UKC

Patterdale MR Team Accident

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-55970536

Sounds like a horrible incident, hoping for a speedy recovery.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

That's very saddening. Best wishes for getting well soon.

Post edited at 19:10
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Live changing injuries to the rescuer.

£200 fine to the campers who are from Liverpool/Leicester. 

 Bilberry 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

"The association said its thoughts were with the camper as "no-one sets out on the fells with the intention of having an accident", but the "simple truth" is the more people who go out in the fells, the higher the number of rescues the teams will have to carry out.

Mike Blakey from the association said: "This rescue and the subsequent life-changing injuries incurred by our team member were avoidable.""

I'd say that should be clear enough for everyone on here

Post edited at 20:52
In reply to Bilberry:

Indeed..'no one sets out on the fell'..similar to a joyrider killing his mates in a car...'didn't set out to do it"..

They shouldn't of been there.

 Billhook 07 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Only £200 ?????? should have been £2000 !

In reply to Billhook:

You're thinking what I'm thinking....just trying to comprehend life changing injuries to the rescuer that were totally avoidable....

In reply to balmybaldwin:

My initial reactions are: 1) speedy recovery and 2) is there anyway I could punch the useless f*ckwits in the face, repeatedly. 
I can feel my blood pressure rising with this. But I will calm down. 

 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

My thoughts exactly. Getting angry reading that. Why the f*ck can’t people just stay home, it’s not hard.

 Tringa 07 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Another example of some people deciding

"You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area."

does not apply to them and this time with tragic consequences.

Can only hope the rescuer makes a full recovery.

Dave

In reply to WaterMonkey:

I agree with you....I have a problem with the number of thumb downs appearing..... I'd change it to dumbing down..

 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> I agree with you....I have a problem with the number of thumb downs appearing..... I'd change it to dumbing down..

It will be people who are feeling guilty 

In reply to WaterMonkey:

> It will be people who are feeling guilty 

I'll be interested if any of them have the nerve to pop up on this thread and defend the 2 campers......there's an invite....

In reply to WaterMonkey:

I'll be honest, I don't see how that's relevant in this case. Yes, they shouldn't have been out indeed, but this sort of thing can happen, lockdown or no lockdown. Be very careful with the sort of thinking that this wouldn't have happened if they had stayed at home because the same is true at all times, COVID or no COVID, and before you know it our endeavours will be considered unacceptably risky by powers that be at all times.

Post edited at 22:05
In reply to Alkis:

I don't think you're getting it...

They shouldn't have been there...this was totally avoidable...Right now.

 scratcher 07 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> It will be people who are feeling guilty 

More likely people, myself included, who disagree, but don't wish to turn the thread into a disrespectful argument

I'm saddened by what has happened and wish the rescue team member the swiftest, fullest possible recovery

In reply to scratcher:

Indeed, sad news to a Rescuer who was for intense purposes sat at home thinking the world was in lockdown to then end up with 'life 'changing injuries.

I'm all ears

Post edited at 22:17
 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to scratcher:

Thank you for owning up. What is it you disagree with though? Do you disagree that I got angry or that staying home isn’t hard?

 gazhbo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Bilberry:

Let’s be clear though.  The reason they were were fined was not because they put mountain rescue at risk of injury during rescue.  People aren’t being told to stay at home because of risk of injury to mountain rescue. 

If you all want to jump up and down and call people f*ckwits and threaten to punch them, in the face, or compare camping to joyriding, then crack on, but in that case, your policy needs to be that no-one, including you, goes outside again, ever.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

I am getting it just fine. They shouldn't have been there, and this was avoidable, no argument there. It is also avoidable at *all* times and this leads to the logical conclusion that nobody should be there at *all* times.

Post edited at 22:15
 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

We are being asked to stay home to protect the NHS. Which bit are you struggling with?

In reply to Alkis:

There is avoidable and unavoidable.

Me going out on the hill, having a heart attack after lock down is unavoidable..simples

Post edited at 22:19
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Is it? You were on the hill. You could have not been on the hill. In fact, if as a society we were to become overly risk averse, it's only logical that you shouldn't be on the hill, and the ultimate destination of this is that you *must* not be on the hill.

Anyhow, this nonsense is taking away from the fact that someone has had a serious accident, while volunteering to keep people safe on the hills. I wish them the best recovery.

 Bilberry 07 Feb 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

> If you all want to jump up and down and call people f*ckwits and threaten to punch them, in the face, or compare camping to joyriding, then crack on, but in that case, your policy needs to be that no-one, including you, goes outside again, ever.

Where did I say it do any of that?

 deepsoup 07 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> It will be people who are feeling guilty 

I don't see or use the 'thumbs', but if I did it in my case it would be a degree of unease at the level of judgement I'm seeing here and not a guilty conscience. 

The campers clearly shouldn't have been there, which is why they've been fined. 

But their being there was contributory to this awful accident in precisely the same way it would have been last year or the year before last, and given that it was a medical emergency it's not even as if they were wildly reckless in a non-covid sense, poorly equipped or whatever.  None of the stuff that would inspire righteous anger in more normal times.

So calls for draconian punishment (let alone vigilante beatings and such) for their 'covidiocy' seem uncalled for and distasteful to me.  More so where I've seen them elsewhere in social media than here to be fair.  I'm seeing friends and good people who don't usually go in for pitchforks and flaming torches expressing their frustrations, perhaps with things other than this story directly, in ways that are uncomfortable to watch.

Post edited at 22:30
In reply to Alkis:

> Is it? You were on the hill. You could have not been on the hill. In fact, if as a society we were to become overly risk averse, it's only logical that you shouldn't be on the hill, and the ultimate destination of this is that you *must* not be on the hill.

> Anyhow, this nonsense is taking away from the fact that someone has had a serious accident, while volunteering to keep people safe on the hills. I wish them the best recovery.

Are you wishing the rescuer with 'life changing injuries 'best recovery' or is that a  micky take?

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Are you for real? Yes, I absolutely am wishing them the best recovery. What on earth is wrong with you?

 gazhbo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> We are being asked to stay home to protect the NHS. Which bit are you struggling with?

None of it, I’m sat at home like everyone else.  The walkers should have been as well. But this pile on is a bit unsavoury.  The injury to the rescuer, awful as it may be, is totally unrelated to the reasons for the lock down.  They didn’t catch Covid.

Would we still be applauding threats of violence towards the campers if this happened outside of lockdown? There’s a bit of conflation going on.

 gazhbo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Bilberry:

> Where did I say it do any of that?

Sorry - my reply was to the thread in general.

In reply to deepsoup:

So what would be the best way to resolve a rescuer ending up with life changing injuries...

£200 seems derisory.

 Tringa 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> I'll be honest, I don't see how that's relevant in this case. Yes, they shouldn't have been out indeed, but this sort of thing can happen, lockdown or no lockdown. Be very careful with the sort of thinking that this wouldn't have happened if they had stayed at home because the same is true at all times, COVID or no COVID, and before you know it our endeavours will be considered unacceptably risky by powers that be at all times.


You are correct an accident or other medical emergency could have happened anywhere irrespective of COVID.

However, by travelling to a relatively remote area with far few emergency service personnel and vehicles the two campers have put an additional and avoidable strain on those services at this time when such services are already under stress.

Dave

In reply to Alkis:

It's life changing....has that not sunk in.

In reply to Tringa:

No argument there, they shouldn't have been there, for all the reasons you have already mentioned. It would not have been the right thing to do at this point in time regardless of whether MRT was needed or not. The responses in this thread go way way beyond that though.

 Myr 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Yes there is the implication from some posts that it is OK to risk mountain rescuers' lives or health during normal times (by hillgoing during bad weather or avalanchey conditions, or by climbing in areas with a chance of rockfall); but not during coronavirus times. I do believe I should be punished were I to risk exposing MR team members to coronavirus. I therefore don't know if I could wholeheartedly argue against being punished *any* time I put MR team members at risk by requiring a callout, post-coronavirus. If nothing else, hopefully the last year makes people think more about the non-zero risks MR teams are exposed to, even during normal times.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

I am losing my patience with you now. You may want to step away from the keyboard for a few minutes and/or lay off the drink before posting here. Read what you are saying a few times and perhaps you'll comprehend that you are being *way* out of line. Yes, the best bloody recovery. Unless you are dead, there is good recovery and there is bad recovery even if you end up in a bloody wheelchair, do I need to spell it out to you, man?

In reply to gazhbo:

> Let’s be clear though.  The reason they were were fined was not because they put mountain rescue at risk of injury during rescue.  

Do you really need to say this...of course it's not the reason.

 gazhbo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> So what would be the best way to resolve a rescuer ending up with life changing injuries...

> £200 seems derisory.

They weren’t fined for the fact the someone involved in their rescue was seriously injured, they were fined for breaching Covid regulations. 

If you want there to be a law against needing to be rescued then, I suppose you could have whatever penalty you want for that, maybe life imprisonment?  But you’d have to accept that that is a separate issue.

In reply to Alkis:

Bloody wheelchair is a good recovery to a person that spends his time in the mountains...

Keep taking the happy pills Man

 WaterMonkey 07 Feb 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

 > Would we still be applauding threats of violence towards the campers if this happened outside of lockdown? There’s a bit of conflation going on.

To be fair we do slate people who have been rescued who have not been equipped for mountains so be careful with your conflation too.

