Hill walking stupidity

Wooooosh.

My point being that I don't go to furrin countries to eat what I can get at home. Whilst the Wiener schnitzel may have arrived from Austria the jaeger schnitzel and zigeuner schnitzel are considered einheimische kuche across the German speaking countries. Further, Gyro's and doner* are now both a staple of boxhead fast food, italian, well, in this case it was proper italian pizza made with dough from semolina flour and it tasted yummy.......and the bloke spoke German with an authentic Italian accent.

I also had a currywurst, mit pommes und mayonaise, if that is any good.:)

Note: * Gyro's is the Greek version whilst Doner is the Turkish version.
Doner is the Berlin Turkish version.
 
Not so fast Jonesy: Import of Kinder Eggs into the US is banned :

Import Alert 34-02


Oh I know, and it sucks. But the American version is just not the same thing as the European one.

Violates Section 402(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which states that confectionery having partially, or completely imbedded therein, any non-nutritive object is adulterated unless FDA has issued a regulation recognizing that the non-nutritive object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health.

Sad that I know that really...
 
I think the thing all this chat highlights is that it seems to be binary. People either prepare or they don't. I guess you military and ex military types think about contingency a bit more because I presume you're used to having things with you when you've been out and about.

How far you go is a matter of personal judgement, despite my being a total kit monster, running as opposed to walking I certainly have gotten to caring about weight and don't go nuts (like I might have done when walking) and I carefully think about the risks I'm trying to manage these days because I don't want kit for the sake of it on 15k uphill.

And of course well prepared people do also need rescuing as well, I don't forget that.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
And of course well prepared people do also need rescuing as well, I don't forget that.
I do not regard that sentence as a reason why idiots should go unprepared and then expect free extraction.
 
I think the thing all this chat highlights is that it seems to be binary. People either prepare or they don't. I guess you military and ex military types think about contingency a bit more because I presume you're used to having things with you when you've been out and about.

How far you go is a matter of personal judgement, despite my being a total kit monster, running as opposed to walking I certainly have gotten to caring about weight and don't go nuts (like I might have done when walking) and I carefully think about the risks I'm trying to manage these days because I don't want kit for the sake of it on 15k uphill.

And of course well prepared people do also need rescuing as well, I don't forget that.
Some people aren’t interested in listening. I could not get it into my wife’s head the importance of carrying emergency kit in the car when we lived in the Falklands. She looked at me like I was stupid when I asked her to do a radio check just before heading up Tumbledown. I don’t think it’s a woman thing, just a have to learn the hard way thing.
 
I do not regard that sentence as a reason why idiots should go unprepared and then expect free extraction.
Sure. I'm just saying that just because you do something to manage your risks doesn't mean you're immune to needing help. You can still make bad choices regardless of preparedness. At what point do you say well that decision to go down that gully in that stream was more stupid than coming up here in flip flops
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
At what point do you say well that decision to go down that gully in that stream was more stupid than coming up here in flip flops
At the point where I might make a decision even though well accoutred, rather than the idiot traversing the same in flip flops if one is to consider a silly comparison such as yours.
 
At the point where I might make a decision even though well accoutred, rather than the idiot traversing the same in flip flops if one is to consider a silly comparison such as yours.
It was deliberatly extreme. The point was if it's entirely subjective as to what constitutes a poor decision that you shouldn't expect a free ride when it comes to having yourself casevacd of the hill then you're going to expend an additional amount of effort determining that.

So either everyone should have some insurance for this purpose or it doesn't matter what you did because the ultimate arbiter if you're gong to go down the road of trying to bil someone back will be the courts.

We don't for instance charge people for their trip to A&E if they come off a motorbike whilst riding like and idiot. It's the same, principle.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
No, that bill makes no provisions on a subjective basis for the behaviour, only that someone has compensated someone else for their involvement in an accident.

If a third-party-insured-motorcyclist throws their motorbike down the road by being an idiot (which happens alot where nobody else is involved) we will come along, scoop them up and treat them and we won't bill them for their stupidity even if they are wholly to blame. In fact nothing in either of those pieces of legislation would apply. Nor does the legislation deal with the decision taken upto the accident. If I go into the back of someone by virtue of a mechanical failure of my perfectly serviceable vehicle than again, I'm liable for the tort and my insurers are duty bound to compensate the other party.

At *no point* has someone been billed for being an idiot.

Did you actually read the legislation? I'm thinking you didn't.
 
...and you're still missing the point.

How do you make a subjective decision about someone's risk management attitude in deciding how much they have contributed to their own situation in needing rescuing?

Some sort of panel? Bill them and let them appeal? Professional at the time files a claim on the rescued party? So there you are, looking at an MRT going, erm, no its alright mate, we're going to be just fine, I really don't know why you made the trip.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
No, that bill makes no provisions on a subjective basis for the behaviour, only that someone has compensated someone else for their involvement in an accident.

If a third-party-insured-motorcyclist throws their motorbike down the road by being an idiot (which happens alot where nobody else is involved) we will come along, scoop them up and treat them and we won't bill them for their stupidity even if they are wholly to blame. In fact nothing in either of those pieces of legislation would apply. Nor does the legislation deal with the decision taken upto the accident. If I go into the back of someone by virtue of a mechanical failure of my perfectly serviceable vehicle than again, I'm liable for the tort and my insurers are duty bound to compensate the other party.

