'We did not abandon Carshalton seagull rescue because of health and safety regulations' say London Fire Brigade

Wildlife worker Adam Briddock waded into the water to save the stricken seagull when firefighters did not

Wildlife worker Adam Briddock waded into the water to save the stricken seagull when firefighters did not

First published in Sutton Your Local Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , Assistant Editor

London Fire Brigade (LFB) has said 25 firefighters did not fail to rescue a drowning seagull from a 3ft deep pond because of health and safety concerns, despite stating: "We are not willing to put the lives of our firefighters at risk for the sake of a seagull."

The change of tack from the LFB follows a statement released by the Health and Safety Executive's new Myth Buster Challenge Panel, saying it did not consider the LFB based its decision not to enter Carshalton Ponds on Saturday to rescue a stricken bird on health and safety reasons.

Five fire crews were called to the ponds in Carshalton to assist in the rescue of an adult herring gull that was struggling to survive in the ponds after getting its foot caught in a plastic bag.

The firefighters did not wade in to carry out the rescue, nor a specialist water rescue team travel out to reach the bird.

They left before Riverside Animal Centre worker Adam Briddock arrived to wade in to the water to save the bird in the nick of time.

The LFB has since claimed the firefighters did not act because the bird was not in any distress, so did not require an emergency fire brigade rescue.

This was despite claims from the Riverside Animal Centre, and the RSPCA to the contrary.

Fire sources have said firefighters are often held back by strict protocols on how animal rescues and rescues in water should be handled.

A statement released on Wednesday by the LFB after the incident said: "We are not willing to put the lives of our firefighters at risk for the sake of a seagull. Our firefighters get called out to lots of different incidents and never know what they’re going to find when they get there.

"At any incident we need to make sure we have enough staff on hand in case something goes wrong and to ensure that our firefighters, and the public, are safe at all times."

A later LFB statement, released in the wake of a media storm over the incident, said: "The RSPCA called us out as an emergency. Our firefighters rushed to the scene only to realise they’d been called out to a seagull with a plastic bag round its leg which was swimming around quite happily and wasn’t in any distress.

"This clearly wasn’t an emergency so the firefighters left it to a local animal rescue charity to deal with and swiftly left the scene."

"Often, by the time our firefighters arrive at an incident, someone has waded in to try and rescue an animal only to get into danger themselves, so we send enough crews to deal with whatever we may find. The safety of the public and our firefighters is always our priority."

"Firefighters were not stopped from entering the water due to health and safety protocols. Just this week, LFB crews were called to rescue a man after the bulldozer he was driving fell 40 feet down into a quarry pit.

"When they realised the man’s life was at risk, the firefighters acted outside of normal procedures and risked their own personal safety to lift him out and save his life. London Fire Brigade’s firefighter are trained to make difficult judgement calls about when it is right to risk their lives in order to save another."

Their statement coincided with calls for the Health and Safety Executive's new Myth Busters Challenge Panel, a hotline launched this week to allow the public to ask if health and safety regulations were being wrongly imposed, to investigate the case. It was criticised for a delay in stating if health and safety protocol had been wrongly imposed.

A statement released yesterday by Judith Hackitt, the Chair of HSE, said: "We have now had chance to examine the facts in this case and it is clear that it was not about health and safety at all. The fire service itself has made clear that their decisions at Carlshalton were not based on health and safety factors. We endorse this view.

"The Myth Buster Challenge Panel has been set up to bring common sense back to decisions made in the name of health and safety, and to do our job properly we need to establish the facts. We will try our best to meet deadlines when we can but not at the expense of working on hearsay rather than facts. We said that we aim to make a response within 48 hours and it has taken us less than 24 hours to respond to this case."

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:14am Sat 14 Apr 12

Hove Ex-Pat says...

