SA Firefighter
General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: Sternzee on December 19, 2007, 07:19:35 AM
-
Hi all,
woke up to the news that we are now all going to get sued if mother nature decides to have a bad day, can any one who's closer to the top confirm if this is accurate and if so whats every ones thoughts??
my thought is that there wont be a volunteer fire brigade very long if this is allowed to go through its rather hard all ready to recruit vollies cant see adding you might get sued to the recruitment drive helping out any,
i think that this would be mightily unfair to the local brigades who wouldve no doubt been trying their hardest under the most trying conditions to protect as many assets as they could,
as for the local farmers and such who lost property its been drummed in our heads to be prepared YOURSELF for a bushfire as there will NOT be a truck at every house shed etc. and there is plenty of evidence that a well prepared farm, house, shed or even caravan can be saved very easily with a little planning.
over all perhaps they would like to see how the next one goes with only farm units.
*my oppinion only*
-
Where did you hear this ? Was it just a hook line from a news service or was there any flesh to story? As volunteers we are pretty well protected by the "good samaratin" act!
-
Yes it was a news story however it made reference to volunteers as well as calls from locals for Euan Ferguson to step down I have no back story on this other than what ive read of the coronial report and what the friendly news people said.
(hence the reason i asked for any one closer to the top of the chain to confirm it or not)
however i still think that it would be a slap in the face if the CFS in general was sued because it still reflects that the local brigades were negligent in some way and that is what got my attention.
-
I heard on 891 that there was going to be action taken against CFS and the guy who's car started it all
-
Action against the CFS pretty much goes straight to the government, so its Rann/Foley/Zollo
-
It is true at this stage...it still has to be lodged and apparently by 10th January.
There is supposed to be 30 families involved (some are CFS members) and the lawsuit is also against Mr Visic who started the fire.
They are apparently, looking for 10-20million dollars.
It will impact on some of us who have already spent time in the coronial court....
it's not over yet..
-
Where did you hear this ? Was it just a hook line from a news service or was there any flesh to story? As volunteers we are pretty well protected by the "good samaratin" act!
The CFS can & will be be sued.
According to the VFBA, volunteers can also be named as respondents & have to prove that their alleged negligence was not gross enough to lose the protection of sect.127 the FES Act. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/faesa2005249/s127.html
Vols can also be called (subpoenaed?) as witnesses.
Plenty of opportunity for vindictive people to perpetuate the grief for those vols & staff unfortunate enough to have been involved. :-( :x
AJ
-
I would not take it to heart what the media are saying at the moment...
-
After reading the summarised report and then listening to the news, it not hard for the media to put a very twisted veiwpoint on it all.
Don't think the report was as bad as it could have been, but i'm not an expert (at least i hope not :-D).
-
For those of us over here at the cold face....we agree that the coroner's report was quite fair and balanced....not what the media are portraying by any means....nothing new...we have learnt that the media have no morals or care for the further trauma or pain they inflict on volunteers...
I did enjoy Euan's radio interview this morning...finally we are having an opportunity to fight back and defend ourselves....it's only taken nearly 3 years
-
According to the VFBA, volunteers can also be named as respondents & have to prove that their alleged negligence was not gross enough to lose the protection of sect.127 the FES Act. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/faesa2005249/s127.html
Vols can also be called (subpoenaed?) as witnesses.
Once again, the SAVFBA goes into bat for its members. :roll:
-
Isnt it about time we made the media crews respond to large fires as fire fighters so they can see how dangerous our job truly is :-)
-
???
-
....only to make more coronials occur. :|
-
Coronials or coronaries :-P :lol:
-
Obviously Robert34 you have never experienced the media on the fireground...they are always the ones in the wrong place, won't do as they are told and of as much value as .....
they are an unusual breed who get enjoyment from twisting the truth and sensationalising everything...
that's why they say "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!"
-
The media have a job to do and all though we may not agree with their slant on things its called free speech. They can be useful too you know, part of the problem is we don't talk to them enough to get a balanced view point & they need to fill papers or air time.
Example last night at Pinnaroo, they were there in force & they clashed with one of the householders, however a sensible discussion around rules with the media crew & an offer of an official interview calmed the situation.