Regardless of that though, I have not threatened any violence. I am angry though. We are being asked to stay home for a variety of reasons, not just so we don’t directly spread Covid but also to take pressure off of the NHS. They broke the rules massively and as a direct consequence of them being self righteous tossers a poor volunteer has life changing injuries, The NHS staff now have to help him, he’s now at more risk of catching Covid by being in hospital. If they stuck to the very simple rules none of that would have happened. It is indefensible. 

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Step away from the keyboard. You are being angry at people for wishing someone a good recovery. That alone should ring alarm bells. A good outcome in this thread would be for this entire unnecessary argument regarding "good recovery" to be deleted, because WT actual F?

 gazhbo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> Do you really need to say this...of course it's not the reason.

Well yeah, because someone, in fact you, had suggested that the fine is insufficient given the injury sustained by the rescuer.  It’s worth emphasising that the fine is for something completely different.

if there wasn’t a lockdown - the injury would still have happened, and the camper wouldn’t have been fined at all.

In reply to gazhbo:

> They weren’t fined for the fact the someone involved in their rescue was seriously injured, they were fined for breaching Covid regulations. 

Fact correct....another stating the bleeding obvious. 

 deepsoup 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

You're too cross to have a rational discussion about this and for once I'm going to have the sense not to engage.

I too wish the injured man the best recovery he can possibly have.

 marsbar 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

They would have been fined £200 if no one from MRT was injured. 

The fine is not a punishment for what happened to the MRT member.  

You are conflating 2 different issues. 

In reply to Alkis:

> Step away from the keyboard. You are being angry at people for wishing someone a good recovery. That alone should ring alarm bells. A good outcome in this thread would be for this entire unnecessary argument regarding "good recovery" to be deleted, because WT actual F?

Words are alot easier to type...

Who would not wish the best for someone...are you mad.

Given the tone of your replies and an indication that this whole episode is defensively less...forgive me for thinking..'best recovery'..just doesn't sit right.

Post edited at 23:00
In reply to gazhbo:

> Would we still be applauding threats of violence towards the campers if this happened outside of lockdown? There’s a bit of conflation going on.

Let’s get things into perspective. I’m fuming. I’ve not got a bloody clue who these f*ckwits are, but I am very anti violence. So if my anger comes across as if I really want to punch them in the face then sorry for how this has come across. But what they did was totally stupid - they are f*ckwits. And I was pretty annoyed to see how many call outs they had earlier in the new year. I used to know quite a few MRT members from around there, great people, hats off to them for their measured response to these matters. 
 

In reply to marsbar:

> They would have been fined £200 if no one from MRT was injured. 

> The fine is not a punishment for what happened to the MRT member.  

> You are conflating 2 different issues. 

I'm totally agreeing...

Two things happened  on this occasion.

A rescuer recieved life changing injuries and 2 campers recieved £200.

I'm not disputing the reasons,I'm just astounded at how unnecessary it was...

 AukWalk 07 Feb 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

I agree - as with everyone else I agree that the people in question should not have been doing what they were doing, and feel sad for the rescuer and hope they make a full recovery.

However I don't really get the 'this was avoidable' aspect of the press release and discussion here. Unless there are factors that haven't yet been reported it doesn't appear to me that the rescuer's fall was anything to do with Covid or that the campers were under-prepared in any way, so it would also have been 'avoidable' before (and after) covid. I guess technically yes it is an avoidable occurrence because if nobody ever went up a mountain then no one would ever have chest pain up a mountain and mountain rescue wouldn't exist so they wouldn't get injured going to rescue them, but if you start using that as an argument for why people shouldn't be going up mountains then you've successfully talked yourself out of allowing climbing / hillwalking / whatever for good, and I really don't think that's a proportionate, balanced, reasonable, or even 'good on balance' response.

I hope its all down to crossed wires (and maybe some understandable anger at being stuck at home while these individuals break the law making it easier to get those wires crossed) and the 'avoidable' bit referring to the initiation of the rescue during a lockdown rather than the sad injury of the rescuer. 

Post edited at 23:03
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Less what, Shaun? Less serious? Absolutely not. Someone ended up having a serious accident that may well result with them not being able to walk again. The accident and its seriousness could have happened and unfortunately has happened in the past regardless of the lockdown. All I have said, which you are basically just too angry to take in right now, is that we need to separate the accident from the reality of lockdown. There are independent issues here:

1. Some people were being irresponsible and went camping in the hills during lockdown.

2. They had a medical emergency that is unrelated to the lockdown.

3. A poor sod fell 150m while attending said medical emergency.

I can condemn them for 1 and I can be shocked and sad at 3 without drawing lines between 1 and 3. COVID has nothing to do with the accident, man.

Most of us have been staying away from the hills since this thing started in order to keep the pressure off the emergency services and to remove the need for MRT to potentially have to attend incidents that could well result in them catching COVID, whether it's from the casualty, other MRT members or the emergency services handover.

Unfortunately, the danger to MRT members during a rescue is real at *all* times, this accident could have happened at any point in time.

You are being passionate about it, I get it, but man you are reading a tone that isn't there in people's posts. I wish we can talk about this over a pint in future but what you are doing right now is, frankly, distasteful.

Post edited at 23:11
 deepsoup 07 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> To be fair we do slate people who have been rescued who have not been equipped for mountains..

We do, but as far as I can see there's nothing to suggest the campers were poorly equipped or anything like that.

> Regardless of that though, I have not threatened any violence.

I don't think anyone has to be fair.  It's pretty clear that "I would like to punch them in the face" is an emphatic but generalised expression of anger, not an actual threat of violence.

In reply to AukWalk:

Re “avoidable”. Mike Blakey from Patterdale MR said it was avoidable on the news this evening, but guess he was meaning ‘avoidable coz they shouldn’t have been there’.

In reply to AukWalk:

Just to add..2 Campers travelling from Liverpool/Leicester to the Lakes is Avoidable at the present time..

This one fact...no other fact,is the defining incendiary device that in my eyes is indefensible.

 deepsoup 07 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I'm sure that's the case.  As we all know here, mountain rescue teams are fully supportive of people going out and having adventures generally.  Just not now.

In reply to Alkis:

I'm softening but it's Black or White....

They shouldn't have been there...no one can defend that.

A fine is not really relevant...

I think trying to legitimise any aspect of this is perverse.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

But no-one is defending them being there.

In reply to Alkis:

> Less what, Shaun? Less serious? Absolutely not. Someone ended up having a serious accident that may well result with them not being able to walk again. The accident and its seriousness could have happened and unfortunately has happened in the past regardless of the lockdown. All I have said, which you are basically just too angry to take in right now, is that we need to separate the accident from the reality of lockdown. There are independent issues here:

> 1. Some people were being irresponsible and went camping in the hills during lockdown.

> 2. They had a medical emergency that is unrelated to the lockdown.

So a camper travels 100 of miles,camps then has chest pains is unrelated to the lockdown..

I'm thinking it makes everything a little bit more stressful...police on Kirkstone Pass..are they,aren't they....

I elaborate...but who knows what these 2 were Thinking?

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Stop posting. 

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> I'll be honest, I don't see how that's relevant in this case. Yes, they shouldn't have been out indeed, but this sort of thing can happen, lockdown or no lockdown. Be very careful with the sort of thinking that this wouldn't have happened if they had stayed at home because the same is true at all times, COVID or no COVID, and before you know it our endeavours will be considered unacceptably risky by powers that be at all times.


The thing is it didn't happen ANYTIME it happened this time, when they shouldn't have been out.

In non-Covid times, there may have been more people around who could have prevented MR being called out in the first place. You post makes no sense because it's something that has happened, and they shouldn't have been there.

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> But their being there was contributory to this awful accident in precisely the same way it would have been last year or the year before last, and given that it was a medical emergency it's not even as if they were wildly reckless in a non-covid sense, poorly equipped or whatever.  None of the stuff that would inspire righteous anger in more normal times.

Of course it's not the same, like I said, there may have been more people around in normal circumstances, they may have delayed calling the MRT because they knew they'd be in trouble, They may have been camping further away in case they got spotted, there are so many reasons WHY it might have been a better outcome than it tuned out to be, had we not been in lockdown.

 galpinos 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> Most of us have been staying away from the hills since this thing started in order to keep the pressure off the emergency services and to remove the need for MRT to potentially have to attend incidents that could well result in them catching COVID, whether it's from the casualty, other MRT members or the emergency services handover.

As much as I agree with the general thrust of your argument, the MRT member in hospital now has a much increased risk of catching Covid, they are in a hospital in a pretty bad way.

The advice to stay out of hills is two fold. Should an accident happen, you are potentially putting the MR team at risk of Covid and you are putting the NHS under undue strain. Both of these things have happened.

 DaveHK 08 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Out come the 'hang 'em high' brigade.

 PaulW 08 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

The circumstances could easily have turned out the same

Anyone think there is perhaps a bit more to this than reported? Falling 150m while rescuing people just camping seems unlikely to me.

Post edited at 08:14
 DaveHK 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

> I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

> The circumstances could easily have turned out the same

I agree. It's the travel that is the problem not the activity.

In reply to PaulW:

Thanks. I am astonished that yours, at 7.53am Monday, is (unless I missed one) the first to comment on this explicitly (I know it was pointed out several times that the FINE was about the travel). I thought about it last night but didn't want to start a whole extra debate. Shaun might have exploded. 

Post edited at 08:39
 WaterMonkey 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

> I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

> The circumstances could easily have turned out the same

It would be the same, it’s still illegal to go camping regardless of how far you’ve gone. You’re not allowed to spend a night away from your home, let alone meet a mate and do it.