"Not willing to put firefighters lives at risk for a seagull". OK, so fair enough, but, why then knowing what the call was for did LFB commit FIVE APPLIANCES to the call? Also bearing in mind how many times trumpton must have attended calls to vehicles in that pond, they should have known one basic fact. It is only three feet deep!!!
"Not willing to put firefighters lives at risk for a seagull". OK, so fair enough, but, why then knowing what the call was for did LFB commit FIVE APPLIANCES to the call? Also bearing in mind how many times trumpton must have attended calls to vehicles in that pond, they should have known one basic fact. It is only three feet deep!!! Hove Ex-Pat
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

What nonsense the LFB now claiming it amounted to a false alarm despite advice to the contrary from the wildlife experts to the contrary. They are just looking for a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment at the wimpishness of their management. What is clearly needed is action to tear up these prescriptive top-down no leeway management protocols and replace it with common sense judgments with the exercise of descretion allowed from the rescue experts at the scene. Also buy a dinghy for each fire station near a pond or river or swimming pool and add water training. The LFB PR statement has just mudded the information pool further and turned something simple into something unfathomable. Keep up the fight for the return of common sense and exercise of humane judgement decisions on the ground and don't let them get away with this trash.
What nonsense the LFB now claiming it amounted to a false alarm despite advice to the contrary from the wildlife experts to the contrary. They are just looking for a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment at the wimpishness of their management. What is clearly needed is action to tear up these prescriptive top-down no leeway management protocols and replace it with common sense judgments with the exercise of descretion allowed from the rescue experts at the scene. Also buy a dinghy for each fire station near a pond or river or swimming pool and add water training. The LFB PR statement has just mudded the information pool further and turned something simple into something unfathomable. Keep up the fight for the return of common sense and exercise of humane judgement decisions on the ground and don't let them get away with this trash. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

LFB PR must think Joe Public is very Gullible.
LFB PR must think Joe Public is very Gullible. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Tubby Jim says...

my chin is feeling itchy
my chin is feeling itchy Tubby Jim
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

Tubby Jim wrote:
my chin is feeling itchy
Well call the LFB, they are needing to be brought up to scratch.
[quote][p][bold]Tubby Jim[/bold] wrote: my chin is feeling itchy[/p][/quote]Well call the LFB, they are needing to be brought up to scratch. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Crease2000 says...

Never a gull moment.
Never a gull moment. Crease2000
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

'We did not abandon Carshalton seagull rescue because of health and safety regulations' say London Fire Brigade". Only one thing to say about this LFB Pantomine "Oh, yes you did! Their latest gull reply is a red Herring type.
'We did not abandon Carshalton seagull rescue because of health and safety regulations' say London Fire Brigade". Only one thing to say about this LFB Pantomine "Oh, yes you did! Their latest gull reply is a red Herring type. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

9:10am Sun 15 Apr 12

Sutton53 says...

Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one.
Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one. Sutton53
  • Score: 0

9:17am Sun 15 Apr 12

Sutton53 says...

Maybe we should really be asking the RSPCA why they were not willing to wade into the pond to rescue this seagull....surely it is their remit. Are they only willing to rescue animals that are readily accessible?
Maybe we should really be asking the RSPCA why they were not willing to wade into the pond to rescue this seagull....surely it is their remit. Are they only willing to rescue animals that are readily accessible? Sutton53
  • Score: 0

9:47am Sun 15 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

Sutton53 wrote:
Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one.
that's an okay point of view if you can stand and watch a creature die that could be saved and if you are happy for untrained people more caring about our animal friends than you appear to be go into danger and come to harm themselves. Do you want children to grow up with the attitude animal welfare and suffering do not matter? It's well known that people who are callous to animals are also callous to children and vice-versa. As for keeping the capital safe from fires didn't LFB do a wonderful job saving Reeves corner. I watched it live on TV. Fire engines arrived, had a look, too risky, b******d off back to the comfort of the station. You may be happy to pay your LFB precept to a bunch of precious wimps - I am not.
[quote][p][bold]Sutton53[/bold] wrote: Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one.[/p][/quote]that's an okay point of view if you can stand and watch a creature die that could be saved and if you are happy for untrained people more caring about our animal friends than you appear to be go into danger and come to harm themselves. Do you want children to grow up with the attitude animal welfare and suffering do not matter? It's well known that people who are callous to animals are also callous to children and vice-versa. As for keeping the capital safe from fires didn't LFB do a wonderful job saving Reeves corner. I watched it live on TV. Fire engines arrived, had a look, too risky, b******d off back to the comfort of the station. You may be happy to pay your LFB precept to a bunch of precious wimps - I am not. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Sam1610 says...