I agree they are a pain and they will report anything. Remember too the members of your service expressed certain views to the media, so if you air your dirty laundry in public they will pick up on it. And don't get me started on Lawyers :-D
cheers
-
I have to agree with Robert on his point of the media being a good tool!
whilst working in Regional SA and being the local media Liason- I found the best way to deal with the media was to get them close and accessible! we both had an open door policy, and we clashed a fair bit too, but generally we were all happy.
The print media were so innaccurate that I offered to write the articles for them - and they printed them verbatim - and hey PRESTO! -> no more innaccurate reporting! Some may argue it was the wrong way to go about it, but hey....what was I going to do with all my downtime!?? :mrgreen:
-
Would be nice if the local media where dressed in PPE and not wearing high heels around a burnt out padock,better still it would be nice if they asked to come onto the fireground rather than just rock up to private farm and do what they like....
-
The media do have guidelines (rules?) they are meant to abide by, when on the fireground - they have to have a current media pass, issued by CFS, which indicates they have undertaken the CFS training, and are required to wear the appropriate PPE....
However, if there are no roadblocks in place, and they are on public property / road, it can make it difficult to police these sorts of guidelines....
I think there are some more formal things as well, but I am not that familiar with those...anyone else got the specifics?
Pip
-
Pip is correct, the media must do a CFS training session every two years to be allowed access to the fireground, they are issued an ID pass to identify that their training is current. This year the training was undertaken by Heidi from Public Affairs and consisted of a good overview of the CFS as well as a solid session on fire behaviour and Air Ops, it gave you a good idea on where to put yourself to minimize the risks.
Anyone entering the fireground must be wearing their full PPE which is generally two piece Proban, boots and a rural helmet. If they are not wearing their gear then they should not be allowed access.
The problems arise when SAPOL block a road, the media arrive and are generally denied access. The area may be safe but because most police officers in patrols don't know about the CFS SOP's regarding media access and they will not let them through. This then creates angst among the media and results in them trying to find other (generally less safe) ways to access the incident.
The major television stations will generally send a helicopter to any decent rural jobs, this assists in getting past any roadblocks and also allows for good vision of the fire.
The media should not always be seen as the enemy, remember that without them no one would know what we do or how we do it, they also are the ones that get the information about ongoing incidents out to the public.
I know that sometimes it seems like they are out to screw you but try to work with them, if you have a local newspaper nearby try and build up a relationship with a reporter. Maybe invite them to a training night or any special events so they can see what you do and possibly do a positive story on your brigade.
If you can be pro-active now it will assist you in the future.
-
To the post that started this topic, you will not have to worry about being sued if you do your job and don't take shortcuts, always write stuff done and if you think the incident is above your capabilities or you are unsure then hand it to paid staff who are paid to take that responsibility...
-
Well said to Mattb & Bigbronto - thats exactly right, no more needs to be said.
And if all else fails the officer on the scene use the powers within the act to remove the media. As for the report, it should be seen as a learning experience. And as Big bronto said if its beyond your experience or its too big get paid officers to lead after all thats what they are payed for! cheers
-
The report into the black Tuesday fire was not as bad as what some people made it out to be,I sent a copy onto some CFA friends and they all agree that the media made everything bigger. I think it should be said that those Volunteers who took the stand and who where grilled for a long time in the box should be comended(spelling) for what they said and did while in the box.The VFBA who where there to provide support to volunteers did a great job,We can all learn from this and as we all know CFS have done some things that are in the report. What ever happens now is up to those that seek some compersation for their loss of life and income,if we keep supporting each other we will all come through this. I know for some members its been very hard and many have looked at leaving the service,to them I say don't go,if you go then they have won and we have yet again lost members who we all know are hard to get back if they go. We are human and we are only as good as the training and support we get from above.....
-
The media should not always be seen as the enemy
they have really bright lights on the cameras too which can be very useful on a dark night (beats the little CFS clip on torches!).
-
The media should not always be seen as the enemy
they have really bright lights on the cameras too which can be very useful on a dark night (beats the little CFS clip on torches!).
...and can be 'pain in the a...' when your eyes have adjusted to the night...then the camera floodlight switches on for a one minute filming....lost night vision for the next 10 minutes plus.
-
I have utilised the media spot lights on numerous occasions, to help light up my work area.... very helpful - I get my work area lit up, they get their footage / images!
Making contact with your local media, and providing them with appropriate & factual information / images (while adhering to CFS Sop's) can go a long way to promoting CFS in a good light, and presenting factual info, not ending up with quotes from the local "womble" about what was supposed to have happened.
