The age/experience debate - it is most definitely something I do NOT subscribe to. There are some old folk who don't have an ounce of experience of the "real world" upon which to draw. There are massess of older folk who do NOT learn from their experiences and there are a good deal of younge, even VERY young people wise beyond their yeas, who have experienced much and LEARNED from those expeirences. Now I am not going to get involved in the individual merits of this particular case - I just want to dicuss the AGE/EXPERIENCE issue.
This is an issue that receives a lot of attention and provokes a lot of heated debate within the fire service - should new recruits with only a few months service be wearing breathing apparatus/going to persons reported house or flat fires? Their personal duties will be to a) ensure their own safety and the safety of their partner b) recognise the signs and symptoms of flashover, backdraught, building collapse etc and c) search for and rescue persons in that fire... do young, inexperienced firefighters have "the necessary" to do that???? Now, as I say - it provokes a great deal of heated debate. My own take on it is YES and NO. It is far from a black & white criteria!
I have partnered some guys with 20 years service who may have experienced much but in actual fact they repeatedly make the same mistakes and/or haven't learned a thing from their expeirences.
I've also worked with guys who have 20 years service - most if not all of it at quiet stations and thier personal experience doesn't match that of a 2 year probationer at a busy station.
We recently received a brand new probationer who performed FAR AND ABOVE any expectations I, or anybody, could reasonably had of him - at ALL incidents. The type of guy you only had to tell once - the type of guy that could work on his own intiative despite not having worked in a similar field or role ever before. And he is not alone - I've worked with folk like him on many ocassions...
And many a time we have had folk detache din from quiet stations with years upon years under their belt - but were those years "experience" or just time served?
And we've had new recruits pushing 30 who have worked in industry etc - sometimes in responsible, practical, leadership postions - but they haven't had a clue.
Age and experience is NOT the be all and end all by any means.
I often think back to something called the "Safe As Houses" report... a report commissioned by the governement in the mid '90s... it formed the blueprint for the reforms (BAD REFORMS) that are currently happening in the service. After reading a few pages of this report I looked at the team that had compiled it and i realised why it was (in my opinion, I hasten to add) UTTER GARBAGE! It had been compiled by Lord this and Lord That - the chief exectutive of a huge supermarket chain etc... PEOPLE OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REAL WORLD. And these people were "telling it how it is", saying "this is what our communities need from a fire service".... I discussed these findings with my drinking mates - who range in age from under 18 through to 70+ - and not ONE COULD AGREE WITH THEIR FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS!
Real world experience counts for a great deal. The further up the chain you get, the older you get the MORE OUT OF TOUCH YOU GET, The more you draw your experience from THE MEDIA.
Young people are oftne the most streetwise, most in touch with the real world, most IDEALSITIC and less tainted by corruption and greed etc.
As i sad, i don't really want to be drawn on the individual case - but on the whole I have nothing against a 19year old becoming a magistrate. If you're good enough, you're old enough - it's more about the selection process than age!