Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Piebob - a different slant on the argument, but well said. I agree. :good: I have worked on worst case scenario for more years than I care to recall. It has served me well. The severity of an instance far outweighs the likelihood. Edited May 14, 2011 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Gordon, what precautions have you taken to mitigate the risk of an aircraft crashing on to your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Diceman - I have painted my roof in very bright orange, so that pilots may avoid it. I have taken out adverts warning pilots against crashing in to my house. I have taken out an insurance policy in the event of my being asked cretinous questions. Sorry - have to go now and speak to my insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Sarakun Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Diceman - I have painted my roof in very bright orange, so that pilots may avoid it. I have taken out adverts warning pilots against crashing in to my house. I have taken out an insurance policy in the event of my being asked cretinous questions. Sorry - have to go now and speak to my insurance company. Painted it orange? Oh no, the yanks will bomb it then, for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 So, none then. I'm sorry you thought that the question was cretinous. I suppose you mean "who in their right minds would take such precautions against such an unlikely event?" I guess "We do not base our decisions on the most extreme situation that could occur, we base it on what's likely to occur" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Nice one Jim - I hadn't considered that. Must dash - back to the insurance company to extend my cover. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Diceman - you are beginning to sound like a character from Kung Fu. Seriously, I think the chances of a child being harmed, injured in a fire or abducted are slightly more than a plane crashing on my house. I do think the question was cretinous - reason - it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Seriously, I think the chances of a child being harmed, injured in a fire or abducted are slightly more than a plane crashing on my house. What happened to "The severity of an instance far outweighs the likelihood"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Diceman - you really need to grow up. You are in danger of appearing to be a complete plonker. I expect a less than witty retort. I really don't know or care who you think you are trying to entrap with your pathetic attempt at logic, but it is embarrassingly poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Gordon, I was merely trying to demonstrate the absurdity of your statement. Your abusive responses are not doing much to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Hint for Diceman. When considering mitigations, cost comes into it. So, McCanns case - cost = babysitter = a few quid, to already wealthy people, to mitigate against something extremely severe, but unlikely(kidnapped child). Low cost, so might as well do it. Your place crash scenrio would require a cost too high, even for something as severe as a plane crashing into your house. So, don't do it. Risk analysis is fairly simple stuff. There are a few who don't seem to get it? Or are they just choosing poor examples? I don't know. Why do you think planes, as much as possible anyway, fly over water and open countryside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Diceman - my posts are not abusive. They are merely a response to a pathetic attempt to score cheap points, when a child is missing. I think that is fairly low. I will put this in terms a simpleton can understand. I cannot prevent a plane from crashing in to my house. However, I can avoid my children being left alone by merely being there with them. It is called responsible parenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Piebob, I don't disagree with any of that. I was pointing out that Gordon's blanket "worst case scenario" attitude was a little impractical. We (as individuals as well as airlines and other businesses) all take risks, all the time, and rightly or wrongly we make a judgement based on likelihood, severity, cost, practicality and any number of other things. Yes of course the aeroplane example was extreme, but I had hoped to provoke a discussion rather than an argument. And if Gordon thinks that using words like cretinous, plonker, pathetic, embarassing and simpleton are not abusive then I suspect he gets into a fair few pub fights. Or does he mitigate the risk by only using them on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 Piebob, I don't disagree with any of that. I was pointing out that Gordon's blanket "worst case scenario" attitude was a little impractical. We (as individuals as well as airlines and other businesses) all take risks, all the time, and rightly or wrongly we make a judgement based on likelihood, severity, cost, practicality and any number of other things. Yes of course the aeroplane example was extreme, but I had hoped to provoke a discussion rather than an argument. Fair dos - understand Or does he mitigate the risk by only using them on the internet? I did actually lol - very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 And if Gordon thinks that using words like cretinous, plonker, pathetic, embarassing and simpleton are not abusive then I suspect he gets into a fair few pub fights. Or does he mitigate the risk by only using them on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW80 Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 I don't have any kids of my own, but my partner has a young girl of about 7 years, i personally wouldn't leave her by herself, but the Mc Canns did leave their daughter and other kids, hope that wee girl is keeping well but i doubt it!! In my eyes if they were from a council estate they would have been crusified already!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ME Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 The thread did well, but as soon as the name calling starts the debate is ended and playground reasoning comes into force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) I wonder how the McCann's other kids feel when they hear it's time for this years family holiday? Edited May 15, 2011 by dazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 Some posts have been removed. Keep the personal insults and sick comments off the Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2000e2000e Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 I deal with Risk management alot at work, at the first question we always ask is "is this task necessary?" so comparing the risk of being in a car, being in a house or leaving the kids to go to dinner seems a moot point, an unacceptable risk of harm to a child for a "task" that wasn't necessary or as people have said would have been easily mitigated with a babysitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) It's not silly at all. I'm talking about risk management and reasonable expectation of what might happen. We do not base our decisions on the most extreme situation that could occur, we base it on what's likely to occur. Totally WRONG I am formally trained in risk assessment, risk assessment is not based on anything being "reasonably likely" we use a simple format I.E. whats the WORST thing that CAN happen, not how likely it is that it might, in the case of the so-called educated responsible McCann's. the worst thing that could happen did happen, and they should and could have prevented it, next time you spout about risk management at least have the temerity to know what you are actually spouting about. KW Edited May 15, 2011 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 kdubya - Very worrying - yet again, I totally agree. :) :yes: I had some training in risk management, quite a few years ago, but the theory appears to remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 Totally WRONG I am formally trained in risk assessment, risk assessment is not based on anything being "reasonably likely" we use a simple format I.E. whats the WORST thing that CAN happen, not how likely it is that it might, That's odd, this page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management ..suggests that Composite Risk Index = Impact of Risk event x Probability of Occurrence ? In the case of Madeleine McCann the probability of abduction is almost 0 (2/10's of millions ish). Nial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 That's odd, this page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management ..suggests that Composite Risk Index = Impact of Risk event x Probability of Occurrence ? In the case of Madeleine McCann the probability of abduction is almost 0 (2/10's of millions ish). Nial. like I said we work on the worst thing that can happen principle , not what might reasonably be expected to happen, we base our companies risk strategy on the theory if it can it WILL. Either way believe what you want oh wiki follower, as you obviously think playing russian roulette with a kid whilst you have a **** up is acceptable, the world I live says it's not. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz2202 Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 The whole Mcann story has always interested me and I have always had my own theories as to what possibly happened that night. Read my earlier posts and you will work out my thoughts, Now I have read everyday this thread but have not commented for a while as the whole thread has completely lost it's way. We all have our thoughts and theories which we are all entitled to have and put on this forum however I never knew there were so many 'not so intelligent ' people that could ruin a good debate by having a slanging match that a five year old could better!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts