[Closed] Should the emergency and rescue organisations be able to charge for stupidity?

But it’s illegal at the moment isn’t it.

Practical or impractical interpretation of the law isn’t in question, it’s illegal.

Practical or impractical interpretation of usage is up to the user..

That quote came from The Canabis Users own website and it seems it’s there to qualify the rules, rightly because it’s changed to and fro over the years.

Intoxication isn't illegal, only possession, cultivation or dealing(And even at that there are only penalties if you get caught, and if the polis are even interested.).

What's the point you are trying to make anyhow? The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.

bit disappointed in STW tbh, there's a distinct lack of mountain/weed puns missing from this thread.
Maybe these youths felt they weren't high enough.
They went as high as they could.

I'm not very good at puns 🙁

The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.

None what so every so no idea what bikebouy is on about.

It does.

the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

Before you start on the whataboutery of canabis and it’s medical uses and such, I have to point out I’m a supporter of it in a controlled environment.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

HTHs.

I was surprised that uninjured drunks would tie up resources at A&E. First I'd heard of it. Surely, the solution is as you say - a separate place, not necessarily a working medical facility. But as you say, ideally people should take responsibility for themselves. But that should apply to everything, shouldn't it?

Frustratingly, ED [i]is[/i] the most appropriate place for heavily intoxicated individuals, with appropriate staffing and support, because every now and then, these patients need active intervention to prevent their deaths.

Drac - Moderator
The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.
None what so every so no idea what bikebouy is on about.

You need to read my post and apply it to the question.
TBH I think that’s pretty easy to follow.

Unless....

bikebouy - Member
It does.

the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

Before you start on the whataboutery of canabis and it’s medical uses and such, I have to point out I’m a supporter of it in a controlled environment.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

But intoxication isn't illegal. You're going to have to close that loophole before your illogical(and immoral) masterplan can be implemented.

jekkyl - Member

bit disappointed in STW tbh, there's a distinct lack of mountain/weed puns missing from this thread.

I was saving it for the follow up thread when someone gets stuck in a river, deep.

[quote=bikebouy ]the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

OIC. So the emergency services should also charge if you need rescuing if you crash your car when you're speeding. I guess all those drunks Drac rescues should also be charged - because interestingly whilst it's not illegal to be intoxicated from smoking weed, it is illegal to be drunk in a public place.

You'll probably also find it expensive if you fall off your bike at night and don't have pedal reflectors.

+1 aracer

it is illegal to be drunk in a public place

v8ninety - Member
it is illegal to be drunk in a public place
This might be technically true, but it's certainly not enforced.

You need to read my post and apply it to the question.
TBH I think that’s pretty easy to follow.

I have as have others no one has a clue what you mean.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

There that makes it clearer.

Legality has nothing to do it with it. Speeding, underage drinking, intoxicated in a public place and driving while over the alcohol limit are all illegal. Should we leave them to die and rot or charge them too? Incidentally there is a charge for RTCs but hardly any health trust peruse as it costs more to chase it up then it creates.

I assume MRTs work like lifeboats and have no obligation to respond - the "launch authority" making the decision that the circumstances merit a response without putting the team in excessive danger. So if it was a waste of their time they could have said so.

technically yes but it is very difficult to make that decision based on what is usually limited callout information. Situations often change during the callout and things can be much better, or worse, when you actually arrive.
Most commonly, teams will be sent out to stop a situation becoming worse. A good example of this is RNLI going out to dogs fallen down cliffs. You could argue a waste of time but if they don't go you get owners climbing down to attempt a rescue, then you end up with all sorts of bother.

We spent 3 hours searching a local hillside late on a sunday evening a couple of weeks ago after a distress flare was seen. We knew that there was almost certainly no-one needing help (who actually carries flares in the hills nowadays) and he area has good phone signal so you could call for help if you needed it. But how can you decide not to deploy a team, we don't have enough information to decide not to go.

Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

[quote=franksinatra ]Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

This is where we have an issue which needs addressing, because it's clearly not sustainable. MRT members are ordinary people who have proper jobs, families and social lives. Increased amounts of "waste of time" callouts is going to start putting pressure on them - not only because of the increased amount of time it's taking, but I suspect the reward from responding to such callouts is much lower. I can see some people leaving the teams and it being harder for the teams to recruit new members.

I suspect that the classic emergency services charging paradox would apply

Those most deterred from phoning would be the little old ladies who had fallen and broken their hip. ie. the ones who actually really needed help, but who didn’t want to be a bother or who were worried about getting into trouble for calling them out needlessly.

Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

This is just an obvious result of lots more people spending lots more time outdoors. I started MTBing in the early 90s and could easily do a ride around Gower (to pick a local tourist attraction) in winter and barely see anyone away from the roads. These days there will be people everywhere, walking cycling, dog-walking, whatever time of year.

Places like Pen-y-fan have seen a massive increase in the amounts of people walking to the top. I walked it recently, and laughed about the queue on top waiting to stand on the summit. But seeing people every 10-20m on the way up made it feel a little crowded for my taste.

And of course the ability to buy all your kit in supermarkets and follow extremely obvious tracks to the top of hills makes people feel like they've achieved something. But having all the kit doesn't help you read the weather or the landscape, or know how long it will realistically take to do the walk.

There's stupidity and there's stupidity:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/18/bare-mountain-man-who-climbed-peak-in-pants-gets-hypothermia ]Knickers to Snowdon[/url]

Knowing the risks and assessing them is important, but people don't get taught. Pen-Y-Fan is a good example - I've twice turned back from climbing it from the northern approach because of bad weather.

Without wishing to derail the original question but to clarify the last post I made.

Once committed to a job the 'mobilising system' sees us as unavailable. Therefore it would deploy the next nearest resource - leading to a delay.

Also imagine being in the lift and half way through being released you're suddenly informed 'sorry mate, something more important come up and we're off' I think that'd go down very badly.

To explain the numbers a bit

2. X drivers, 1 x oic at lift, 1 x 2ic in lift motor room, 6 other fireys spread about over several floors opening doors, dealing with winding mechanisms, members of the public etc. Also we ride 5 a pump normally, we can't drop one or two off as the job doesn't require it. Consider the numbers a 'comprehensive' policy to use my insurance a analogy.

It’s a popular topic at the lifeboat station at end of the causeway where my mates are based, nothing new as it’s been mooted for years.. certainly when the MCA got involved and pushed back the idea when the Government were trying to get the RNLI to run the Coastguard Service... all those years ago.

Assessments based on severity and distance, vessels launched and manhours taken to cover the rescue..

Nothing came of it, obviously because the situation is the same now as it’s been for years.. except the removal of some helicopters from locations deemed “covered by..”

But that’s just “whataboutery”

Mountain biking isn’t illegal, so not sure why you think I’d object to that... but sure you’ll think I’ve got something against MTBers crashing.

Part of me says yes as people do stupid things that need a slap for or are just plain pathetic. Phoning for help because you are tired or late is silly. However, sadly, its hard to differentiate between genuine cock ups and moronic ones and our national policy of free help is a good one. A bust ankle on the top of Ben nevis in january is rather more deserving than a few blisters on the beach. Do you still get charged for an ambulance after a RTA?

This is where we have an issue which needs addressing, because it's clearly not sustainable. MRT members are ordinary people who have proper jobs, families and social lives. Increased amounts of "waste of time" callouts is going to start putting pressure on them - not only because of the increased amount of time it's taking, but I suspect the reward from responding to such callouts is much lower. I can see some people leaving the teams and it being harder for the teams to recruit new members.

I suspect that the classic emergency services charging paradox would apply

Those most deterred from phoning would be the little old ladies who had fallen and broken their hip. ie. the ones who actually really needed help, but who didn’t want to be a bother or who were worried about getting into trouble for calling them out needlessly.

Part of me says yes as people do stupid things that need a slap for or are just plain pathetic. Phoning for help because you are tired or late is silly. However, sadly, its hard to differentiate between genuine cock ups and moronic ones and our national policy of free help is a good one. A bust ankle on the top of Ben nevis in january is rather more deserving than a few blisters on the beach. Do you still get charged for an ambulance after a RTA?

So Lummox - are you telling me that there is no "chargeback" for lift rescues? That seems amazing.

I always assumed that there was a charge for that kind of thing, faulty corporate fire alarms etc? No?

We lived opposite a block of flats once and the alarm would go off a couple of times a week due to some fault or other. 2 fire engines used to turn up and hang around for 30 mins or so while it got reset..... are we really not charging for that? Bloody hell.

No they shouldn't because:
A. Everyone does stupid things at some point.
B. Everyone's definition of stupid is different so how could we agree on what's chargeable behaviour?

So Lummox - are you telling me that there is no "chargeback" for lift rescues? That seems amazing.

I always assumed that there was a charge for that kind of thing, faulty corporate fire alarms etc? No?

We lived opposite a block of flats once and the alarm would go off a couple of times a week due to some fault or other. 2 fire engines used to turn up and hang around for 30 mins or so while it got reset..... are we really not charging for that? Bloody hell.