In reply to PaulW:

If it was local people out for a walk and they suddenly started having chest paints I would suggest not, tragic accident that happened.

If they were local people out camping then I hope so because as a copy and paste from the guidelines

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home#staying-away-from-home-overnight

"Staying away from home overnight

You cannot leave your home or the place where you are living for holidays or overnight stays unless you have a reasonable excuse for doing so. "

My best thoughts are with Patterdale MRT and their injured colleague, and I am hoping for a swift and full recovery.

The anger in this house is that 2 people wilfully did something illegal, and as an a direct result someone innocent got injured. Same as getting angry when a drink driver hits an innocent person walking across the road.

Post edited at 09:00
 PaulJepson 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

Presumably the MRTs are also still out training on the regular as well? 

Horrible accident but yes it could have happened regardless of whether someone had broken covid rules to be on the hill. 

My first reaction here is that the offence is the breach of travel restrictions and that the MRT call out and accident are entirely incidental, though obviously very unfortunate, and I even have some sympathy for the pair that they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives (just as I would if it had happened in normal times).

However, I do wonder whether it could be compared to a driving offence - exactly the same behaviour, say driving at 50mph in a 30mph limit, might result in a simple fine if caught in a speed trap, but, if a child steps into the road and is killed, you might end up with a significant prison sentence. At least I think I am right in thinking this is the case.

 PaulW 08 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Fair point, I hadn't thought about the staying elsewhere overnight thing. 

Got me musing now. How would an overnight hill walk fit in. Lots of people that work night shifts spend nights away from home. Something to think about on another exciting lockdown day anyway

 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I have to say that I think there were aggravating factors here.  I fully believe in people being able to exercise outdoors locally to the extent possible in local terrain and including low risk daytime hillwalking/climbing but without aggravating risk.

Here:

1) They came from 2 different places a long way away

2) They camped overnight meaning that rescue for medical emergency at night was a possibility with all added complications and with rescuers having their night time taken.

3) Given 2) they chose to camp in a place that has a steep approach and descent, is prone to be very awkward and gathers ice (I've taken kids up there in winter on a number of occasions and there are a number of very dodgy places I wouldn't want to be at night without very good reason)

4) They did this at a time when we have had winter conditions making everything even worse.

For those reasons I distinguish the facts and deeds here from normal hillgoing and find that to condemn what these two planned and did in attracting risk is not to say "stay home" (to use the awful americanism that thankfully the Scottish govt we still see on our local TV s of the border avoids)

heave on the dislikes now

Post edited at 09:29
In reply to PaulW:

> I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

If they camped they would still be liable to the same fine I think, because it's the camping that is breaking the law, not where they are from.

Local people going climbing in the Lakes over the last weeks have been using the confusion between the government guidelines and actual legislation. The argument is that under the law exercise is unlimited, you can travel to do exercise, and there is no limit to how far you can travel for exercise. All of those things appear to be true of the legislation.

Someone on Facebook said they had spoken to the police in one of the car parks and they were happy for people from Cumbria to go climbing/walking in the Lakes but would fine people from out of the county. I suspect that might have not been exactly what the police actually said, because I'm pretty certain they would have no legal basis to do it - perhaps the police were just strongly advising people from further away to go home - otherwise it would end up like the Derbyshire women case, where the police had to cancel the fines. 

But the legislation DOES say you can't stay away from your home overnight except in certain limited circumstances. Going camping for fun wouldn't be one. So I guess the landlord of the Kirkstone Pass pub could be fined for camping on the top of Red Screes - in sight of his or her house! Let alone people from Leicester and Liverpool.

Compare this case to the case of the two who got rescued off Minus Two Gully (the Ben) earlier this week. They were fined because they had left their council area to go climbing - and the council area is used in Scottish law to define how far you can travel for exercise. There is nothing like that in English law. If those people had just walked up and down Red Screes for their daily exercise before returning to Liverpool and Leicester for the night, I don't think its actually clear that they would have broken the law - strange as that seems.

Post edited at 09:21
In reply to MG:

Do you know what the ground is like between Kirkstone Pass and the top of Red Screes? I think slipping and falling there seems very possible. Steep scree and lots of craglets from what I remember.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Getting a few downvote for my previous post, curious if it is because:

a. There is anger in this house about 2 people doing something illegal 
b. Local people would have been been condemned for camping
c. Quoting the guidelines is bad form
d.?

 Root1 08 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think we need to STAY AT HOME.

The hills will still be there when this is over.

 JimbotheScot 08 Feb 2021
In reply to JoshOvki:

d) guilt

have you SEEN some of the logbooks, the rules are for thee and not for me ;)

 WaterMonkey 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

Night work and staying away for work reasons is permitted.

It got me thinking though, say a drink driver caused an accident and an ambulance was called. If the ambulance had a crash on the way to the incident and the driver ended up seriously hurt, we’d all be blaming the drink driver for driving when it was illegal for them to do so(even though they didn’t directly cause the ambulance to crash). I doubt we’d be lenient and say “ah well the ambulance could have crashed going to any number of incidents.”

Post edited at 09:26
 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I can't think of many places close to a road that would be less appropriate for winter camping in the current circumstances.  If you go off the path either side there are serious consequences

 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

in terms of stupidity I think planning an overnight trip to the priest hole in the current circumstances would possibly be the equal

In reply to wercat:

If you park down in Ambleside from memory (it was decades ago I went up there!) it's an easy walk, but I do remember sliding down the steep hillside directly to the pass was unpleasant. There are some little winter routes up there somewhere aren't there? So pretty complex ground. I imagine the MRTs drive up to the pass and go direct to save time, but yep, serious ground for walking.

In reply to PaulW:

> I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

What about the general rule: “stay at home”. The travel is clearly a biggie in this example, but I do believe that we should all operate within the spirit of the guidelines (the guidelines clearly can’t  cover every scenario, but if they did I am fairly confident that would say ‘don’t go camping in the mountains in winter’). 

I said upthread that I was surprised how many call outs those MR teams had had in early Jan - way more than 12 months ago, no doubt coz we’ve had a proper winter.  Other threads have discussed how risky etc winter climbing/walking is. I am genuinely surprised that the majority appear to thing ‘it’s safe’.  The govt guidelines say you can exercise and they give examples of running and walking in your local area. What these guys did stepped way over a number of lines. And whilst I don’t know the details of the other MRT call outs, I’d be very surprised if they were all people exercising from their front door.

TBH, I’m fully aware that in the general scheme the probability of Covid spread in this example is minor compared with say infection spread due to people working to earn money. And if folk, even those local to the mountains, want to go climbing/camping then it’s their choice, but it is reasonable for armchair critics to be more fuming than normal given the current context.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Thanks. I am astonished that yours, at 7.53am Monday, is (unless I missed one) the first to comment on this explicitly (I know it was pointed out several times that the FINE was about the travel). I thought about it last night but didn't want to start a whole extra debate. Shaun might have exploded. 

Shaun did explode...fortunately I cheered myself up by buying a new bike on line..

All I can say is I'm passionate about the people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to save others...

My thoughts are entirely with the Patterdale member ..I'm deeply saddened by their injuries and really hope they can overcome this trauma..

Post edited at 09:43
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

> I wonder how this thread would have gone if it had been two local people camping. People with nearby mountains are spending time in them without breaking any COVID rules.

I wonder how it would have turned out if people had done as they were supposed to and stayed home.

Your "argument" is pointless.

I wonder what it would have been like if it was two stuffed animals in a tin can. We can all wonder any number of different scenarios, but there's only one actual event.

The main thrust or people's ire is we are supposed to "stay at home" local or not, try and stop the spread of the virus, try and help the NHS. Why 12 months down the line people still don't understand this, or try to excuse not following the advice, is really really beyond my comprehension.

Post edited at 09:51
 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

> I have to say that I think there were aggravating factors here.

Yep.  I don't disagree with any of that.  (Nor does anyone else posting in this thread I think.)  The campers were clearly being very irresponsible doing what they were doing under the current circumstances.

What I am uneasy about is the degree of righteous 'hang 'em high', and the hints that what they were doing would be irresponsible under normal circumstances - being outdoors in winter weather, camping in an inaccessible place etc.  You expect the latter on Mumsnet or the Daily Mail comments, but it's weird and slightly disturbing seeing it here. 

I think we're all feeling the effects of cabin fever one way or another.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, it is very complex ground. Not much that’s majorly steep, but few areas where the angle is ‘comfortable’.  

In reply to deepsoup:

I'd just like to clarify that this wasn't my intention..

If anybody looks at tragic events and the factors that contribute to the eventual outcome there is usually a chain of circumstances that if intervention takes place we can stop it happening. 

In this particularly case..We have the facts,

the decision to NOT travel..(which is the guidance)could have in my eyes stopped such anguish...it's such a simple intervention that everything else seems futile.

In no way should we become averse to risk and in doing so sanitise our surroundings to make such activities off limits.

The same events may happen once we come out of lockdown but if every one stays within the law then everyone involved will receive my full sympathy. 

 wintertree 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> All I can say is I'm passionate about the people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to save others...

Agreed.

I think a piece of context missing from the discussion here has been the current situation with regards hospitals.  

A member of any rescue service always faces the risk of injury at work including a trip to hospital.  With the current situation in hospitals, the consequences of a rescue putting a rescue team member in hospital are worse than normal, both for the team member and for the already overloaded healthcare staff.  