Hove Ex-Pat wrote:
"Not willing to put firefighters lives at risk for a seagull". OK, so fair enough, but, why then knowing what the call was for did LFB commit FIVE APPLIANCES to the call? Also bearing in mind how many times trumpton must have attended calls to vehicles in that pond, they should have known one basic fact. It is only three feet deep!!!
Five appliances were called for the following reasons....... Despite the call initially only being an animal rescue, quite often by the time the fire service arrives the situation has escalated. I.e. one or more members of the public have attempted to rescue the animal only to find themselves now needing rescuing. So in anticipation of this occurring multiple appliances are sent straight away opposed to requesting more later on.
And for the record parts of that pond are much deeper than three feet. Any adult, let alone child could quite easily drown especially if they were wearing clothes and/or not used to swimming in freezing pools of water!!
[quote][p][bold]Hove Ex-Pat[/bold] wrote: "Not willing to put firefighters lives at risk for a seagull". OK, so fair enough, but, why then knowing what the call was for did LFB commit FIVE APPLIANCES to the call? Also bearing in mind how many times trumpton must have attended calls to vehicles in that pond, they should have known one basic fact. It is only three feet deep!!![/p][/quote]Five appliances were called for the following reasons....... Despite the call initially only being an animal rescue, quite often by the time the fire service arrives the situation has escalated. I.e. one or more members of the public have attempted to rescue the animal only to find themselves now needing rescuing. So in anticipation of this occurring multiple appliances are sent straight away opposed to requesting more later on. And for the record parts of that pond are much deeper than three feet. Any adult, let alone child could quite easily drown especially if they were wearing clothes and/or not used to swimming in freezing pools of water!! Sam1610
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Sam1610 says...

Michael Pantlin wrote:
Sutton53 wrote:
Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one.
that's an okay point of view if you can stand and watch a creature die that could be saved and if you are happy for untrained people more caring about our animal friends than you appear to be go into danger and come to harm themselves. Do you want children to grow up with the attitude animal welfare and suffering do not matter? It's well known that people who are callous to animals are also callous to children and vice-versa. As for keeping the capital safe from fires didn't LFB do a wonderful job saving Reeves corner. I watched it live on TV. Fire engines arrived, had a look, too risky, b******d off back to the comfort of the station. You may be happy to pay your LFB precept to a bunch of precious wimps - I am not.
Haha I love people like you that believe everything you read and make knee jerk reactions when the reality is.... you actually know nothing! Please don’t tell me that you were one of those irritating people that ran out and blocked up all the petrol forecourts a couple of weeks ago because one Tory idiot told you to do so!

Anyway the seagull was still swimming (not trapped) and had a very small empty plastic bag around its foot! Why are you so quick to believe the RSPCA and discredit what the fire service say? Are you telling me that every time you see a diseased ridden and malnourished pigeon in London you stop to feed it and rush it to the vets? So your argument about setting an example to the youth of tomorrow is quite laughable. It was hardly someone’s pet dog. I totally agree with you that the health and safety world we live in is ridiculous but this actually did have nothing to do with that.

