Bonsai2745

We (EMS) call in MCIs via a METHANE mneomonic. Taking an extra 30 seconds to assess the situation and give quality information before you call 999/112/911 is probably beneficial.

Without delaying making the call too much, and without putting yourself at risk then as much of this information as possible is helpful:

M - Major incident declared / Major incident standby - you can't declare a major incident as a member of the public, but signposting right away to the calltaker that you're calling from a large mass casualty incident is important.

E - Exact location - as specific as possible.

T - Type of incident - briefly what has happened - road accident? Gas explosion?

H - Hazards - is stuff still on fire? A chemical truck leaking stuff? A bridge that looks unstable?

A - Access/Egress - again not too much detail is needed, but good to mention if specific access routes are blocked.

N - Number of casualties - if it's huge don't count them all up, an approximate number is possible. I'm not going to teach you to triage but if possible break that down roughly into about to die / not mobile but otherwise seem okay / walking wounded.

E - Emergency resources - anything currently on the scene, and for the professionals what additional resources are required.

So all together that could sound (from a member of the public) something like this: "I'm calling from a multi-vehicle collision on the M1 northbound around 1 mile north of J21. A lorry has collided with a car and overturned, and multiple cars have then collided with the debris. One of the cars is smoking badly. The northbound carriageway is completely blocked, the southbound has slow moving traffic, but no debris. A couple of people seem to be unconcious in their cars, 4-5 are awake and talking but not able to get out, there's then another 7-10 people out of their vehicles at the side of the road who seem to have cuts and scrapes. Another driver knows first aid and is looking at one of the sicker casualties, but there's no emergency services here yet"

In an ideal world get someone to make an initial call so they get some resources rolling while you take a minute or two to survey the scene and call with more detail. Do not put yourself at risk to do this. If you don't know something be honest - approximations are fine (but be clear when you are approximating vs know for sure).

Edit: Some spelling errors

I don't believe I inferred that exposing yourself to risk entitles you to more. Rather, I think that willingness to expose yourself to that level of risk must, in at least some cases, be symptomatic of the suffering and hardship you are attempting to escape. Given we are unable to know the details and motivations of every individual involved, I feel this serves as a useful barometer of the hardship they are fleeing. Don't you think that attempting to draw parallels between these migrants and those who enjoy extreme sports is perhaps a little crass?

Once again, in your second paragraph I feel you've grossly misrepresented my position. If be interested in what way you feel I stated that a government owes more to foreigners? Certainly I believe a government owes as much to every human when it comes to the provision of basic necessities to sustain life, and to protect an individual's human rights - regardless of their nationality.

I do feel it's unfair that someone has a higher quality of life than another - especially when one side of that comparison is suffering to a point they are willing to put their life at risk to escape it. Should you, should we, be obligated to see a reduction in our quality of life in order to at least partially redress this balance? Yes, I don't see how any other conclusion is morally defensible.

Again, you seem to have gone far beyond my words in attempting to infer I support a universal standard of living - merely a minimal one. Redistribution of wealth is necessary to achieve this (is this not what taxation does, but simply within one nation rather than outside it's borders? - this is already coerced with the weight of the law where necessary.)

in no point in my comments in this post have I refused the idea of granting asylum to those in legitimate need

Not directly, but I'd be interested in how returning refugees to a country they may have been fleeing without landing them at a safe port allows them to claim asylum effectively or safely?

Do you know the actual criteria for asylum?

Despite your thinly veiled sense of superiority, it turns out I do. Claiming asylum is an application to be recognised as a refugee - originally defined by the UN in 1951, but with that definition expanded and clarified by a number of resolutions since.

I'm trying to understand your motivation to keep these migrants out of Europe, I initially assumed that this was selfish, which was unfair (although I struggle to see another justification). Your defence of "not being directly responsible" however is laughable I'm afraid - if only those who directly caused suffering were morally obligated to act to alleviate it the world would be in a far worse situation than it is.

Can I think of ways in which we could improve the potential lifestyle of those who seek to migrate to Europe without then moving here? Sure, I can think of tens of ways - but I'll leave debating the practicality and the cost effectiveness to experts in that field.

What I do know is that all those solutions will require years, if not generations, of sustained work and investment to produce significant yields on the population level. We have a crisis right now, and letting Rome burn whilst we fiddle is not a solution. We need to invest in long term solutions, but turning people around and sending them back home does not deal with the threat to life happening today.

Edit: moved this to comment directly on the question.

/u/rightoutside5

Where in this battle of legal and technical jargon (which, incidentally, you're getting spectacularly trounced in) did you lose sight of the moral issue here?

If someone is prepared to risk their life to flee whatever horrors they faced back home, why do you feel European governments have the right to return them to North African counties (in many cases not their home country) without so much as an opportunity to claim asylum?

What makes you think that your right to a comfortable, luxury-laden existence is more important than their right not to suffer or die?

What would you do if you were in their situation?