That this should happen as a result of breaking the guidance / law (as applicable) both on staying away from home and on unnecessary travel should underscore the selfishness of this behaviour - if they weren't capable of thinking through the way Covid worsens the low probability, high impact consequences of their trip, the multiple different reasons it is currently against the law/guidance gave them clear barriers to progress, which they also ignored.  I think there will be clear selection effect applied to people travelling in to the hills, especially from out of area, to camp overnight.  They're not making good decisions - so they're the small minority of hill goers more likely to end up needing a rescue.

We have seen various people on this forum arguing that such actions are very low probability of risk, as indeed they generally are.  However, nobody can predict which party it will be for whom that probability realises, and there's only one sure fire way to avoid that.  Given the consequences multiplier imposed by the current situation in hospitals - which are still busier than in the first peak last April - I have not changed my views.  

I wish the team member the very best for their recovery.

Post edited at 10:25
 PaulW 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I do actually agree with you, I try to stay home and very local and wish more people would. I won't criticise anyone for doing what the rules allow though

But there is a point in discussing different things to what actually happened so long as they are a credible scenario, to gain a better understanding of how it all fits together

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> I think we're all feeling the effects of cabin fever one way or another.

This is probably true, I don't agree people are saying they should never have been doing this, people are pissed off because MOST of us are doing what we should be doing and staying home. It's not like we're not wanting to go out and do stuff we normally would do, it's we're doing the RIGHT thing protecting the NHS and emergency services.

The "righteous" indignation, if there is any, is exactly the same as if there was a rave for 150 people. Why are these two different from the rest of us? What makes them able to discount the rules and decide THEY can do what they like.

The fact a MRT bloke was injured only adds to the injustice and downright arrogance.

So yes cabin fever, I want to be out there doing what I love, I'm not because I'm not a dick.

In reply to mick taylor:

> What about the general rule: “stay at home”. The travel is clearly a biggie in this example,

See my longish post above, but I do wonder if it is the biggie in this case. I've read quite a few examples now of police issuing FPNs to people doing something in outdoors in this lockdown, but they seem to be mainly for clear breaches of other things (being away overnight, riding MX bikes on private property -  Moss Rake actually, being with more than one person from another household etc.) rather than travel. I suspect the Derbyshire women walking with teas case has cooled many police forces down on that.

Did you see the story of the guy who drove down to Cornwall to surf from somewhere on the SE coast? I think it said a 300 mile round trip. He filled his van up so he didn't need to stop, took a packed lunch so he wouldn't go into a shop, etc etc. He said Newquay was his most local place to do his exercise. I'm not sure if the people going climbing in the Lakes from other parts of Cumbria are doing anything so different? It quite clearly isn't what the guideline ask, but is probably not breaking the law.

The Welsh and Scottish legislation doesn't seemed to have left anything like this wriggle room.

Post edited at 10:22
In reply to wintertree:

I agree...I'd just like to add that working with Covid has added a whole new layer of risk to the work of the Emergency Services..

With that comes the wearing of additional PPE...adapting Work Positions,further Risk Assessments.

It all adds to the complexity and Stress of a rescue....which also compounds your own concerns and that of your family.

In reply to TobyA:

TBH I’m not that clear on guidance breaking vs rule breaking vs law breaking. They traveled without a reasonable excuse - so broke a travel rule, they spent a night away from the home - so broke that one. I’m not sure which are fineable. But we all need to act within the spirit of the guidelines. Bit of a digression here, but I’ve been very surprised how many winter climbers are calling it ‘exercise’ and hence ‘allowed within the law’. Calling it  exercise is a workaround - the surfer found a work around. These examples are barely going cause major Covid spread (but they will have more transmission points compared with walking around your local patch), but people don’t do them for exercise - the exercise is more of a by-product. 

Ed.  And just to add, all these exercise/climbing workarounds, whilst often minor, do add up. But we often go ‘it won’t happen to me’ (we kinda need to or we wouldn’t go climbing), but accidents do happen, quite common winter (lots of my winter climbing friends have had an accident - often a fluke like a big chunk of ice landing on someone’s head).

Post edited at 10:55
 Billhook 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

Well said.  And we've got people on here who have openingly stated that they don't intend to keep to the rules which they think are a waste of time!!.   

 Ciro 08 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> > All I can say is I'm passionate about the people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to save others...

> Agreed.

> I think a piece of context missing from the discussion here has been the current situation with regards hospitals.  

> A member of any rescue service always faces the risk of injury at work including a trip to hospital.  With the current situation in hospitals, the consequences of a rescue putting a rescue team member in hospital are worse than normal, both for the team member and for the already overloaded healthcare staff.  

> That this should happen as a result of breaking the guidance / law (as applicable) both on staying away from home and on unnecessary travel should underscore the selfishness of this behaviour - if they weren't capable of thinking through the way Covid worsens the low probability, high impact consequences of their trip, the multiple different reasons it is currently against the law/guidance gave them clear barriers to progress, which they also ignored.  I think there will be clear selection effect applied to people travelling in to the hills, especially from out of area, to camp overnight.  They're not making good decisions - so they're the small minority of hill goers more likely to end up needing a rescue.

> We have seen various people on this forum arguing that such actions are very low probability of risk, as indeed they generally are.  However, nobody can predict which party it will be for whom that probability realises, and there's only one sure fire way to avoid that.  Given the consequences multiplier imposed by the current situation in hospitals - which are still busier than in the first peak last April - I have not changed my views.  

> I wish the team member the very best for their recovery.

This.

The government have completely f*cked up our response to Covid, and our hospitals are struggling to cope.

Until such time as we've got on top of it, and our hospitals are no longer under serious threat of complete failure, we need to suck it up and live vicariously - watching other nations enjoying the outdoors on social media.

In reply to mick taylor:

Yeah, I totally agree. It takes me 30 minutes or less to drive to Edale, normally that feels quite local but I haven't been since the lockdown started because even if I can't go scrambling up an icy clough or snowshoeing from my house I can go hiking or ride my bike, saying that's the "exercise" I want (need?) to take and therefore I can travel to do it seems a bit lame. 

The big conditions reports Facebook group went into hibernation last night - it had kept going through January, but people posting climbing conditions (locals - but maybe 'so what?' - see above comments!) there seemed to be leading to lots of grief and arguments. Some folk seem to just like looking at pictures of the mountains even if they can't go, while others seemed to think the posters were just taking pee, and rubbing it in the faces of those of us who aren't local. The fact that people climbing in the Lakes were driving from elsewhere in Cumbria to go climbing but saying that was OK because they were local I guess bothered me a bit. Is Carlisle anymore local to Langdale than Lancaster? Counties shouldn't make any difference under the current legislation. On the other hand earlier in January my social media seemed full of people ski touring in Snowdonia - but they were all folk walking or cycling from their homes in Llanberis and Bethesda etc which was what the Welsh legislation said. I was dead jealous I couldn't go, but that didn't seem wrong at all because it was clearly keeping to the rules. Kind of "arggghhh.... but good on them!"

 Offwidth 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

200+ daily logged climbs on UKC seems high for local risk reduced climbing in Feb in a pandemic!

On the main subject, MRT tend to avoid blame games as most rescues involve some level of foolishness. The breach of two parts of covid regs leading to such a horrible accident understandably generates some anger in our community but it's unhelpful in my view and might be used against climbers in the future. Those two guys are locked-in for punishment already as this will stick with them for life.

 Mike505 08 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'm sorry your thread has descended into such an unsightly argument.

Two people have been hospitalised and wish them both well.

We can't blame the campers for the injury suffered by the MRT member, it could have happened even in normal times. And could have happend whilst attempting to assist any number of us on any number of days.

Be as prepared as you like accidents happen, and chest pains suggest an incident where being prepared wouldn't have helped anyway.

We can only agree that the campers actions were irresponsible at this time. I'm sure that they are well aware of the situation, as well as the guilt that will be pressing down on them.

It's a horrific chain of events, but to view it rationally, it was destined to happen eventually Covid or no Covid.
 

So please, lets view this objectively and keep things positive. Both the MRT members and camper may read this thread, and I'm sure 90+ messages of wishing them a full recovery despite the odds would do far more to lift their spirits just reading an argument.

So once more, to the Patterdale MRT and the camper, get well guys.

Post edited at 13:23
 Trevers 08 Feb 2021
In reply to JoshOvki:

> The anger in this house is that 2 people wilfully did something illegal, and as an a direct result someone innocent got injured. Same as getting angry when a drink driver hits an innocent person walking across the road.

I think this comparison is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure the injury to the MR team member can be described as a direct consequence of these men deciding to go out camping. A closer analogy might be a drink driver hitting someone who stepped out into their path in the road in such a way that a fully sober and aware driver couldn't have avoided the collision. But I think even that is overstating the analogy since it is generally accepted that drink driving is an unjustifiable risk to the safety of everyone around, whereas I don't think a priori anyone would suppose that going out camping in the Lakes would present a realistic risk to anybody, COVID or not. (For clarity, I'm not saying that their trip was justifiable in these times.)

I agree with others on here that we need to be careful in attributing blame lest we argue ourselves into a position where we can no longer justify any risk in our pastime at all.

My thoughts are with the MR team member.

Post edited at 13:11
 NottsRich 08 Feb 2021
In reply to gazhbo:

> The injury to the rescuer, awful as it may be, is totally unrelated to the reasons for the lock down.  They didn’t catch Covid.

Walking down a steep slope in the dark with a face mask on (and glasses?) certainly wouldn't make their job any easier. 

 peppermill 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I think the anger here whether proportional or not is understandable.