At *no point* has someone been billed for being an idiot.

Did you actually read the legislation? I'm thinking you didn't.
It would seem you cannot bear to have anyone point out where you are wrong.

I have read the pertinent legislation and I would suggest you stop trying to change the circumstances which are involved in this thread.

Considering your attitude and responses it is obviously a waste of time commenting further.
 
...and you're still missing the point.

How do you make a subjective decision about someone's risk management attitude in deciding how much they have contributed to their own situation in needing rescuing?

Some sort of panel? Bill them and let them appeal? Professional at the time files a claim on the rescued party? So there you are, looking at an MRT going, erm, no its alright mate, we're going to be just fine, I really don't know why you made the trip.
I'm still trying to work out what point you are trying to make. It seems (to me) you are simply trying to be obtuse and failing miserably in picking holes in someone else's comment.
 
I'm still trying to work out what point you are trying to make. It seems (to me) you are simply trying to be obtuse and failing miserably in picking holes in someone else's comment.
Not at all.

The point I'm making is, and it was the comment about expecting free rescue regardless of how much your own decisions contributed to your own situation which I was originally referring to which generated this fork.

If you go out in flip flops and a t-shirt in November to Brecon and then find yourself in need of rescue to stave off exposure, my understanding of the original comment was, you shouldn't expect someone to come and rescue you for free.

My point and I've said this pretty plainly twice now is, by what mechanism do you judge how much someone has contributed to their own misfortune?

If you head out with a map, well heeled and well supplied but then go on to make stunningly poor decision and now are in need of rescue how do you decide that person A is more or less responsible for their predicament than person B?

The secondary point about the NHS charges legislation is *it doesn't deal with that issue*. It simply says the NHS has the legal basis to recoup costs resulting from a road traffic accident *where* someone has needed treatment and that a compensation payment has been made. Hence why that piece of legislation is irrelevant.

I'm not being obtuse, how do you judge someone's emergency as being their own fault or not because they were stupid? That piece of legislation certainly doesn't.

Or to use the other posters approach to the discussion.

Wrong.
 
I have a locat beacon for flying ( well actually for the quiet bit after flying if it’s all gone a bit tits up somewhere with no street lights or kerbstones, or people). Bought from harry the puff ( Harry mendholsons In Edinburgh about 15 years ago) .its on its second battery and just sits in my bag.
The ASR men tell me unless it’s at the bottom of a smoking hole at the bottom of a deep valley they usually can get a homing lock on one from about fifteen miles out on a good day .as previous posters have said its simple ( pull the pin or immerse in water for a min or so) and sends out a clear unambiguous HELP ME on most of the distress frequencies.
To be honest it would only get used if I’d broken something and couldn’t move. But good to have just in case.
I see this got a dumb from the new incarnation of the site penis of the year last night along with another dozen of my posts. The sad little thing.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
So why does it bother you ?
 
it’s just the creepy needy thing dobbing over threads it knows nothing about at pissed o clock because it’s on ignore annoys but your quite right I’ll just ignore it’s w@nkfests.
Back on thread
Nice and bright forecast here in the lakes this week with half term and the chance of snow on the tops next weekend.
I feel the emperor will be stalking the isles of Go Outdoors this week.
 
Not at all.

The point I'm making is, and it was the comment about expecting free rescue regardless of how much your own decisions contributed to your own situation which I was originally referring to which generated this fork.

If you go out in flip flops and a t-shirt in November to Brecon and then find yourself in need of rescue to stave off exposure, my understanding of the original comment was, you shouldn't expect someone to come and rescue you for free.

My point and I've said this pretty plainly twice now is, by what mechanism do you judge how much someone has contributed to their own misfortune?

If you head out with a map, well heeled and well supplied but then go on to make stunningly poor decision and now are in need of rescue how do you decide that person A is more or less responsible for their predicament than person B?

The secondary point about the NHS charges legislation is *it doesn't deal with that issue*. It simply says the NHS has the legal basis to recoup costs resulting from a road traffic accident *where* someone has needed treatment and that a compensation payment has been made. Hence why that piece of legislation is irrelevant.

I'm not being obtuse, how do you judge someone's emergency as being their own fault or not because they were stupid? That piece of legislation certainly doesn't.

Or to use the other posters approach to the discussion.

Wrong.
Don’t bother talking mechanisms on this site, such talk clearly goes over many heads, especially of those that are in the firm belief that the UK has a massive pool of trained objective administration staff just looking for something to do.
 
Don’t bother talking mechanisms on this site, such talk clearly goes over many heads, especially of those that are in the firm belief that the UK has a massive pool of trained objective administration staff just looking for something to do.
Perhaps I’m being naive, but surely the answer to this is obvious. The emergency services should always bill someone rescued from the hill, and their insurance company administrators can decide whether their actions/equipment/decisions were reasonable.

Personally, I’m not really in favour of it, but I think this would be the only way of making the poorly prepared pay for their rescues.
 
Perhaps I’m being naive, but surely the answer to this is obvious. The emergency services should always bill someone rescued from the hill, and their insurance company administrators can decide whether their actions/equipment/decisions were reasonable.

Personally, I’m not really in favour of it, but I think this would be the only way of making the poorly prepared pay for their rescues.
National parks for people that can afford insurance? We could keep all the others in camps and make them work too
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top