As for Reeves corner , I don’t think you were watching very carefully. If the fire brigade just left then the fire would have spread and the whole street would have burned down? They realised that the building was beyond saving (and there was no life to save) and just prevented the fire from spreading. If you looked really closely you would have noticed that the tarmac on the OTHERSIDE of the road was bubbling due to the heat of the fire. Now firefighters protective clothing would have been useless in such conditions but as you aren’t “a wimp” I’m sure you would have managed to save the building all on your own!
[quote][p][bold]Michael Pantlin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sutton53[/bold] wrote: Lets all try and get some sense of proportion here. The LFB's stated aim is to "keep the capital safe from fires and responding to emergencies". Where in that aim does rescuing a seagull come.....is that your definition of an emergency. Many coastal towns regard seagulls as vermin and spend considerable sums trying to reduce numbers and here we are all getting worked up over the LFB's refusal (for whatever reason) not to rescue one.[/p][/quote]that's an okay point of view if you can stand and watch a creature die that could be saved and if you are happy for untrained people more caring about our animal friends than you appear to be go into danger and come to harm themselves. Do you want children to grow up with the attitude animal welfare and suffering do not matter? It's well known that people who are callous to animals are also callous to children and vice-versa. As for keeping the capital safe from fires didn't LFB do a wonderful job saving Reeves corner. I watched it live on TV. Fire engines arrived, had a look, too risky, b******d off back to the comfort of the station. You may be happy to pay your LFB precept to a bunch of precious wimps - I am not.[/p][/quote]Haha I love people like you that believe everything you read and make knee jerk reactions when the reality is.... you actually know nothing! Please don’t tell me that you were one of those irritating people that ran out and blocked up all the petrol forecourts a couple of weeks ago because one Tory idiot told you to do so! Anyway the seagull was still swimming (not trapped) and had a very small empty plastic bag around its foot! Why are you so quick to believe the RSPCA and discredit what the fire service say? Are you telling me that every time you see a diseased ridden and malnourished pigeon in London you stop to feed it and rush it to the vets? So your argument about setting an example to the youth of tomorrow is quite laughable. It was hardly someone’s pet dog. I totally agree with you that the health and safety world we live in is ridiculous but this actually did have nothing to do with that. As for Reeves corner , I don’t think you were watching very carefully. If the fire brigade just left then the fire would have spread and the whole street would have burned down? They realised that the building was beyond saving (and there was no life to save) and just prevented the fire from spreading. If you looked really closely you would have noticed that the tarmac on the OTHERSIDE of the road was bubbling due to the heat of the fire. Now firefighters protective clothing would have been useless in such conditions but as you aren’t “a wimp” I’m sure you would have managed to save the building all on your own! Sam1610
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

So you are saying that the LFB PR reading I did was lies when they said it was too risky for the fire heroes? No the reality is its the Elf N Safety extremists who are the jerks. Yes I always try to help animals in trouble if I can and have taken pigeons to the local Pigeon Rescue and got the help of a local animal welfare organisation to re-home a quail that was about to be killed by cats in my garden. As I have said this is not the only LFB failure they refused to come out to a kitten up a tree in the local park and brave young teenagers put themselves at risk with no support. At that time LFB were holding a jolly fundraiser at the nearby pub but management couldn't be arsed to send them.
You're left with the modern reality that the LFB and other brigades too have earned an image of being disaster voyeurs rather than rescuers, when they are not on strike that is.
So you are saying that the LFB PR reading I did was lies when they said it was too risky for the fire heroes? No the reality is its the Elf N Safety extremists who are the jerks. Yes I always try to help animals in trouble if I can and have taken pigeons to the local Pigeon Rescue and got the help of a local animal welfare organisation to re-home a quail that was about to be killed by cats in my garden. As I have said this is not the only LFB failure they refused to come out to a kitten up a tree in the local park and brave young teenagers put themselves at risk with no support. At that time LFB were holding a jolly fundraiser at the nearby pub but management couldn't be arsed to send them. You're left with the modern reality that the LFB and other brigades too have earned an image of being disaster voyeurs rather than rescuers, when they are not on strike that is. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Sun 15 Apr 12

mumto3 says...