Correct our service tried to introduce an extra charge for repeat offenders but it was deemed illegal as it was argued that they have paid already via local council tax.
Repeat offenders will now get a reduced attendance or only get an attendance if it's backed up by a 999 call.
It's no our job to reset panel, we will ask responsible person on site to do this if no one bothers to turn up and there is no fire we leave after 20mins. This is quite amusing at the expensive complex of flats at 3am

Correct our service tried to introduce an extra charge for repeat offenders but it was deemed illegal as it was argued that they have paid already via local council tax

outrageous.

I'm not saying it should be commonplace - but you should certainly be able to start proceedings against companies who are causing a disproportionately large amount of wasted hours due to a poorly fitted/maintained system.

Somebody should start an online petition - that's how things happen these days isn't it? 🙄

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... cannabis.. is ... illegal.

Caller: Can you rescue us please?
MRT: Are you stoned?
Caller: Might be
MRT: We will charge you £X per person
Caller: Can't afford that
MRT: Sorry we won't come out, as it's your fault,and we have to charge as cannabis is illegal
Caller: But, I might die...
MRT: Not my problem mate

The news later that day : "4 hikers were left to die today by the emergency services, when they refused to go out to them because they had had taken cannabis, meanwhile Myrtle Knobcheese was rescued because she had gone up Helvellin in her slippers without realising how dangerous it could be..."

'A seperate place' would require funding, housing and staffing by relatively expensive clinicians proficient in airway and behaviour management as well as a security element to safeguard these staff. The funding, in order for it to be cost effective, would have to come from the budgets of the areas that it is providing relief to; namely NHS budgets. So better to look after these often unpleasant, occasionally obnoxious patients in ED, where you already have the experienced staff in situ, and all the options open for escalating care should someone become properly poorly.
Frustratingly, ED is the most appropriate place for heavily intoxicated individuals, with appropriate staffing and support, because every now and then, these patients need active intervention to prevent their deaths.

I even have an issue with having a "separate number" for calls to the emergency services. 'Freeing up 999 Call Handerlers' by having a second non emergency number means its the caller rather than the trained call hander that has to make the decision as to what does or doesn't constitute an emergency.

A caller with regard to the scenario above doesn't necessarily understand that its a situation that can escalate from a 'nuisance' to an 'emergency' in pretty short order.

You also get tragedies like the couple taking days to die, trapped in their car, on the M9 after an accident that was reported to 111. The 111 call was mis-handled anyway but it shouldn't have been a choice for the caller to make as to which number they called.

Macruisikeen,

It's inevitable that at some peak times you will have more people trying to call the police than they have to answer the calls. How happy would you be waiting in a queue telling you the next available operator will deal with you and the current waiting time is 10 minutes when someone has just broken into your house? Or even listening to the "press 1 for..." messages which help to avoid human staff being needed at all. Meanwhile Mrs Bobbins in reporting her cat missing, Mr Smith is complaining (for the third time tonight) about the neighbours having a party, Mr Jones is trying to work out which police station is nearest his house as he has to produce his documents and Miss Whatsit is sobbing down the phone as her boyfriend got lifted earlier in the evening and she wants to know which police station he is in. And Mr Cyclist is trying to recount the terrible driving on his commute this morning now that he has edited the video and uploaded it to YouTube. Meanwhile the burglars have helped themselves to your kitchen knives and are coming looking for your bikes and car keys.

In days of old people used to call the local police station if they had some non-emergency thing. I guess mobile phones and lack of phone books together with the fact the local station may not be manned at all times, means people tend not to do that. If they know it's not a 999 perhaps they wouldn't call at all without another number. It's not ridiculous to ask the person making a call to assess if they think it is an immediate emergency and call a different number if it is (where it can be upgraded if the call handler disagrees).

As Bruneep already said charging for nuisance calls/false alarms didn't work. Neither is a reduced attendance (see 2 in a van response to ring wood bin fire).

We 'work' with some 'partners' to reduce calls, but the honest answer is we always attend as the press response for not would be a nightmare.

Even if we did try and recover costs half the landlords and letting companies would never stump up and we'd still attend anyway.

Basically properly funded and resourced emergency services is about the only way to stay on top of the increasing number of calls. Certainly not huge cuts to funding under the austerity agenda!

Hampshire fire is even exploring medical response to earn more alternate funding- all because the ambulance service is struggling so hard to stay on top of it. I personally think it's not a road we as fire should be going down when there are more roles within our remit we are scraping to achieve. Mtfa and flooding as two recent and public examples.