Jump to content

Mountain rescuer wont walk again


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, AVB said:

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. 

No one is arguing that fact, and yes, the outcome would have been the same. People take ill on mountains on a regular basis, and that is what the rescuers are there for, but they are rarely injured in the act.
This one would have made news anyway because of the injuries involved, but it’s headline news because the person who needed rescuing SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN THERE! It was all so unnecessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Walker570 said:

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.

Insurance for walking or is it dependent on where someone walks? Would you require insurance for using a chain saw or maybe an axe? One persons danger is anothers mundane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, oowee said:

Insurance for walking or is it dependent on where someone walks? Would you require insurance for using a chain saw or maybe an axe? One persons danger is anothers mundane.

I am fully insured for all my countryside doings and if you decide to take part in a dangerous pursuit then yes, you should have insurance, instead of expecting everyone else to pay for your stupidity.  To me wild camping in the depths of winter on top of a mountain, when you already have history of heart attacks and ill health is more than dangerous , it is stupid dangerous.   I would venture to suggest that all professional chainsaw users have insurance.  Occasional users do not commit others other than the National Health Care response teams for which we pay contributions to anyway.    

These idots should be sent the full turn out bill for their stupidity at least and be sued for the injuries to the M.R., team member.

These so called survival programmes on TV don't help.   Ohhh!!!   look how dangerous that is..but do not show the 30-40 man team as backup.

Edited by Walker570
Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone out walking needs insurance in the mountains then why not the foot hills or more than 50m from your car? Where do you draw the line. This place is enough of a nanny state as it is, lets not make it more so. If walkers need it then why not casual chain saw users or anyone that does anything. What about swimmers in the sea that may cause a life boat call out.

Lets not have a police state. Life is for living let people get on and do it. As long as it is within the law. 

 

Edited by oowee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oowee said:

If someone out walking needs insurance in the mountains then why not the foot hills or more thazn 50m from your car? Where do you draw the line. This place is enough of a nanny state as it is, lets not make it more so. If walkers need it then why not casual chain saw users or anyone that does anything. WQhat about =swimmers in the sea that may cause a life boat call out.

Lets not have a police state. Life is for living let people get on and do it. As long as it is within the law. 

Absolutely, but how then do you deal with the stupid ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oowee said:

You can't legislate for stupid.

And stupidity is not illegal, but somehow this sort of stupidity should be discouraged, stopped, leave them to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, oowee said:

If someone out walking needs insurance in the mountains then why not the foot hills or more than 50m from your car? Where do you draw the line. This place is enough of a nanny state as it is, lets not make it more so. If walkers need it then why not casual chain saw users or anyone that does anything. What about swimmers in the sea that may cause a life boat call out.

Lets not have a police state. Life is for living let people get on and do it. As long as it is within the law. 

 

oowee, I think you are missing the point.  These two idiots where not just out for stroll.  They had purposely climbed to a very difficult spot on the hillside and intended to stay in a small tent over night, to boost their egos no doubt.. One of them already had previous history for heart attackes etc., and he slipped on some ice which shook him up a bit and he had a pain in his chest and panicked thinking he was having another heart attack.  He should not have been there and not necessarily because of the covid, taking part in such with his history was stupid in the extreme which knowingly as a result put others lives at risk.  To rate this to taking a walk down the street or me cutting a few logs with a chainsaw is totally irrelevant.

Edited by Walker570
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walker570 said:

oowee, I think you are missing the point.  These two idiots where not just out for stroll.  They had purposely climbed to a very difficult spot on the hillside and intended to stay in a small tent over night, to boost their egos no doubt.. One of them already had previous history for heart attackes etc., and he slipped on some ice which shook him up a bit and he had a pain in his chest and panicked thinking he was having another heart attack.  He should not have been there and not necessarily because of the covid, taking part in such with his history was stupid in the extreme which knowingly as a result put others lives at risk.  To ralte this to taking a walk down the street or me cutting a few logs with a chainsaw is totally irrelevant.

I follow the argument but where do you draw the line? Look at firearms legislation as a case in point where many think there should be no guns in private ownership. 

We just have to hope that the idiots are in the minority. 

Reckless endangerment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, oowee said:

If someone out walking needs insurance in the mountains then why not the foot hills or more than 50m from your car? Where do you draw the line. This place is enough of a nanny state as it is, lets not make it more so. If walkers need it then why not casual chain saw users or anyone that does anything. What about swimmers in the sea that may cause a life boat call out.

Lets not have a police state. Life is for living let people get on and do it. As long as it is within the law. 

 

This. Totally agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My heart goes out to Chris Lewis and his family, including the extended family of his team mates.  I'm a Mountain Rescue team member and the absolute last thing you would ever imagine as you respond to a shout would be something as horrific as this happening to either yourself or a colleague.  The response to the appeal to provide him with financial support is fantastic - it genuinely is humbling to see how generous the public have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oowee said:

If someone out walking needs insurance in the mountains then why not the foot hills or more than 50m from your car? Where do you draw the line. This place is enough of a nanny state as it is, lets not make it more so. If walkers need it then why not casual chain saw users or anyone that does anything. What about swimmers in the sea that may cause a life boat call out.

Lets not have a police state. Life is for living let people get on and do it. As long as it is within the law. 

 

Spot on. 

Life will always have idiots, let's not treat everyone like one for the few that cause the problems. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonty said:

The response to the appeal to provide him with financial support is fantastic - it genuinely is humbling to see how generous the public have been

It is indeed , £550,000 so far :good:

Link to post
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.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...