Weeks of awesome winter connies, especially up here in Scotland and most of us are doing our (exceedingly straightforward and simple, soooo simple it's almost moronic...) bit and staying at home/local and then we read that two lads drive from Liverpool to the Lakes, go camping, get chest pain, have to be rescued resulting in a member of the team being seriously injured. 

Is it really a surprise that people see this and think "Screw you guys" to put it politely.

**He types looking longingly at a shiny new set of axes on the mantelpiece bought for big winter plans this season**

Edit to add that was to the thread, not Offwidth!

Post edited at 13:26
In reply to not-changing-the-name-in this-example peppermill:

> Edit to add that was to the thread, not Offwidth!

on the slim offchance that you didn’t know, you can edit or delete the “In reply to” text string. It’s not embedded 

 EdS 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Indeed - we aren't even travelling across to Wharfedale to "play" just sticking to Nidderdale as we can't justify the unnecessary travel. Still would for a call out.

SWMBO is a nurse & I'm Env Health - partly doing covid enforcement work. SO, we've decided we need to be seen to be whiter than white - even for the sake of 20 miles or so.

In addition, one of the residents of a residential site I'm involved in managing has just died of Covid, so it s no laughing matter to be ignored.

Post edited at 13:40
 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to peppermill:

from Leicester and Birmingham to the Lakes.  There was clear intent to ignore several anti Covid spread rules as well as a choice of camping in a place in which approach and descent can be accident prone even in daylight in winter - the path wanders and has rocky steps which glaze over in sheets and requires care in daylight.  A map based recce would show many places where camping would be possible on fellside close to a road without anything like the same degree of hazard.  But perhaps being out of sight of and inaccessible to the authorities was an advantage in this case.

They also travelled to an area where the hospitals are under such pressure that patients currently have to be transferred to Newcastle (Cumberland infirmary is not a large hospital) for Covid and non Covid treatment.  The NHS has enough pressure here already in winter without people relocating themselves.  This was one of the reasons there was real resentment round here from people from urban areas chilling out in holiday homes during the first lockdown - they aren't registered here for NHS treatment and Penrith leisure centre was set up as a COVID bed centre by troops.

Post edited at 13:41
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Mike505:

> We can't blame the campers for the injury suffered by the MRT member, it could have happened even in normal times. And could have happend whilst attempting to assist any number of us on any number of days.

If they had stuck to the rules, like the majority of the rest of us, would it have happened? Saying "could have" doesn't mean it would have, we are dealing with facts here, not "ifs" of "could haves". There's a massive "should have" though which would have kept everyone safe.

> It's a horrific chain of events, but to view it rationally, it was destined to happen eventually Covid or no Covid.

 

Of course it wasn't, accidents by their nature are usually one off events, there's no destiny involved.

Wishing the people involved well, goes without saying!! I'd go so far as to say ALL posts here are about the MRT team, and hoping they are OK, however it's worded. The whole thread is about them being injured and people wishing they weren't.

In reply to peppermill:

One drive from Leicester  - 360 mile round trip. 

 jkarran 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> They shouldn't of been there.

The covid breach and the rescuer's injury are logically unrelated unless, and I presume you aren't given this is an outdoors 'site, you're arguing people should *never* 'be there'.

Here's hoping for a good recovery.

jk

Post edited at 13:42
 peppermill 08 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

> from Leicester and Birmingham to the Lakes.  There was clear intent to ignore several anti Covid spread rules as well as a choice of camping in a place in which approach and descent can be accident prone even in daylight in winter - the path wanders and has rocky steps which glaze over in sheets and requires care in daylight.

> They also travelled to an area where the hospitals are under such pressure that patients currently have to be transferred to Newcastle (Cumberland infirmary is not a large hospital) for Covid and non Covid treatment.  The NHS has enough pressure here already in winter without people relocating themselves.  This was one of the reasons there was real resentment round here from people from urban areas chilling out in holiday homes during the first lockdown - they aren't registered here for NHS treatment and Penrith leisure centre was set up as a COVID bed centre by troops.

Yeah I know. Mum and Dad are Penrith/Brough area so my true thoughts on these two would be unprofessional levels of sweary words.

 S Ramsay 08 Feb 2021

Mike Blakey from the association said: "This rescue and the subsequent life-changing injuries incurred by our team member were avoidable."

Every accident in the hills involving people engaged in leisure that there has ever been was avoidable. They could simply have not gone that day.

If an illegal immigrant needs rescuing in the fells and a rescuer is injured whilst assisting should the the illegal immigrant shoulder more responsibility for their rescuer's injury than if they had their paperwork sorted? After all, if they had abided by the law then the injury would not have occurred.

I truly hope that both that both make a speedy recovery

Post edited at 13:58
In reply to jkarran:

Thanks

 Roadrunner6 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> I'm softening but it's Black or White....

> They shouldn't have been there...no one can defend that.

> A fine is not really relevant...

> I think trying to legitimise any aspect of this is perverse.

It is. They did wrong.

Re the fine? It's an issue the legal system struggles with. Do you penalize the action or the consequence of the action?

Should they go to prison for years for leaving a guy with life threatening injuries? Is any fine enough? 

They went on the fells they shouldn't have gone on (outside their area), and spent the night (again wrong), but could they have foreseen such terrible consequences? 'what's the worst that can happen?'. 

Any decent person would be pretty racked with guilt. But I'm not sure what they did deserves a huge penalty and no penalty helps the guy injured.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I agree...no penalty helps the guy.

Maybe put something back into the community.

Yes..definitely racked with guilt and will have to work through that.

👍

Post edited at 14:55
 Ciro 08 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

> Indeed - we aren't even travelling across to Wharfedale to "play" just sticking to Nidderdale as we can't justify the unnecessary travel. Still would for a call out.

> SWMBO is a nurse & I'm Env Health - partly doing covid enforcement work. SO, we've decided we need to be seen to be whiter than white - even for the sake of 20 miles or so.

> In addition, one of the residents of a residential site I'm involved in managing has just died of Covid, so it s no laughing matter to be ignored.

Yeah, I'm sat in Newcastle, half an hour's drive from the sandstone, and while there's been a lot of rain around this year, I've also ignored the perfect cold conditions we've had on a good few days, and haven't touched the rock in a long time.

I can't justify the potential for an accident on the road or a badly twisted ankle needing an x-ray to myself until such time as the NHS is in better shape.

It amazes me that there are people on here who think condemning unnecessary risk taking during a pandemic will somehow put our pursuits in danger after the event.

If anything, it's the refusal to play our part in reducing the burden on the NHS during a time of national crisis is what will lead people to believe climbers are a risky bunch for society.

As a society we accept that people can get up to thinks that may lead to misadventure in normal times. We have health and emergency services designed to deal with the fallout from that.

Right now, those services are otherwise engaged, pointing that out in no way implies or suggests that the same risks would be somehow unacceptable in normal times.

Post edited at 15:06
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> They went on the fells they shouldn't have gone on (outside their area),

There's no definition of 'local' or 'area' in the legislation. That's a major failure of the legislation I think.

> and spent the night (again wrong),

Definitely against the law. 

 Roadrunner6 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> There's no definition of 'local' or 'area' in the legislation. That's a major failure of the legislation I think.

> Definitely against the law. 

Ah Ok thought there was.

 Rob Naylor 08 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:> "But their being there was contributory to this awful accident in precisely the same way it would have been last year or the year before last, and given that it was a medical emergency it's not even as if they were wildly reckless in a non-covid sense, poorly equipped or whatever. "

Not so sure about that... the guy who called for help has had 3 serious heart attacks in the last 3 years...so perhaps going walking/ camping in an area where medical assistance can only be rendered by an MRT, in winter, does smack of a certain level of recklessness. He said that he needed a walk for his mental health, but that could have been accomplished closer to home or in a more accessible environment, surely?

Post edited at 15:16
In reply to TobyA:

Been checking, copied from .gov:

”You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This is the law.”

and


“If you need to travel you should stay local. This means you should avoid travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live. “

I think this is reasonably unambiguous. 

In reply to Rob Naylor:

> Not so sure about that... the guy who called for help has had 3 serious heart attacks in the last 3 years...

Bloody good job he didn’t bump into my family ghost!

 felt 08 Feb 2021
 Offwidth 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

It's not at all unambiguous. The excuses are long and sometimes ill defined (deliberately so in my view). In this case the travel appears legally unreasonable and camping more clearly so.

Do you only winter mountain walk from home? What if you had an accident and mountain rescue were needed??

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> There's no definition of 'local' or 'area' in the legislation. That's a major failure of the legislation I think.

Do you think there was reasonable doubt, 180 miles is not local?

 Offwidth 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The government could easily have defined it (it is in Scotland) or even just defended the police interpretation but instead, throughout the pandemic, back benchers and leading tory commentators did anything from worried muttering to public anger about over zealous policing. The failure to explicitly limit travel on a clear definition was absolutely deliberate and in the face of the scientific advice (from members of SAGE who spoke out publicly in a personal capacity).

In reply to mick taylor:

Presumably you got that from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home

That is government guidance, I'm on my phone now, so can't look it up - but that's not the law. The police can't enforce guidance, only law. People were linking to the legislation just the other week here. It doesn't match up to the guidance. I'm not saying that any one should not follow the guidance, but simply what the guidance says is not the law. That's why Derbyshire police had to back down and cancel their tickets to those women last month, they were issued with no legal basis. As far as I remember there is no definition of local in the legislation and no limit on distance that you can travel for exercise in the law. As I keep saying the Welsh and Scottish laws do define that and therefore don't lead to these debates.