The LFB do a fantastic job, i agree to send 5 appliances was not the best idea. To rescue a seagull should have been the responsibility of the RSPCA. However, I understand why they stayed at the scene. With the amount of cars that use that stretch of road it wouldnt have surprised me at all if someone had driven into the pond whilst rubber necking. Please remember the firefighters on scene were probably following orders from management.
The LFB do a fantastic job, i agree to send 5 appliances was not the best idea. To rescue a seagull should have been the responsibility of the RSPCA. However, I understand why they stayed at the scene. With the amount of cars that use that stretch of road it wouldnt have surprised me at all if someone had driven into the pond whilst rubber necking. Please remember the firefighters on scene were probably following orders from management. mumto3
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

mumto3 wrote:
The LFB do a fantastic job, i agree to send 5 appliances was not the best idea. To rescue a seagull should have been the responsibility of the RSPCA. However, I understand why they stayed at the scene. With the amount of cars that use that stretch of road it wouldnt have surprised me at all if someone had driven into the pond whilst rubber necking. Please remember the firefighters on scene were probably following orders from management.
Agree it's the management causing the trouble. Many firepeople on the ground would be brave given the chance - I've watched "London's Burning", next series to be called "London Receives a Risk Assessment". Look at the expensive kit the LFB's got compared to the RSPCA which is not supported by government funds and they do have the word Rescue in their title.
[quote][p][bold]mumto3[/bold] wrote: The LFB do a fantastic job, i agree to send 5 appliances was not the best idea. To rescue a seagull should have been the responsibility of the RSPCA. However, I understand why they stayed at the scene. With the amount of cars that use that stretch of road it wouldnt have surprised me at all if someone had driven into the pond whilst rubber necking. Please remember the firefighters on scene were probably following orders from management.[/p][/quote]Agree it's the management causing the trouble. Many firepeople on the ground would be brave given the chance - I've watched "London's Burning", next series to be called "London Receives a Risk Assessment". Look at the expensive kit the LFB's got compared to the RSPCA which is not supported by government funds and they do have the word Rescue in their title. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

11:02am Mon 16 Apr 12

chriswp says...

Micheal Pantlin is a Fire Service knocker.
Anything they do is wrong, in his view.
He is constantly telling all how to do their job, with no understanding of what that job is and how its performed.
What do you do? How well do you perform, perhaps you would like to tell us. So we can have a view on your actions and outcomes. Go on be brave.
Don't get drawn into his narrow world. He finds fault with all.
Micheal Pantlin is a Fire Service knocker. Anything they do is wrong, in his view. He is constantly telling all how to do their job, with no understanding of what that job is and how its performed. What do you do? How well do you perform, perhaps you would like to tell us. So we can have a view on your actions and outcomes. Go on be brave. Don't get drawn into his narrow world. He finds fault with all. chriswp
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Sam1610 says...

No Michael I think it would be harsh to call you a liar, I think ill informed is probably a better term. A fire station is not always, but often manned largely by fit young men who want nothing more than large scale dangerous incidents in order to satisfy their bravado and adrenaline requirements. They are most definitely not disaster voyeurs as I can tell you there is no better feeling than taking a risk and rescuing somebody’s life. This is a feeling felt by every fire-fighter I’ve ever met.

One thing we do agree on is that health and safety rules and regulations are a bit excessive especially for the nature of work fire-fighters do. However these are routinely exaggerated by the media.

Only last month we did a training exercise on the Thames where one of the guys was lobbed into the middle of the river and the rest of us were sent to rescue him. Now if we were allowed to do that in a freezing, fast flowing river for TRAINING why an earth do you think we wouldn’t be allowed to go into a small pond during a real incident?

The reason is that the seagull wasn’t in a life threatening situation and like it or not animals lives are based on their financial value. That is the capitalist world we live in I’m afraid. For example if a farmers cow/pig/sheep or whatever was stranded they would be more likely to go and rescue it opposed to a seagull that doesn’t belong to anyone and is, to be blunt, borderline vermin.

