|
|
Location: Southeast Essex | The whole problem is based on a developing culture of lack of responsibility.
Our current socialist government has taken so much responsibility and cash off the individual that they now look to the state for almost everything. That includes rescue from the hills, the sea as well as health and financial problems. Its called Socialism where everyone becomes dependant on society.
The problem with this wonderful idea is that everyone does look to blame the state for everything and they would be quite right to. So now when little Johnny gets his nose bitten by a wasp his parents will sue the arse off the authorities if the air ambulance doesn't turn up within five minutes to the Outer Hebrides just in case little Johnny is one in a million and gets epileptic shock and dies.
What should happen is that his parents should take more responsibility and make sure that Johnny doesn't go near or disturb the wasp nest in the garden shed and should call Rentokill themselves to have it dealt with 24/7. But if you live in a Council House society then you cant even do that because you don't own the house and its a Saturday so the housing authority workers don't work weekends.
It really is time to allow people more of their own earnings. Where everyone gains more freedom but also more control and responsibility for their own lives. That means that if one makes ones own decisions then one cant sue anyone else.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Tonbridge, Kent. 44m ASL | Of course, the litigious society started in the well known hotbed of socialism, the USA  |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire 167m ASL | I actually have to agree 100% with Village's sentiments. Maybe not about the word "socialism" and how its applied, but certainly with the idea that to give more responsibility to the state and legislation, means less taken by the individual. Everything is someone else's "fault". |
|
| |
|
Location: Tonbridge, Kent. 44m ASL | Duncan Railton - 12/11/2008 16:26 I actually have to agree 100% with Village's sentiments. Maybe not about the word "socialism" and how its applied, but certainly with the idea that to give more responsibility to the state and legislation, means less taken by the individual. Everything is someone else's "fault".
I disagree, it's simply down to good old fashioned individual greed (which got its biggest boost in the 80s and is not ), "how can I make some money out of this?" encouraged by lawyers who saw a golden opportunity to make stacks of money for old rope. Now everyone has to take extravagant steps against being sued and found liable for compensation awards and the legal costs. Just type in "compensation claim" into google - if we are becoming "risk averse" it's because exploitation of long existing legislature by the legal profession is making us so. |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: WNW London | The bottom line is that you can legislate all you like, but every day I meet people who have made poor judgement calls, thinking that they could do something that was beyond their abilities to complete, on that day, in those circumstances. Its human nature to make bad calls, you can do something a hundred times and get away with it, but 101 and you end up in the back of my van. You can make decisions for yourself, thats fine no matter how irresponsible, but when you make decisions for others you do have responsibility. I don't disagree that the challenge here is against the mountain environment and all its ecoutrements, challenging as it is. If clear warnings were given that the weather was really unsuitable then maybe the event should not have gone ahead, at the very least been posponed, as it was it was cancelled when things became clear how bad it was. Okay, no one was seriously hurt, but that is luck more than judgement.
But the more events like this end up in percieved disaster the more someone, somewhere will ask for legislation to cover such events. There have been a number of similar events ending up in similar circumstances, twice on Dartmoor in recent years springs to mind.
Regardless of whose responsiblity it really has been, we have seen school trips affected by such investigation and legislation to the point that they are so restricted that there is no fun in them anymore. If self regualtion is percieved not to work that is when the government feels obliged to step in.
Events like this should not be allowed to become mere shadows of themselves, governed by outside sources who know little of the true nature of it, but when they make bad calls such as this, it does little to champion thier cause. |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Coalville, NW Leics, UK, 161m amsl | scrapemedic - 12/11/2008 13:18
My take on this is this. When I ski I hope and have expectations that if I hurt myself, I do it in a way that is unlikely to put those who come to rescue me at risk. I may choose not to ski when the mountain is in thick cloud, or if it is only ski in areas where help is close to hand, on well marked and well populated pistes, not go off-piste into hard to access areas.
Perhaps they should be waiving their rights to be rescued where conditions might put emergency services at risk (bearing in mind the skill of mountain rescue teams etc to get out there in inclement conditions with negligible risk). That's what Stu does when on the sea front during a hurricane intercept. The point is, they should still be allowed to go regardless of the personal risk. Whether or not the emergency services take the risk to rescue someone should come down to their own decision and not duty... |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Coalville, NW Leics, UK, 161m amsl | scrapemedic - 12/11/2008 16:56
If clear warnings were given that the weather was really unsuitable then maybe the event should not have gone ahead, at the very least been posponed, as it was it was cancelled when things became clear how bad it was. Okay, no one was seriously hurt, but that is luck more than judgement.
As Andy has said, the weather wasn't unsuitable for the event as such... just the parking location was unsuitable for the weather. I think the competitors understood the risks and conditions, so went prepared for all but the flooding of the cars and that's why no-one was seriously hurt...  |
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | The way forward looks bleak IMO. The end result will be the way that the USA has gone where there is so many rules that one cant even step on the grass without given a ticket or arrested.