I think we have to remember that the media should not be our enemies (although that can be difficult to deal with, when you are on the receiving end of undeserved bad publicity / poor reporting - as we have seen in relation to the some of the info from the Wangary Inquest)
Pip
-
Sure we need to work with the media but at the same time the media need to work with us....Correct PPE and fireground training......
-
what's this got to do with "CFS facing lawsuit over black tuesday" ??
the media are going to turn up at any incident they feel like, and unless you help them out, they will put there own spin on the job.
re; black tuesday/coronial media coverage, of course the media are going to put there own spin on it and only publish the negatives... everyone loves to fling dirt at government organisations. i wouldnt listen to a word of it really.
-
MEDIA=
Malicious
Editorials
Damaging
Interests of
Affected Volunteers
-
MEDIA=
Malicious
Editorials
Damaging
Interests of
Affected Volunteers
Sounds like SA Firey watches cartoons like Kids Next Door and so on to think up that meaning for the Media :lol:
-
MEDIA=
Malicious
Editorials
Damaging
Interests of
Affected Volunteers
Sounds like SA Firey watches cartoons like Kids Next Door and so on to think up that meaning for the Media :lol:
:roll:
-
It would be good for all if this was settled before it went back to court I am sure that those who where in the box's dont want to go over what was said or done again....
-
It would be good for all if this was settled before it went back to court I am sure that those who where in the box's dont want to go over what was said or done again....
If they can settle out of court without handing over $$, maybe.
If settling out-of-court means handing over money, then I think it's a bad idea.
All that will do is open the flood-gates for everybody who has ever had a fire damage their property to demand, and expect, compensation from the CFS for failure to contain it. May as well set up a automatic teller in Waymouth St...
It also establishes a legal precedent that if a fire gets away from us, we are automatically to blame. A a mate bleakly pointed out after a fatal MVA, we did NOT cause the idiot to crash into the tree, nor light the fire. We just tried to help out afterwards to reduce the consequences of the original mishap. Sometimes there just isn't a happy ending.
As hard as it will be for everybody who has already been dragged through the mill, I think the CFS has to fight it, and support their volunteers through it. One good thing - a court of law has rules of evidence & rules about how witnesses are treated. The free-for-all-rip-them-to-pieces of the coroner's court isn't allowed.
cheers
AJ
-
Right on but remember its not like criminal court either.
As government organisations we can't be above the law, however in saying that the unique nature of our business needs to be taken into account when we are within the court system i.e OHS&W prosecutions, criminal matters, civil proceedings.
Hopefully the revised legislation will prevent the publically aired naming of individuals & the public witch hunt that occurred. E.g if I have to attend court on a matter relating to Emergency Service work, then I should not be named in the media until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that I a) acted outside of established procedures & b) was criminally negligent - grounds for punishment under the F&ES act. If that is not proven then why should I be named?
Finally this episode proves two things 1) ESO managers at all levels need to manage, if they don't have the skills then they need to be trained. If they do have the skills but still can't manage then new managers need to be found.
2) Society is changing, we are blaming the media in this instance for the problems(and yet in another topic want to use them to highlight issues) when in fact they were handed the silver bullets by some of the individuals involved. The days are long gone when a bunch of blokes could jump on the back of an old Bedford (or Holden Ute), race out to a fire/rescue, do what they think is their best and go home job done. Even though the public don't seem to care, they scrutinise everything we do! This is something we have to get used to, its called cover thy a***.
cheers
-
Right on but remember its not like criminal court either.
As government organisations we can't be above the law, however in saying that the unique nature of our business needs to be taken into account when we are within the court system i.e OHS&W prosecutions, criminal matters, civil proceedings.
Strangest coincidence. NYE party I attended was introduced to a chap who is a crown solicitor, has been involved in the Wangary case. He said at this stage, the state will be contesting this suit, pretty much for reasons I stated earlier. They are hoping to reduce the exposure & demands on volunteers involved as much as possible. Material from inquest -may- be enough to avoid calling some individuals as witnesses. Depends on how rough the plainiffs' lawyers want to play...
cheers
-
Understand from somone in the know it will take up to 5 years in court to sort it all out.....
-
From someone who spent 7 days in the witness box, I agree with what you are all saying....we don't wish to be dragged back again BUT we also will not agree to any settlement out of court and are willing to fight to the end....
and we expect that it will take many years to resolve...by then, most of us will only have vague memories of what happened.
