A 39-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a gun attack in a village which left two women dead and one seriously injured. A spokesman for the Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service said it received a 999 call at 1640 BST on Sunday. Just over one hour later, a crew was able to reach the injured in the house with police protection - more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/3782285.stm)

While out getting lunch I noticed a front page story about this incident. One of the people at the scene claims at least one of the women could have been saved if the ambulance service had got there quicker.

I understand that the ambulance service were worried about the safety of their staff, but you would have thought that the surviving victims (and neighbours) could have confirmed (via phone) what the scene was like. Waiting over an hour for a police escort seems madness - one of the women reportedly bled to death while waiting.

Thoughts, opinions... or is this a too serious topic? (;))

Had the gunmen being escaping at 5 miles an hour over the speed limit the police would have been there in minutes.. guaranteed. That story is an absolute disgrace and typical.

Originally posted by Wavey
Had the gunmen being escaping at 5 miles an hour over the speed limit the police would have been there in minutes.. guaranteed. That story is an absolute disgrace and typical.

So...was it the fault of the Police, or were the Ambulance drivers being too cautious in deciding to wait for an escort?

Don't know.. why did it take an hour for police protection to be available? They always seem more than available for traffic duty. I was Just being controversial Abdul. The police are the first people I'd call if I was in bother, so I ought to shut my gob didn't I?

This country isn't equipped properly to deal with gun related crimes... makes you wonder how **** we'r gonna be if a terroist attack occurs.

Originally posted by J-Blaze
This country isn't equipped properly to deal with gun related crimes...

But didn't this all change after the Hungerford massacre? I thought that all Police authorities had to have Armed Response Vehicles on standby in case that ever happened again.

I think the recent shooting may have happened in a very rural area, hence it took the Police a long time to arrive. I'm not finding excuses for them, mind you.

Erm.. guys...

Just a thought but...

1. Anyone can play armchair quarterback after the event and all the information is there for all to see..

2. It's only common sense not to put another group of people into more danger...

It sounds terrible and you can bet that the ambulance crew(s) involved probably wanted to be in there a darned sight quicker but this is an over-emotive response based on a newspaper report designed to sell newspapers..

a police man who was there was just on the radio and said they were far too long being sent in.
He says that the superior in charge wouldn't make a decision despite the information that was available said the gunman had fled the scene.
At the point where permission was given the superior in charge of the paramedics refused to let them go in without more armed response.
Basically our blame culture means that its more important that the police/paramedic superiors don't 'shoulder the blame' than it is to save a woman who is bleeding to death.
In fairness to the policemen involved it sounds like they were prepared to go in.

Originally posted by Wavey
a police man who was there was just on the radio and said they were far too long being sent in.
He says that the superior in charge wouldn't make a decision despite the information that was available said the gunman had fled the scene.
At the point where permission was given the superior in charge of the paramedics refused to let them go in without more armed response.
Basically our blame culture means that its more important that the police/paramedic superiors don't 'shoulder the blame' than it is to save a woman who is bleeding to death.
In fairness to the policemen involved it sounds like they were prepared to go in.

In that case is it not relevant to ask if we should be attacking the "culture of blame" that you describe? If such a culture exists then it's logical for the superiors involved to attempt to escape any culpability for further casualties by refusing to let the officers under their command and the unarmed paramedics attend the scene until they are sure of their safety? As long as such a culture of blame exists the emergency services will be forced to make such judgement calls each time such a situation arises.

In an ideal world the police would act dicisvely to reach the scene of the crime, deal with the gunman and allow the paramedics to treat the wounded. But as things happen in the here and now the police have to consider just some of the following issues: What if an officer is shot and killed by the gunman? What if a paramedic is shot and killed by the gunman? What if more bystanders are shot and killed in crossfire between the officers and the gunman? What if they have to give chase and are involved in a motor vehicle accident? and so on.

In all cases a lenghty and expensive investigation follows and blame is apportioned...we have to curtail the culture of blame rather than pointing the finger every time it forces an unpalatable decision on a public servant charged with protecting the lives of the innocent.

Yes.. thats what I said at the end.. 'in fairness to the policemen involved it sounds...'

The first consideration is that the 'blame' for the incident is accountable. Sad but true. As Martin said, it's the knee jerk reaction usually stirred by the press.

The police man did say that the information they had to work on was that the gun man had gone though..

In that case one would think they'd have proceeded to the scene of the shooting...but I'm not a police officer, so that's my armchair opinion...for what it's worth.

Three women shot - did they die due to delay?

No they died from a surfeit of bullets IMO.