this event, not because of firefighters on the ground, but because of leadership/command/govt.