Jump to content

Mountain rescuer wont walk again


billytheghillie
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, snow white said:

The ****’s that go walking round mountains not prepared for the walk should be left there.

 

No, that is simply wrong. People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there. It was all so avoidable and unnecessary, and it is this which has understandably angered the crew involved, but as they have said, it’s not their place to judge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, snow white said:

The ****’s that go walking round mountains not prepared for the walk should be left there.

This poor bloke is finished now I feel really really sorry for him they should be made to pay is wages for the rest of his life

and compassion on top 

Yes I can really agree with that perhaps a new approach 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Scully said:

No, that is simply wrong. People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there. It was all so avoidable and unnecessary, and it is this which has understandably angered the crew involved, but as they have said, it’s not their place to judge. 

^^^^ This.  The avoidable action resulted in a tragic accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, moose man said:

I’d feel sick and ashamed to my core if I thought my stupid actions had cost a man his life ..and loosing the ability to walk would be the same if not worse than loosing your life ..that would be an unbelievable burden to carry all your days ..

My OH and I had this very conversation. How on earth do you reconcile your conscience with what you have caused?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scully said:

No, that is simply wrong. People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there. It was all so avoidable and unnecessary, and it is this which has understandably angered the crew involved, but as they have said, it’s not their place to judge. 

Although I obviously also feel for the guy, this sums up my thoughts also. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should be able to do what they like as long as it’s within the law. 
 

That doesn’t mean they should expect others to risk their lives to rescue them if things go wrong. 
 

 

I doubt the walkers felt that they would need to be rescued. Like everyone who ends up getting rescued they probably thought everything would be fine when they set out. 
 

Although the guy fell because he was out looking for them, was it directly their fault? Or just a bad accident that was in line with his voluntary work? 
 

The Americans have laws where if something bad happens because of a crime you started then you’ are held responsible for the end result. 
 

We in the U.K. do not seem to hold such a viewpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scully said:

No, that is simply wrong. People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there. It was all so avoidable and unnecessary, and it is this which has understandably angered the crew involved, but as they have said, it’s not their place to judge. 

And what you say in the first two sentences is correct with In the law these people were not within the law and through their actions caused this person to have horrendous injuries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Heron said:

And what you say in the first two sentences is correct with In the law these people were not within the law and through their actions caused this person to have horrendous injuries. 


I thought the lockdown was more guidance than Law? 
 

All those Police charges of people put during lockdown fell through last time as they have no legal basis to charge people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, moose man said:

I’d feel sick and ashamed to my core if I thought my stupid actions had cost a man his life ..and loosing the ability to walk would be the same if not worse than loosing your life ..that would be an unbelievable burden to carry all your days ..

I agree with every letter 👍.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person that volunteers in a team with a similar role. In that we are often the last resort, no one comes if we fail. I'm not entirely sure what my reaction would be if placed in the situation of rescuing these people if one of my team members had been injured so. I suspect that the people originally priority #1 would automatically become a much lower priority. Also I'm sad to say that their possible £200 fine would be the least of their worries. I am in awe of the reaction of these volunteers to this situation I'm not sure my reaction would be the same.

For instance one of my victims, in the small hours of Christmas day, complained that my vehicle brakes squeeled and therefore was unsafe to be on the road. My reply was that I was a volunteer using my own vehicle to help her when there was no-one else to do so, if she wanted I could stop here to let her out and that she too would probably squeel a bit if I held her repeatedly under 18" of water over a 12 hour period......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, moose man said:

I’d feel sick and ashamed to my core if I thought my stupid actions had cost a man his life ..and loosing the ability to walk would be the same if not worse than loosing your life ..that would be an unbelievable burden to carry all your days ..

I would feel the same, it was bad enough when I forgot my dentist appointment this week! I never want to put anybody else out in the slightest.

I don't really see what covid has to do with it though. I understand they weren't supposed to be up there during lockdown but what difference does that make? If there wasn't lockdown in place and the same thing happened it would be OK? Of course not.

 

Hats off to all those that volunteer for such things, they are braver than me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scully said:

No, that is simply wrong. People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there. It was all so avoidable and unnecessary, and it is this which has understandably angered the crew involved, but as they have said, it’s not their place to judge. 

That seems the sensible answer but also add that people who take part in any dangerous activities should have insurance.  I am also a believer that all cyclist should have insurance to cycle on the road for the same reason.  Mountain rescue know full well the dangers they face and are extremely brave people. 

The only addition to Scully's comment ... they should not have been there ....  well all of those crazies who enjoy climbing unassailable rock faces should be expected to pay up, should have to pay up fully for the expense of turning out the rescue services and any injuries to their team members during the operation.

We go shooting and we sensibly in almost all cases have insurance, then why should this not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scully said:

People should be allowed to do what they like within the law; what IS wrong in this particular case, is that the two men responsible shouldn’t have been there.

I don't disagree ......... BUT people should also consider the possible effect their actions may have on the safety of others - and take reasonable precautions to ensure that they don't put others at risk through their selfish actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances I believe they should have been charged with endangering life, due to the simple fact they shouldn’t have been there.

I don’t agree that anyone taking to the mountains in normal circumstances should have insurance, nor that they should be liable for any expenses accrued as part of that rescue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Under the circumstances I believe they should have been charged with endangering life, due to the simple fact they shouldn’t have been there.

I don’t agree that anyone taking to the mountains in normal circumstances should have insurance, nor that they should be liable for any expenses accrued as part of that rescue. 

The fact that they shouldn't have been there doesn't diminish the impact nor magnify it. If they had been there legally then the outcome would have been the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...