PFD report

Kai Lambe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Oct 2014•Staffordshire South

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to dispatch Derbyshire officers immediately in urgent situations occurring on or close to the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to dispatch emergency responders promptly to serious incidentsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand
  2. Extreme risk associated with travelling along the weir and descending the salmon chute
  3. Insufficient warning signage at the weir and salmon chute
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations
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

Failure to dispatch Derbyshire officers immediately in urgent situations occurring on or close to the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border

Wider context from the report

“At the inquest I heard helpful evidence from Inspector ████████ from your force. The incident which led to death took place in the River Dove which borders Staffordshire and Derbyshire. Because of local masts the initial 999 call went to Derbyshire. Derbyshire determined that the incident was in Staffordshire (emulating from the Staffordshire side of the River) and transferred the emergency call to Staffordshire. Staffordshire Officers then responded. Inspector Abbot indicated that this was in accordance with protocol although protocol does not necessarily have to be followed. There was a difference of 5 minutes between the time that the call was received by Derbyshire and the Staffordshire log commencing. In a case of a drowning child, 5 minutes can be very significant. I wonder if there is a training need for control room operators in Derbyshire to be aware to dispatch immediately Derbyshire Officers in urgent situations occurring on or close to the border between the 2 counties. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to dispatch emergency responders promptly to serious incidents; Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand.

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

Extreme risk associated with travelling along the weir and descending the salmon chute

Wider context from the report

“At the inquest I was told that children have played at this location for many years. Is does however appear that travelling along the weir and going down the salmon chute is extremely risky. I believe that you have some responsibility for the site and that there is one small warning sign. Although you may already be aware of the circumstances of this tragic death and are taking action I write to you know to ask you to consider if safety measures including signage at the scene should be improved. If you feel that this is not your responsibility could you please let me know who is responsible for the location? ”

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

Insufficient warning signage at the weir and salmon chute

Wider context from the report

“At the inquest I was told that children have played at this location for many years. Is does however appear that travelling along the weir and going down the salmon chute is extremely risky. I believe that you have some responsibility for the site and that there is one small warning sign. Although you may already be aware of the circumstances of this tragic death and are taking action I write to you know to ask you to consider if safety measures including signage at the scene should be improved. If you feel that this is not your responsibility could you please let me know who is responsible for the location? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations.

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026