 What wonderful comments below the report on thisisdorset.net.... " The time has come for a Law which makes it obligatory for people indulgig in dangerous pastimes (climbing, diving etc) to have insurance to cover the eventuality of their needing to be rescued by our Coastguard. Once rescued, they should be retained in the lifeboat or helicopter until proof of this insurance is produced." And presumably thrown overboard if they fail to do so?!! 
|
 |
 or over the cliff they have just fallen down, or out of the chopper!!!!!
|
|
 Does the same then apply for the idiots that speed in cars and cause mayhem and misery to hundreds every year on our roads. Should you have insurance to pay for your being locked up for burglary or assault. What about paying for your lift into jail/hospital because you cant hold your drink. Merchant bankers!
|
|
 Dorset born, Dorset bred
Strong in the arm, weak in the 'ead.
|
|
 . This is just an organisation sounding off instead of getting on with it. What is a "dangerous" pastime? Walking across a mountain in the wrong circumstances is a "Dangerous" pastime. Cycling on mountains and roads is a "dangerous" pastime. Playing sports is a "dangerous" pastime, are all those participants now going to have to insure against being rescued. We are very lucky in the caving fraternity, thanks for the fact that most of us "serious" cavers are members of cave rescue teams, and subterranean rescue from caves is so specialised that holier than thou organisations don't get the chance to be judgemental. In cave rescue, we never judge others, we just give them the support that we ourselves might be grateful of if roles were reversed!
|
|
 Hold up - the insurance nonsense quote was just a standard web reply to the article (probably "angry and sedentary from Dorset" sounding off about his benefits being diverted to Coastguard services). The Coastguard spokesperson quoted was fairly robust in comments but I have no bones with that.
|
| Edited: 11/12/07 14:34 |
. The above quote then was NOT from the coastguard? (In which case - no problem if it is just a quote from "Mr Angry" of Bridport - or where ever!)
|
|
|
|
|
There you go again Tony - you really should learn to read the thread before posting....  
|
|
 Apparently they weren't branded, but brandished! Sounds painful!
Right, I'm off to Ipswich.
|
|
Ah yes, I have read it now Matt, problem was earlier that I was looking at it from work during a break and didn't have the time to read the whole article, I just read the covering story by Jon!
|
|
Lol - excuses, excuses....
|
|
 "Dorset born, Dorset bred; Strong in the arm, weak in the 'ead" Errr - I heard it with Hampshire instead (but being Dorest based I would wouldn't I) ;-) As to the Dorset Echo article - I posted with some further links on the two incidents over the weekend if anyone wants to dig deeper
|
|
 I think this is typical of the coast gurad, maybe the climbers were foolish but its not the rescues services place to critise in my opinoin.
|
|
We've got helicopter rescue insurance for when we walk in the Alps (join the Austrian Alpine Club and you get it free . . . advert). Why shouldn't UK walkers and climbers do the same thing, and help to pay the huge cost of such rescues? And yes, I do know that most of them are done as part of RAF training. Incidentally, I understand that the company that underwrites the AAC insurance says that statistics show that alpine/walking club members are less likely to have accidents in the mountains than ordinary members of the public, presumably because they are more aware of the dangers.
|
|
 You'll have to keep a fiver in your back pocket for petrol for the ambulance next. Out of interest, if people were paying for it, wouldn't that rather invite law suits against the rescuers? What if I didn't ask for a helicopter or even need rescued? Would I still get a bill? I just can't see how it would all work out.
|
|
 I remember being 18 and we took the bus to Chamonix and had insurance for upto 4000m, as the cost for above 4000m was too expensive! We were totally skint and did Mont Blanc on our second day (epic!), and figured that if anything happens above there then we would crawl till the altimeter read 3995m then shout for help – didn’t need to though, but came quite close!
I don’t want to pay for rescue insurance, and the day that happens is the day I leave mountain rescue. Also how does it get policed? And what about the 350,000 people who go up Snowdon each year?
If you look at these guys who were climbing – do they strike you as the sort that would have insurance? Don’t think so!
It would be more productive to give out Community Service orders to those who abuse the 999 system and call for rescues when it comes down to stupidity!
|
|
Mountain rescue in Switzerland, which I know best, appears to be done by volunteers like Bryn - in fact we found a memorial to a man and his search dog who were killed in an avalance on exercise just on the Arolla side of the Dix glacier. However, you have to pay for transport off the mountain, including helicopters (and of course for subsequent treatment): that's why it's sensible to have insurance. In a life threatening situation I'm sure they'd lift you off, but then they'd sue you for the cost if you or your insurance company didn't pay. In other words, the courts police it. Bryn's probably right about the guys who were climbing, but the prospect of being sued might have encouraged them to get insured - or perhaps not. I agree in theory with Bryn's point about Community Service orders, but how do you decide who was stupid and who was just plain unlucky (not really an issue in this case, I'd have thought) - and who decides? The police? The mountain rescue team? The RAF? Some civil servant or JP who's never walked/climbed anything more dangerous than stairs in their life?
|
|
. Bryn said, "It would be more productive to give out Community Service orders to those who abuse the 999 system and call for rescues when it comes down to stupidity!" Now, this is where things get complicated. The biggest "abuse" of the 999 system, and that which costs tax payers far more than the odd helicopter call out, is the thousands of inappropriate calls from those ringing 999 for an ambulance for the most trivial of reasons! So are we now suggesting that we give out community service orders for that abuse too? As Sally points out, who would "Police" it? It would be a bureaucratic nightmare! Unfortunately, you cannot legislate for stupidity, and frankly, as Bryn himself points out, it is only the responsible that would conform anyway. Further to that of course is that the service to those genuinely in need would suffer unnecessarily! If something "aint broke," then it doesn't need fixing, and the voluntary nature of specialised rescue in the UK MUST remain, it would be absolutely ruined by Government interference. Rescue organisations should educate yes, but being judgmental or even selective of criticizing individuals is a media trait of late than they should steer well clear of. Get on with the job in hand and leave that to the sanctimonious "armchair" enthusiasts! I hate the politics involved in such affairs these days!
|
|
I'd agree with most of the sensible advice and opinion above. But lets get it in context - the guy was rescued twice in under a month from the same spot and with associated high risk factors. Whilst I undertsand the MRT/Coastguard genuinely give much of their time, often in inclement conditions, they are only human after all. So to risk life and limb for the same heedless individual is asking for a lot of tongue biting. And sometimes if the message doesn't get through the first time........
|
|