As for your second point when you dial 999 you aren’t connected to your local station. The manager doesn’t decide there or then whether or not to send his or her fire crews instead its all centralised in a London control centre. They are the ones that filter the calls and they are simply following orders from the people above. The decision to go or not to any incident has nothing to do whatsoever with the fire-fighters on the ground. So the fire-fighters having a jolly up at your local pub didn’t refuse to go….. The request was filtered out and they didn’t even receive the message in the first place.

You’re care for animals is admirable and I can see how you get upset when they are left to suffer however as in the case for 95% of society, animals like pigeons and seagulls etc are simply are the bottom of the priority pile.
No Michael I think it would be harsh to call you a liar, I think ill informed is probably a better term. A fire station is not always, but often manned largely by fit young men who want nothing more than large scale dangerous incidents in order to satisfy their bravado and adrenaline requirements. They are most definitely not disaster voyeurs as I can tell you there is no better feeling than taking a risk and rescuing somebody’s life. This is a feeling felt by every fire-fighter I’ve ever met. One thing we do agree on is that health and safety rules and regulations are a bit excessive especially for the nature of work fire-fighters do. However these are routinely exaggerated by the media. Only last month we did a training exercise on the Thames where one of the guys was lobbed into the middle of the river and the rest of us were sent to rescue him. Now if we were allowed to do that in a freezing, fast flowing river for TRAINING why an earth do you think we wouldn’t be allowed to go into a small pond during a real incident? The reason is that the seagull wasn’t in a life threatening situation and like it or not animals lives are based on their financial value. That is the capitalist world we live in I’m afraid. For example if a farmers cow/pig/sheep or whatever was stranded they would be more likely to go and rescue it opposed to a seagull that doesn’t belong to anyone and is, to be blunt, borderline vermin. As for your second point when you dial 999 you aren’t connected to your local station. The manager doesn’t decide there or then whether or not to send his or her fire crews instead its all centralised in a London control centre. They are the ones that filter the calls and they are simply following orders from the people above. The decision to go or not to any incident has nothing to do whatsoever with the fire-fighters on the ground. So the fire-fighters having a jolly up at your local pub didn’t refuse to go….. The request was filtered out and they didn’t even receive the message in the first place. You’re care for animals is admirable and I can see how you get upset when they are left to suffer however as in the case for 95% of society, animals like pigeons and seagulls etc are simply are the bottom of the priority pile. Sam1610
  • Score: 0

10:39am Tue 17 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

I applaud Adam Briddock for his bravery, skill and compassion in accomplishing a successful rescue. I'd like to see him get some sort of humane award recognition. I'm not a Herring Gull expert but I would imagine that if the attached plastic bag was no problem to him he would not have stood by while someone approached him with a net. Possibly Sam above has told the real reason: not H&S, not that the animal was in no danger, just the LFB management's view that
they are near pests and can be left to die. Result is as I do my little bit of charitable donations it will go to Riverside Animal Centre and not LFB managment benevolent.
I applaud Adam Briddock for his bravery, skill and compassion in accomplishing a successful rescue. I'd like to see him get some sort of humane award recognition. I'm not a Herring Gull expert but I would imagine that if the attached plastic bag was no problem to him he would not have stood by while someone approached him with a net. Possibly Sam above has told the real reason: not H&S, not that the animal was in no danger, just the LFB management's view that they are near pests and can be left to die. Result is as I do my little bit of charitable donations it will go to Riverside Animal Centre and not LFB managment benevolent. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

12:35am Fri 27 Apr 12

Michael Pantlin says...

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2135818/Mission-Impu
ssible-Daredevil-fir
emens-amazing-operat
ion-save-stranded-ca
t.html
That's the way to do it.
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2135818/Mission-Impu ssible-Daredevil-fir emens-amazing-operat ion-save-stranded-ca t.html That's the way to do it. Michael Pantlin
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree