PFD report

Summer Leigh Robertson and Alice Rebecca Barnett · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jun 2015•Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Ever-present rip-current danger along coastal stretches
    Part of recurring concern: Uncontrolled dangerous currents affecting swimmers
  2. Failure to warn people entering the water of rip-current presence or possibility
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locationsPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled dangerous currents affecting swimmers
  3. Uncertainty about the minimum life-saving escape action for rip currents
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Ever-present rip-current danger along coastal stretches

Wider context from the report

“(4) In essence there is an ever present danger or risk of rip currents along this stretch of coast (and other parts in the world) and local knowledge was essential in order to identify those risks. The risk could be to a whole stretch of beach, yet at different places and at different times, pose greater or lesser risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Uncontrolled dangerous currents affecting swimmers.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to warn people entering the water of rip-current presence or possibility

Wider context from the report

“(6) Anyone entering the water should be warned or made aware of the presence or possible presence of a rip current by whatever means are reasonable and appropriate for the location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations; Uncontrolled dangerous currents affecting swimmers.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Uncertainty about the minimum life-saving escape action for rip currents

Wider context from the report

“(9) It was not clear how best someone should seek to escape from a rip current if caught in one. If there is a minimum course of action which is likely to save life it should be ascertained and incorporated within any warnings as to rip currents as appropriate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of specific rip-current risk assessment before water entry

Wider context from the report

“(2) Lattitude was similarly unaware of the presence and risk of a rip current. Whilst there was a generic risk assessment of swimming there was no specific risk assessment as to rip currents and that they could pose a danger to anyone entering the water, whether wading or swimming. (3) Expert evidence given at the inquests indicated that the area of the coast where these tragedies occurred was, by virtue of their characteristics, likely to be subject to rip currents. The expert, ████████ of Plymouth University, provided written and oral evidence to the inquests and his report should be referred to in full. (4) In essence there is an ever present danger or risk of rip currents along this stretch of coast (and other parts in the world) and local knowledge was essential in order to identify those risks. The risk could be to a whole stretch of beach, yet at different places and at different times, pose greater or lesser risk. (5) In addition to local knowledge advice from the local or the nearest NSRI station should be sought. It was information which would be readily available on the NSRI website. (6) Anyone entering the water should be warned or made aware of the presence or possible presence of a rip current by whatever means are reasonable and appropriate for the location. (7) Similarly anyone with responsibility for those entering the water should first ascertain whether there is such a risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.