/ 90 for a quick sea swim?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dave B on 03 Jan 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25573591

Thoughts on this?

Do you think that this was a 'fine' to try to protect the swimmer from their own stupidity ("Wake up your drunken fool, its darned dangerous out there")?

Or a fine because they were drunk and disorderly and needed?

Or a fine because they were going to endanger the lives of potential rescuers.



On a second note, what do you folks involved in professional or volunteer rescue services think when you give advice NOT to do something to a group or individuals and then they do it anyway? What do you feel if it all goes OK and there is no need for your 'services' and what do you feel if you are needed? Does this change if its not necessarily because the activity itself is that dangerous, but if rescue activity is required, then it becomes VERY serious very quickly?

I'll try to answer my own questions in a while after some other people have responded, but I will probably do it anonymously to protect certain parties...



balmybaldwin - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dave B:

It says quite clearly it was for drunk and disorderly


Interesting though whether there is anyother grounds for the fine (i.e. can you be fined for recklessly endangering rescuers? don't think you can!)
Dauphin - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Must be the first person to be charged with this in a generation. Plod don't bother charging the drunken tards they bring into A and E dept's up and down the land.

D
Dave B on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes, it states it was, but I am confused about what exactly his disorderly behaviours could have been? Could going back into the sea be 'disorderly'?
wintertree - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dave B:

> Thoughts on this?

I suspect the fine was incurred in no small amount due to arguing with the police.

Very big waves can be awesome fun to swim in, but I wouldn't back myself to safely enjoy them in with a combination of inebriation, very cold water and stormy conditions.
David Riley - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dave B:

Drunk and disorderly implies actively causing problems for other people. Being alone in the sea makes that improbable.
balmybaldwin - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to David Riley:

Not if a bunch of people are scrambled to come and save him.#

Generally I think D&D translates as too pissed to do as the police ask you to do... i.e. they tell you you've had enough and should go home and you don't or aren't capable of going home

I don't have a problem with it to be honest, and whilst not many get officially charged with this anymore, many are given a cell for the night, and I think quite a lot of the 90 on the spot fines are dished out.
Siward on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dauphin:

> Must be the first person to be charged with this in a generation. Plod don't bother charging the drunken tards they bring into A and E dept's up and down the land.

> D

Folk get charged with D & D all the time.

I think the report is missing something. Arresting him for D & D suggests he did not stay calm when the cops had a word with him. Hard to see how ill advised swimming can amount to the offence.
David Riley - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to wintertree:
> (In reply to Dave B)
>
> [...]
>
> I suspect the fine was incurred in no small amount due to arguing with the police.
>
Most probably. However I expect they harrassed him.
balmybaldwin - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to David Riley:

Should they have just left him alone then in those conditions when he was pissed up and a storm was closing in?
David Riley - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

We don't know the details. But requiring rescue is not grounds for a drunk and disorderly charge. My guess is he did not consider himself drunk and went for a swim (in a wetsuit) and got set upon.
argyle_dude - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dauphin:

> Must be the first person to be charged with this since the night before

There, fixed that for you :-)

The guy should consider himself lucky he got away with a 90 fine, two people have lost their lives this week in the coast of north Devon and Cornwall and a third in a river in South Devon.
David Riley - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to argyle_dude:

So if you got a fine for climbing at Froggatt, you should consider yourself lucky because 2 people died climbing in Scotland ?
thomasadixon - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to argyle_dude:

Personally I'd be pretty annoyed that I was fined for doing something perfectly legal because the local police didn't approve. Certainly seems (from this report and other versions) that is what happened.
LastBoyScout on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to David Riley:

D&D seems an odd charge if he was with it enough to think about and wear a wetsuit.
ByEek - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Personally I'd be pretty annoyed that I was fined for doing something perfectly legal because the local police didn't approve.

I don't think there was an issue with swimming in the sea other than stupidity and putting the lives of those who eventually rescued him at risk. He was however arrested for being drunk and disorderly.

Perhaps there should be a law against putting rescuers lives at risk? That or at the very least a fine proportional to the rescue that was required.
off-duty - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Personally I'd be pretty annoyed that I was fined for doing something perfectly legal because the local police didn't approve. Certainly seems (from this report and other versions) that is what happened.

Be interesting to know more, though I see UKC are jumping to their normal conclusions.
I wonder why his friend called the emergency services?
I wonder how drunk he was - 0738 on New Year's day- all-nighter?
Oceanrower - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> Perhaps there should be a law against putting rescuers lives at risk? That or at the very least a fine proportional to the rescue that was required.

That's a great idea. And as no rescue WAS required, that'll be a fine of, err, nothing then........
Dave B on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

They are indeed interesting questions and without knowing more its going to be hard to say why 'drunk and disorderly', my only thought is that perhaps he might have used verbally abusive language directed towards the police officers.

What about the wider question? What do rescuers feel about the scenario?
Jim C - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dave B:

I wonder if they also arrested the 3 others that made it to shore on this linked story .
I think it all hinges on the phrase "celebrating new year on the beach"
Is that Drunk and disorderly?

1stJan Search for Guildford man washed out to sea in Cornwall

A man is missing after being washed out to sea off Cornwall.
The 27-year-old, from Guildford in Surrey, was with a group of friends when the accident happened at about 01:00 GMT, at Loe Bar, near Porthleven.

Falmouth Coastguard said four of the group were hit by a powerful wave, but three managed to get back to shore.

A spokesman said the search had been restricted to coastguard teams ashore because of heavy rain, strong winds and poor visibility.

"The search and rescue helicopter and lifeboats are available, but with 10ft (3m) waves and such poor visibility it's just too risky to use them at the moment," he told BBC News.

It is understood the people were celebrating new year on the beach, when they decided to go into the water.

Coastguard teams from Porthleven, Mullion, Porthousestock and Penzance are involved in the search.
ads.ukclimbing.com
ByEek - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

> That's a great idea. And as no rescue WAS required, that'll be a fine of, err, nothing then........

Sorry - yes. Misread the article. So the story is actually about a bloke arrested for being drunk and disorderly who also happened to have just been for a swim.
andrewmcleod - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to Dave B:

It is actually illegal to be drunk in public in the UK. Since it is also a commonplace and generally accepted activity, the police don't tend to intervene until either a) you are so drunk you need assistance or b) you piss them off.

This isn't the same as drunk and disorderly though.
thomasadixon - on 03 Jan 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> Sorry - yes. Misread the article. So the story is actually about a bloke arrested for being drunk and disorderly who also happened to have just been for a swim.

No, like the taglines to the articles about it show it's a story about a bloke who was crazy enough to go swimming (in a wetsuit) in bad conditions and following that got arrested and fined. There's pretty much zero chance it would be on the BBC if he'd just been arrested for being drunk - not rare, not interesting.

offduty - It would be interesting to know more (I couldn't find much more) but on the facts we have it's a fair conclusion I came to and I didn't "jump" to it thanks. Most people who are seen by the police drunk are not arrested (although, as I'm sure you know, they could be) so there must be another reason. The police definitely did not approve - "This behaviour is extremely irresponsible" - and he was arrested as soon as he left the water. What do you think he was fined for?

Care to explain why it matters how drunk he was or why his friend phoned the emergency services?
Dave B on 05 Jan 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:


Another one...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-25602947

Again drunk and disorderly ... Seems to be the crime de jour at the moment...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.