As BIG Dave stated in jest; "the litigious society started in the well known hotbed of socialism, the USA " The sad truth is that the threat of litigation is such a heavy burden in the USA now that it is very much like being under socialist state control where the police heavy handedly meter out the dictat with zero tolerance. If you don't believe it then try and open a bottle of budwiser on the beach on a hot summers day and see what happens! We are heading for a time when the authorities will one day shut almost all of the hills and mountains from the public and we will only be allowed to walk on publicly maintained and policed footpaths and not stray. I don't want that, but if the idiot thought police are allowed anymore control over us then this is what will happen. |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Coalville, NW Leics, UK, 161m amsl | Let's avoid this thread becoming a party political broadcast please... this is a weather forum... |
|
| |
|
Location: Southeast Essex | Its raining again in the hills!  |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: WNW London | "Whether or not the emergency services take the risk to rescue someone should come down to their own decision and not duty..."
Thats not really at issue, my concern is for the least able competitor. Its my personal decision not to put help at risk, but again thats not the issue.
Duty is a legal term which is usually quoted as "duty of care". Often that is not the motivation of majority of emergency service personnel, and often that descision is not an option. Duty of care legally speaking is classed as a point at which you, as the rescuer, have been identified as the person with the abilities to aid someone in need and have been asked for help, and at which if you refuse to render aid you could be considered negligent if the person requesting aid dies or suffers permanent harm. Most of my colleagues react instinctively to situations without even being asked, which is beyond duty.
The exception is this, don't become a victim, and though in the majority of cases no one would consider refusing help, if the situation was so teribble that to attempt a rescue would endanger the lives of rescuers then help might be witheld. That sounds harsh, but was recently highlighted in the news.
Again I reiterate that individuals decisions on thier own life is up to them, thats enshrined, but where the decision is made for many people it has to be made for the least able.
But heres the thing, we criticise those who ignore weather warnings and go out in snow and crash on the motorway, who get stuck is well forecast flooding etc. But when it comes to something we feel more akin to and affects our members, we defend their right to act in a way that endangers their lives. I think thats a curious stance. |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Coalville, NW Leics, UK, 161m amsl | I appreciate you're closer to this than most Liz, as you are in a position where you might have to take on some risk to help somebody, so I understand your position I think. I think if an event like this is scheduled to take place though and conditions look too dangerous for the rescue services to be on standby, the competitors should have the option of signing a waiver of some kind, to absolve the emergency services of any responsibility where they're unable to immediately treat someone that is injured... |
|
| |
|
Manager
Location: WNW London | A kind of living will maybe. I would suggest that it may not hold up in court. A living will for a terminally ill patient or as recently I had the experience of a directive not to treat sound good in the cool of a living room, but, as that recent case demonstrated, in the heat of the moment it usually goes right out the window whilst in the field. In hospital there is a clearer line of responsibility for ending or declining treatment. But as I suggested that is for terminal illnesses. For someone with a broken ankle on the hill, I doubt that it would be supported, and the chance of a relative, (as it ususally the relative who will make a complaint) suing the rescue services would be incredibly high. If a person decline rescue and died, and left a wife and two at home, you can bet your bottom dollar that she will make a complaint.
Whilst the complaint might not be upheld, during the time of the investigation, the responsible party in the rescue services has to be suspended from duty, investigated, and questioned, (which apparently is not a nice experience) and may suffer from the effects of having thier competance questioned. A process that could last up to a year! The consequences of such a decision is far more than an individuals right to roam.
But my concern is not the emergency services involvement really, its the corporate decision to allow the event to go ahead. |
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Coalville, NW Leics, UK, 161m amsl | This is what they do in the US when a hurricane hits Liz. They order a mandatory evacuation zone along the coastal strip. People still have the right to stay put, but emergency services have no duty to enter the evacuation zone until it is lifted. Effectively, anyone putting themselves in that zone is taking personal responsibility for their safety. This leaves people with their "rights", but doesn't endanger the emergency services...
I think it should be allowed to go ahead, so long as the individual is fully aware of the risk and takes personal responsibility for it, if the emergency services can't provide support when conditions get too severe.
|
|
| |
|
Executive
Location: Evesham, Worcs | Apart from the low level flooding which caused some problems after the event had been cancelled and which ought have been anticipated, why shouldn't it have gone ahead? Conditions on the hill were not that bad. Most competitors had a good time and were if anything puzzelled and disappointed that it was cancelled mid way through. Perhaps worth reminding ourselves what a Ukww member who took part in it had to say: http://yorkalpineclub.org.uk/blogs/?p=289 See also: http://yorkalpineclub.org.uk/blogs/?p=309 Much concern from family on return home following crazy reporting by media. I have written to the BBC to complain about their coverage. And I'm not sure now how many of the reported casualties were actually involved in the event? The Chairman of the Lake District Search and Mountain Rescue Association is on record as saying “Many of those we rescued were not involved in the OMM.” Notwithstanding which, an appeal to raise funds has been launched and so far nearly £8,000 has been raised  http://www.justgiving.com/theomm08-mrtdonation Based on first hand accounts it's quite clear that what happened and what was reported by the media were 2 very different things. Now, had the event involved lots of inexperienced youngsters it might have been a different matter. But I'd be the last to suggest that, say, the 10 Tors Competition gets banned just because there's frequently a need for MRTs to rescue competitors or those training for that event. |
|
| |
|
Moderator
Location: North Yorkshire Moors - 250metres ASL | Similar problems again in Wales?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8087297.stm |
|
| |
Floods strand hundreds of runners 25th Ocober