I have heard from a very reliable source that NOTHING from the coroner's court is taken into consideration for the class action....be interested to know who you were talking to at the NYE party chook...
Unfortunately, we are also breaking new ground as no other fire service has been here before....even the Canberra fire class action were waiting on our findings..
-
Wasn't me at the NYE party - try Stopcall King.
cheers
-
I have heard from a very reliable source that NOTHING from the coroner's court is taken into consideration for the class action....be interested to know who you were talking to at the NYE party chook...
Unfortunately, we are also breaking new ground as no other fire service has been here before....even the Canberra fire class action were waiting on our findings..
'Twas me, not chook.
Bloke I was talking to was short, mid-40's, light brown hair. Can't remember the name. Comment was in context that they'd be looking at what would be admissable in a class action, & hoping to use sworn statements from the inquest, particularly stuff that was queried & tested under the Inquest's broader rules of evidence/inquiry & found to be accurate & sound. Note that he (& I) used the word "MAY" (with emphasis) not 'will' or 'can'. Sounds like there might be a fair bit of (expensive) legal argument about The Rools before the slanging match proper begins...
7 days in the witness box at the inquest, eh. That sucks, big time. Only ever been to one inquest a long time ago when I was in SES. The various lawyers lined up to take shots at my Unit Controller, tried to put words in his mouth, made suggestions / accusations / etc about what he was doing & thinking. Came away thinking that 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean might be a good start, but unsatisfying unless they were all breathing when chucked in.
cheers
-
Spent a day locked in a room of with 100 lawyers at a conference. Came away feeling very dirty :-D& with the realisation that out of the 100 only 2 were passionate about the subject in hand the rest were just happy to have a good old argument :wink:.
Mind you I think some on this forum would make very good lawyers (including myself? :roll:)
Remember though some of our current protections were the results of the laws of the time being tested by lawyers & the burden of proof is different in civil proceedings.
cheers
-
I had 11 lawyers lined up against me and they did all of what you have previously witnessed....even yelling, pointing, trying to put words in our mouths and scrutinising everything we did....the whole process was very destructive and NOTHING good came from it...
and they are a bunch of unscrupulous (want to use the word pigs but will use)people who treat it as a game....one minute in court they are at each other and you, then they are down the cafe having a coffee together and laughing and slapping each other on the back....they are only in it for the money and kudos...
-
Worked for a medium size law firm in Adelaide for three years....some partners are very good & some do not care....but their job is to support/protect their individual client, using whatever they can within the rules of the court.
Like the other forum discussion on media people, I would suggest don't judge all people in the profession the same.
-
...but their job is to support/protect their individual client, using whatever they can within the rules of the court.
And that covers it in a nutshell. Everyone else is expendable, if doing so paints their client in a better light.
Interesting point about an employer assuming vicarious liability came out of a confrence my wife attended in the nursing game. In a medical context, an employer's liability insurer's lawyer is there to protect their client (the employer) to reduce the insurer's expenses. Unless the policy has specific indemnity clauses including employees, the employee is not actually covered. The insurer can only be relied upon to protect the employee to the extent that doing so benefits the insurer.
Anyone with more legal knowledge or hands-on experience than I care to comment about how it has worked with CFS assuming vicarious liability for volunteers as per the Act? For example, did the CFS lawyers at the Wangary Inquest work to show that the people on the spot did their best within their experience & knowledge (i.e. were not personally negligent), and given the thin resources available ? Or did they appear to be working to white-wash the CFS organisation, potentially at the expense of individuals ?
cheers
-
Many of us had individual lawyers to help protect us...and they were working in partnership with the Crown...
Most of the volunteers came out of it quite well in the Coroner's report....only a couple were criticised....But that's not to say that they were pr oven to be negligent.
From my experience, what we perceive can be very different from their views.
The laws of the Civil court are very different from the coroner's....hence why there is only a MAYBE that evidence provided in the coroner's will be admissible in the Civil action.
The only winners are the lawyers who line their pockets...and a long way to the finish line
and the comment re protecting your client is true and can be at all costs of others...we tried hard to not criticise other volunteers and their efforts - someones almost at our own expense.
-
Many of us had individual lawyers to help protect us...and they were working in partnership with the Crown...
Supplied by CFS? SAVFA? or at own expense?