Yes to no-go homes

News over the weekend on the BBC that the ambulance service now have a "risk list" of 8500 homes, which paramendics won't attend calls to without police support.

Violence against the emergency services is nothing new (our feature in the magazine recently had some awful stories from fire services of officers being lured on false alarms into buildings that were booby trapped with razor blades embedded in the bannisters, see here if you are an HSW subscriber) and a lot of services have operated informal systems of logging premises where there has been trouble in the past.

This database is just more systematic, but inevitable really. And while the people who object are right that the records have to be up to date or the emergency services could lose vital time staying away from places where there is no threat, the argument that they need to protect themselves is also strong.

This is one of the things that the Conservatives don't really seem to have taken on board when they talk about changing the law so the police don't have to prioritise their own safety on active duty (this came up in David Cameron's and shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve's speeches at the recent Tory conference).

It's all very well saying the police should be able to pitch in regardless, but the head of safety at a north of England force told me the reason they forbid officers from wading in to save drowning swimmers at the seaside is that a common outcome is that both parties drown, or at least both need rescuing.

And when staff from the ambulance serivice or police or fire services are needlessly injured, they won't be on duty when they are really needed to help others in trouble.