 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> There's no definition of 'local' or 'area' in the legislation. That's a major failure of the legislation I think.

Or, perhaps, a strength of it.  The word "reasonable" appears in lots of legislation, it's precise meaning doesn't get nailed down until there have been a few court cases.  The police can issue a FPN and anyone who doesn't think they got it right can (eventually) have their day in court.

It's irrelevant in this case though, because whether there's a grey area in the legislation or not, Leicestershire - Cumbria to go for a walk is obviously not reasonable.  (Conversely the Derbyshire cup-of-tea-gate incident was also outside the 'grey area' within which the line has yet to be defined, and it's good that the police did eventually manage to climb down semi-gracefully.)

It might be considered a major failing of the legislation if widespread breaking of the rules were a serious problem (in general I mean, before anyone jumps down my throat - I'm not at all attempting to minimise the awfulness of this particular incident) but the fact is that it really isn't.  Compliance in general is still pretty good, and could undoubtedly have been a lot better without the appalling example set by the friends and family of our PM earlier in the year.

Getting angry with those who break the rules is understandable of course, but people organising raves, parties, weddings and egregiously breaking the rules are newsworthy while people just quietly getting on with their lives as best they can and complying them is not.  Gladys and Edie taking their flask to the park to sit at opposite ends of a bench and have a chat is currently 'illegal' in England, while work is progressing as normal on the massive building site over the road entirely legally.

I've seen acquaintances lose their shit over this incident on the social media who have also come out with the 'Boris is doing his best' malarky in the past, and they need to get a sense of perspective, take a bit of the ire they're directing at the hapless fool whose poor decision may have contributed to an awful injury and direct it instead at the handful of people whose negligence has lead directly to 100k+ deaths.

> Definitely against the law. 

Where there are two offences the police could potentially issue a FPN for, it seems only logical that they'd choose the one that has the greater degree of certainty.

Edit to add (posts crossed)

> That's why Derbyshire police had to back down and cancel their tickets to those women last month..

I got the impression that they (eventually) had to back down because it was just bloody obvious that they'd acted unreasonably.  May be wrong about that.  You said earlier that "Counties shouldn't make any difference under the current legislation." - the Derbyshire police issued those tickets to people who had just barely crossed the county line from Ashby de la Zouch, which butts right up against it on the Leicestershire side.

Post edited at 17:04
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

You didn't answer my question though did you?

I agree it's abit wishy washy, so is "reasonable doubt" which we seem to manage with.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

> > "But their being there was contributory to this awful accident in precisely the same way it would have been last year or the year before last, and given that it was a medical emergency it's not even as if they were wildly reckless in a non-covid sense, poorly equipped or whatever. "

> Not so sure about that... the guy who called for help has had 3 serious heart attacks in the last 3 years...so perhaps going walking/ camping in an area where medical assistance can only be rendered by an MRT, in winter, does smack of a certain level of recklessness. He said that he needed a walk for his mental health, but that could have been accomplished closer to home or in a more accessible environment, surely?

Couldn't agree more. I'm not sure which idiot has the dodgy ticker but saying a wild camp, mid winter in the lakes, with dangerous medical history is making 'necessary exercise' work excruciatingly hard here. Leicester isn't that far from the southern Peak. Leicestershire itself actually has some lovely walking in some rolling hills. Liverpool is close to great walking either coastal or rolling hills too. Neither has a reasonable excuse. Just bonkers.

Wishing the MRT member all the very best.

In reply to deepsoup:

Yep, that sounds about right. I have no idea about "reasonableness" in this case. If my chosen exercise is ice climbing, would it be reasonable to drive 120 miles to the Lakes to do it? I can't reasonably go ice climbing elsewhere. The police seemed to be happy enough for people to drive 10 miles to go ice climbing from Kendal or 30 miles from Cockermouth - according to report I read, is 42 miles from Lancaster unreasonable?

I guess the guy who went 150 miles to Newquay to surf was thinking like that. I guess the main thing is most people are deciding for themselves it's not reasonable and not doing it. But there's lots of "edge cases" where people aren't sure. Should I drive 5 kms up the road to ski on the moor tonight? I could go from home but it looks like there's more snow higher! 

Liberty has quite a lot of good clear explanation of this complicated stuff: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/tier-4-national-lockdown-when-can-i-leave-my-home/

 Ramblin dave 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Couldn't agree more. I'm not sure which idiot has the dodgy ticker but saying a wild camp, mid winter in the lakes, with dangerous medical history is making 'necessary exercise' work excruciatingly hard here. 

For the record, I don't think anyone much is saying that this is okay, or legal, or that they didn't deserve to get fined. Mostly just that the ensuing angry pile-on is quite close to treating any person who needs rescuing as being directly morally responsible for injuries to the rescuers, and that that isn't a great look for climbing or mountaineering in general.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, from that link. I cut and pasted this: 

You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This is the law. 

 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> If my chosen exercise is ice climbing, would it be reasonable to drive 120 miles to the Lakes to do it?

I can't make a legal argument, but from a 'reasonableness' point of view I would say clearly not.  It may be the form of exercise you would prefer to be doing, but it's not the only form that's available to you.  You're allowed to leave the house to go and buy food too, but you'll fully deserve to get nicked if you think that means you can drive to Cornwall to buy a proper Cornish pasty.

> But there's lots of "edge cases" where people aren't sure. Should I drive 5 kms up the road to ski on the moor tonight? I could go from home but it looks like there's more snow higher! 

Whichever way you decide in this 'edge case', if you're thinking about whether that's reasonable it's pretty obvious you're not about to drive 120 miles in search of climbable ice so I think we're all good.

I'm happy enough to stick my neck out and confess to stepping over the 'edge' in your example from time to time.  I can go out for a run from my door and mostly do.  Occasionally I drive that 5kms or a bit more, to go for a run somewhere nicer.  I can't realistically argue that I need to do that purely for exercise, it's the same exercise I get from the door, but I'm definitely feeling some benefit from it that I wouldn't be getting otherwise.  It isn't difficult to keep the risk low with a bit of thought.  (I usually pick up some shopping at the supermarket on the way home, and from a Covid point of view that's always seemed like the riskiest part of the day out.)

> Liberty has quite a lot of good clear explanation of this complicated stuff: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/tier-4-national-lockdown-when-can-i-leave-my-home/

That is good, ta for the link.

 Offwidth 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

You didn't ask me! However to be perfectly clear I think driving that far should be outside any arguments around  guidance and should be way beyond a clearly defined limit in rule (as law).

Toby mentioned the Derbyshire women. Other folk were interviewed on the local news after being turned away without a fine, from the same parking area, having driven at least as far to get there. The reason they received an FPN must have had something to do with the way they interacted with the police when questioned. If you don't define, people will get things wrong inadvertently and others will take the piss. Climbers here said they intended to stretch limits of guidance as far as they could.

Post edited at 18:05
 WaterMonkey 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

>  Mostly just that the ensuing angry pile-on is quite close to treating any person who needs rescuing as being directly morally responsible for injuries to the rescuers, and that that isn't a great look for climbing or mountaineering in general.

But that is EXACTLY what we do all the time. If someone walks up Snowdon in flip flops and needs rescuing we always slate them due to them needlessly risking the lives of the rescuers. 

The reason people are disputing the ‘pile on’ is possibly because they’re feeling guilty themselves, even if they don’t realise it. 
 

In reply to mick taylor:

> You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This is the law. 

Yep, no one is debating that I don't think. The problems is around what the law says a "reasonable excuse". All of England is under Tier 4 regulations now - that's basically lockdown.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if I understand it correctly, but I think this is the relevant sub paragraph of the legislation on exercise - it is a reasonable excuse to be out of the house:

(c)to take exercise outside—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,

There's nothing in that which limits it to certain types of exercise, or saying you can't travel to exercise. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A

There's an awful lot less there than there is in the guidance - but that is what the police can legally enforce. 

Again: I'm not suggesting anyone should being travelling any distance to go climbing - I haven't, but people have been and they probably haven't been doing anything illegal when doing so. 

Reading the legislation I've just noticed I can in legally take the vast amounts of flattened cardboard boxes piling up in the laundry space to the recycling centre! No sure if the recyling centre is open though... 

 marsbar 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I think that is the guidance not the law?  

Not that I’m saying people should be out.  

Post edited at 18:37
In reply to deepsoup:

> Occasionally I drive that 5kms or a bit more, to go for a run somewhere nicer. 

I sympathize with this - I've got some really nice lanes and bridleways near me to cycle up and down for exercise, as a cyclist I know I'm really lucky, but after doing them most days last spring lockdown and now again this one, I'm getting a bit bored. I drove once the 5 kms up on the tops to ski a couple of weeks ago - that's the only exercise related driving I've done since the lockdown.  

 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Have you noticed that these regulations look like a powerpoint rather than legislation?  I've been told they were basically ministerial dictation -perhaps that wy they all refer to a mysterious "P"?

by the way, I fall under the general exception given to elite athletes - as a bumbly elite

Post edited at 18:51
 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

this is guidance too from the horse's webs(h)ite

"If you (or a person in your care) have a health condition that routinely requires you to leave home to maintain your health - including if that involves travel beyond your local area or exercising several times a day - then you can do so."

Post edited at 18:58
In reply to marsbar:

No, it is the law. My understanding is the law doesn’t state what ‘local’ means, but the guidance states ‘local means village, town or part of your city’.

And as Toby says, the law does not explicitly provide an exhaustive list of ‘reasonable excuses’, this would need to be tested in court. But when you look at the examples given (running, walking etc), then ‘adventure sports’ would not be reasonable. 
 

On a tangent: a lot of folk believe the laws/rules are vague on purpose. I have zilch time for this government but I do wonder if the vagueness is because they know people will flout them. Us Brits like flicking the Vs to authority, I do, and it’s an aspect of our collective character that, in normal times,  I like. So the vagueness actually allows the police to let people off, rather than use an excuse for more fines (excluding Derbyshire ; ). We haven’t seen that many climbers ‘done’ when it would be easy to make a case that they deserve a fine - perhaps the police know that compared to sayvillegal raves, climbing is low probability/high impact.  Just a thought. 

 PaulW 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I don't quite see how you get to adventure sports are not reasonable according to the law.

Only very mainstream sports are listed in the examples. Adventure or otherwise does not seem to be a criteria

 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

the Cumbria ACC commented tonight that we should be kinder to the people needing rescuing and that they were fined specifically for breaking Pandemic restrictions.

He's on record that people are OK going on the hills if they stay local, perhaps local council area though he said that would be too restrictive on people close to a council border.

 wercat 08 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

what is adventure though - pushing your own limits or staying within them?

plus, as you admit, examples not prescription is used in the powerpointese

Post edited at 19:32
 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> The problems is around what the law says a "reasonable excuse".

A couple of sections copy/pasted from that Liberty explainer you posted a link to address this:

"Although the law does not place any explicit limit on how far you can travel for the purpose of exercise, it does state that your excuse for leaving the house must be reasonable.

The term “reasonable” usually means what an ordinary person would think was fair, taking into account all the information they have. The distance you can legally travel will therefore depend on your own individual circumstances, such as where you live and what is in the local area.

For example, it might be reasonable to travel by car to the closest open space if you live in a busy city neighbourhood. It is less likely to be reasonable to travel a long distance to exercise if you have several local parks closer to your house. Ultimately, this will depend on the discretion of individual police officers."

- and from a little bit further up the page -

"In the first instance, police officers will decide whether your excuse is reasonable and whether you have committed an offence.

If a police officer believes your excuse is not reasonable, but you think it is, you can generally only challenge this by going to court."

> No sure if the recyling centre is open though... 

It is.  All the Sheffield HWRC's are doing their normal winter opening hours.  One of many ways the current lockdown is much less lockdowny than back in the Spring.

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> You didn't ask me!

You replied to my post?

>However to be perfectly clear I think driving that far should be outside any arguments around  guidance and should be way beyond a clearly defined limit in rule (as law).

Agreed.

In reply to wercat:

What’s an ACC?

Ed. Got it. Assistant Chief Constable. 

Ed Ed: if he’s ok with people from Carlisle climbing on Scafell or from Barrow climbing on Helvellyn then it’s basically open season. I live in Wigan and can be in the Lakes quicker than those journeys. Sounds like a bit of a dick. 

Post edited at 19:47
In reply to PaulW:

> I don't quite see how you get to adventure sports are not reasonable according to the law.

> Only very mainstream sports are listed in the examples. Adventure or otherwise does not seem to be a criteria

You’ve misunderstood my post as I clearly state that the law does not specify, it would need to be tested in court so it’s just my totally irrelevant view. I’ve no evidence for this, but the mantra ‘stay at home stay safe’ doesn’t align well with winter climbing, pot holing etc. I don’t think the police or anyone want to really test this out - if they want to do someone then they just go for the travel issue. 
 

Just to add: winter climbing  etc would not be considered ‘reasonable’ because there are much safer ways of getting exercise. 

Post edited at 20:00
 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The reason they received an FPN must have had something to do with the way they interacted with the police when questioned.

Or, particularly given that the police backed down, withdrew those FPNs and apologised, we could do them the courtesy of believing their version of events* instead of assuming that they kicked off with the police like a couple of entitled Karens.

*ie: Each of them had brought a cup of tea to drink while they went for a walk, the police officers there on the day decided to interpret this as them having met for a picnic (which is not exercise) and issued FPNs on that basis with no stroppiness on either side.

They were less than 5 miles from home at the time, so in their case it would have made no difference at all if the English rules had set the same defined limit as the Scottish ones.

 Timmd 08 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/supporting-seriously-injured-mountain-rescuer?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf%20share-flow-1&fbclid=IwAR23487IYtkr01qO3ZnSS65DgiBneKGxTjqjEUrfQ-Qrx9APZc3L9Co2Acw

There's a Go Fund Me for the injured mountain rescue volunteer, who is in his 60's. 

Match Your Anger With Donations Peeps?

Post edited at 20:21
 Offwidth 08 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

On balance I'd believe the police that the FPN was justified rather than two women who went public like that. The police involved never had a chance to put their side of the story.

To me the reversal of all the beauty spot FPNs was clearly based on a leadership change of position following significant government criticism, not on the merits of this particular case. 

I don't care how travel limits are defined within reason but I think they should be (its still not legally defined at all in England) and I would expect policing to be sensible in grey areas around the borderline cases. Those two women shouldn't have got an FPN unless their story was not correct, however I simply don't believe coffee cups was why those others did not get an FPN.

 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

Done.  Good shout! 
(I've stripped the Facebook tracking bit off your link though.)

Post edited at 20:56
 deepsoup 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

You're giving them a lot less credit than I am then.  My opinion of the police is not so low that I think they make operational decisions based on the opinions of backbench MPs, and I note that Derbyshire's "change of position" merely brought them more into line with the approach that other forces around the country were already taking.

 WaterMonkey 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

Done, thanks for the link. Over £10k already. Sounds like he has serious spine and facial injuries.

Will need all the help he can get, please donate, everyone 

 Timmd 08 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Yeah, poor bugger. He must have had an awful tumble. 

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Yeah well I think its the other way round since I've known quite a few police and have had my fair share of encounters, although they were not immune to saying the odd daft thing, in recent years, as a white middle class citizen, it was rare to encounter anything other than well behaved to-the-book treatment. On a few occasions I've talked to police during the pandemic they have been fabulous.

If I was BAME things might feel different (I've seen clear discrimination with black academic colleagues at customs and heard about annoyingly regular stop and searches).

The local Derbyshire leadership clearly changed their position based on political pressure. I was happy with what they were doing, drones onward, to assist a public health emergency, as too many people were taking the piss with travel. I don''t blame Derbyshire police leadership for misunderstanding doom laden public pronouncements, once the government went for lockdowns, compared to the reality of deliberately lax legislation. I think they were 'hung out to dry' for trying to do the right thing; stuck between the bluster of what was said on afternoon PM and ministerial press conferences and the libertarian sub-text.

Post edited at 00:48
 Blanche DuBois 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Toby mentioned the Derbyshire women.

Odd how the posts describing the incident that this thread is about all appear to use gender neutral language (i.e. the culprits are "people"), then as soon as the Derbyshire incident comes up (where I seem to recall no-one was injured, or even at any risk of injury - or infection for that matter) then the sex of the "culprits" is suddenly significant.

> The reason they received an FPN must have had something to do with the way they interacted with the police when questioned.

I hope you bring a greater level of critical objectivity to your academic career than you do here.

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

No need to fret.. I'm retired.

 wercat 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

anything but, going on most of his TV appearances.  I got the impression he was talking about district councils rather than County councils when he was talking about local.  He came across as a having a far more reasonable view than those police in Derbyshire earlier on.

He was basically stating that they could be fined for breach of regulations but we shouldn't be too harsh on them.  Given where they chose to camp in the middle of winter I can't but think that they created the dangerous scenario - carrying the gear up there probably wasn't good with all the illegal excitement for a man with heart problems.  Additionally they were out at night and anyone out at night has to know that the hazards to rescuers are going to be greater in the dark, particularly in this season.  That is a responsibility we all have to account for.

As the males in my family in my father's generation died at 57 and 61 this decision troubles me but at the same time I try to keep a level of hill fitness locally because of that, but I take considerable care over reducing risks at the moment

Post edited at 09:24
 Newbuild100 09 Feb 2021
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Done, twice. (Self and parents)

In reply to Ramblin dave:

> For the record, I don't think anyone much is saying that this is okay, or legal, or that they didn't deserve to get fined. Mostly just that the ensuing angry pile-on is quite close to treating any person who needs rescuing as being directly morally responsible for injuries to the rescuers, and that that isn't a great look for climbing or mountaineering in general.

 As a law abiding climbing who is staying put.

I don't take kindly to 2 Covid gloits driving past my house sticking ✌at me....and then I've got be careful what I say when they appear in the news.

They are not people I identify with...you may.

 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>  too many people were taking the piss with travel.

Eg: Driving four miles to meet a friend in a car park and walk by a reservoir together because you find it calming to be next to the water.  An example of "taking the piss" severe enough to be worth bringing up in this thread ffs.

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

We have been round this loop before. We don't know what happened when the police spoke to them and it is very suspicious they went to the press so quickly. I completely agree driving the 5 miles to a lake walk was within any sensible interpretation of the regulations.

In reply to wercat:

Fair does. I think the relative lack of Covid fining for climbers/walkers shows they might/are using their discretion. 

In reply to Timmd:

> There's a Go Fund Me for the injured mountain rescue volunteer, who is in his 60's. 

> Match Your Anger With Donations Peeps?


Thank you donated.  Good to see already well over target

 SAF 09 Feb 2021

In reply to:

In emergency responding, going down the route of butterfly effect or "what ifs" is mentally a bad place to go.

The injured responder chose to be a member of mrt, chose to continue responding during a pandemic/lockdown, chose to respond to that particular incident and fell before making any contact with the service user. The end.

The problem with trying to attribute blame like this is it works all ways. With public misplacing blame on first responders, first responders misplacing blame on themselves, first responders misplacing blame on service users, and as in this case, public misplacing blame on service users. It's not healthy for anyone. 

I've seen colleagues dragged through coroners court in order to provide a scapegoat for grieving families, for events that were outside of their control and responsibility.

I've personally dealt with the guilt of being in the wrong place at the wrong time for paediatric cardiac arrest. We were on cover in another area, because the computer said that was the statistically most appropriate place for us to be, the child was in a house opposite our ambulance station.  The outcome would likely have been very different if we were on station at the time. Shit happens!

I've also seen management use "what ifs" as a bullying tactic towards EMS staff on many occasions. 

Post edited at 12:55
 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

It’s gone from 7 or 8 miles to 5 to 4.  

 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

We don't know exactly where either of those women live of course, but according to Google maps, from the centre of Ashby de la Zouch to the car park at Foremark Reservoir is just about 5 miles exactly as the crow flies, and a 6.4 mile 13 minute drive.

In the context of the Scottish rules if they were to be applied in England, it's 2.7 miles as the crow flies from the nearest bit of the 'local authority area' boundary which is at Heath End, round towards Calke Abbey - the other place that was in the news at the same time for the same reason. 
(ie: Derbyshire coppers being a bit overzealous in their interpretation of vague rules, or according to an equally credible and not at all sexist theory two gobby women being 'suspiciously' keen to talk to the press.)

No need to take my word for it if you want to check.  If you use Bing maps instead of Google you can see the OS map which shows the county boundary (Google doesn't).  Both have a handy tool for measuring distance as the crow flies.

Post edited at 14:12
 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to SAF:

I've just read an facebook post in which a friend and a friend-of-a-friend, both former MRT members, are agreeing with each other that they would be suing the casualty in the injured responder's place.  As with some of the comments upthread here they're angry and not even trying to be logical, but even so..

In reply to SAF:

> In emergency responding, going down the route of butterfly effect or "what ifs" is mentally a bad place to go.

> The injured responder chose to be a member of mrt, chose to continue responding during a pandemic/lockdown, chose to respond to that particular incident and fell before making any contact with the service user. The end.

> The problem with trying to attribute blame like this is it works all ways. With public misplacing blame on first responders, first responders misplacing blame on themselves, first responders misplacing blame on service users..

Personally I think the response from the MRT involved has been measured...

They have described it as Avoidable..

All the team members involved in this response will feel terrible, goodness knows what the team leader is feeling..there will be a review in every aspect of this incident.

Not sure on your meaning 'before making contact'..I'd rather think that the risk in this incident started when the end user rang the call in....

In the mean time...the work of our first responders is to be commended...particularly in these challenging times but also to the element of 'risk' blame and changes bought about by management...as you suggest.

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Sexism as well now... wow!.... according to someone who is happy to blanket blame a police force following leadership instruction as over zealous you sure are pretty extreme in your rhetoric. Afterall, following local complaints, they were trying to pursuade people to reconsider driving to popular beauty spots outside guidance limits, and eventually selectively issuing £200 fines, all during serious levels of a pandemic.

I've no idea where you got 'gobby' from as a quick search shows two other uses on other threads and yours is the first use in this thread...

 rogersavery 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

‘Been checking, copied from .gov:

”You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This is the law.”’

Please read it again

”this is the law” is a hyperlink to the law, it is not saying the previous sentence is the law


and you seem to have missed out “You should follow this guidance immediately” - it clearly says “guidance”

 SAF 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> Not sure on your meaning 'before making contact'..I'd rather think that the risk in this incident started when the end user rang the call in....

The risk started when the team member joined mountain rescue.

As a paramedic, if I trip and fall down the stairs of a tower block injuring myself whilst attending an incident can I blame/sue the caller? What if the caller was an elderly person having a heart attack? What if they were a young person feeling "funny" after taking an illegal drug? 

The people in the tent have been fined for the law they broke. There MRT chose to volunteer and respond. The two things are separate.

The mrt members are angry which is a recognised stage of grief and it is totally understandable for them to go through a period of anger. That doesn't mean that the anger is necessarily fairly directed.

 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Lolz.  Too easy. 

> I've no idea where you got 'gobby' from

"The reason they received an FPN must have had something to do with the way they interacted with the police when questioned."

In reply to SAF:

So when they describe it a avoidable.

What does that mean to you?

Post edited at 15:24
 SAF 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> So when they describe it a avoidable.

> What does that mean to you?

To me that means they should rethink their places in a MRT, or that they need some quality counseling following this incident, in order to start rationalising it.

The vast majority of the incidents they go to could likely be classed as avoidable if you analysed them hard enough. It's fine to educate the public about staying safe in the mountains, but blaming individuals for a chain of events leading to a tragedy, where those individuals weren't even present, is highly unfair.

Post edited at 15:33
In reply to SAF:

You said the campers were breaking the law...so they shouldn't have been there.

If you attend incident and you hurt yourself and in the process they found out someone was breaking the law..I'd check with you're Union rep..

Indeed the risk starts as soon as you sign the dotted line..

 SAF 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> You said the campers were breaking the law...so they shouldn't have been there.

> If you attend incident and you hurt yourself and in the process they found out someone was breaking the law..I'd check with you're Union rep..

FFS...Seriously, we don't sue patients for injuring us by proxy even if their reason for the original call had a criminal element.

Post edited at 15:51
In reply to SAF:

Is the team trying to sue the 2 campers?

 wercat 09 Feb 2021
In reply to rogersavery:

when you look at the Powerpoint Law it keeps referring to a mysterious "P".  Is this a new and improved way of legislating?  Certainly a new one on me.  Is P a placeholder like R Roe or J Doe?

In reply to rogersavery:

I’ve just triple checked - it is not a hyperlink but is summarising the law. I’m aware the other stuff is guidance and made this clear upthread. Here’s a screenshot from a House of Commons library piece,

Can anyone else confirm or not  - don’t mind if I’ve got this wrong - beginning to think I’m going mad as more people agree with you than disagree which makes me think I’ve got this wrong. 

Post edited at 16:00

 SAF 09 Feb 2021
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Is the team trying to sue the 2 campers?

I think there has been mention of it upthread, but no idea of the source.

My post was in direct reply to Shaun Mc suggesting involving Union reps for industrial injuries indirectly caused by incidents where the patient has behaved outside the law.

 wercat 09 Feb 2021
In reply to SAF:

they are certainly not solely putting a spotlight on the campers.  They have, quite rightly I think, been emphasising recently (since the crazy OpenUp behaviour last summer and Autumn) how many callouts could have been avoided by people acting with more forethought and this is a theme I think worth continuing.

In reply to SAF:

FFS..indeed.

Whose taking who to court?

I've known the FBU take an authority to court when a Ff has been injured at work...

You seem to have a glass ball.

 wercat 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

It is an incomplete description of the law, "executive summary" style - not suitable for reference.

Post edited at 15:58
In reply to wercat:

What does the law say then?

 SAF 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> FFS..indeed.

> Whose taking who to court?

> I've known the FBU take an authority to court when a Ff has been injured at work...

> You seem to have a glass ball.

Presumably where a health and safety breech has directly resulted in a firefighters injury or death.

I've never heard of any cases of emergency responders suing the caller when a crew has been injured in an RTC enroute to a genuine 999 call, regardless of whether criminal actions have contributed to the need for the original 999 call.

In reply to SAF:

H & S will be a big part of this.

Believe me when a Fire Appliances crashes on the way to a call...the litigation papers are flying everywhere particularly if that call is avoidable.

Please note I'm note I'm not thumb downing you I'd rather reply.

Post edited at 16:19
 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

> Can anyone else confirm or not  - don’t mind if I’ve got this wrong - beginning to think I’m going mad as more people agree with you than disagree which makes me think I’ve got this wrong. 

You've not got it wrong as far as I know, people just want you to be wrong.

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to SAF:

> That doesn't mean that the anger is necessarily fairly directed.

They shouldn't have been there! If they weren't there, we wouldn't have a thread with some people trying to make excuses why it's OK, or at least reasonable, a MRT volunteer has been injured.

There is no way to separate these two idiots, from the outcome of the situation. If they'd stayed home, like they should have, the situation, NEVER exists.

In the same way my sister, who works in A&E, is being put under pressure, because people don't seem to be able to follow some simple rules, because "they'll be OK" or "they know what they're doing".

In reply to mick taylor:

I dunno about the particular page you copied from, but "This is the law" is a hyperlink in https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home pointing at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/contents

That is where the actual legislation can be viewed.

In reply to SAF:

You've got a Bee in the Bonnet about your turnout systems..

I could list the number of deaths that happen because of management changes...the futility of who lives and who dies..mind blowing.

 wercat 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

If you look at the page that Alkis linked the highest tier (4) restrictions are in Schedule 3A.  I do not know where the regulation is that says that we are all in Tier 4, but I'm taking that as a given.

Those regulations I find to be very strange and not like any regulations that  I have ever seen before when I had to read stuff like that.  It may be that regulations are made by powerpoint presentation on a regular basis now.

Post edited at 16:38
In reply to Timmd:

Done.

Thanks for the link.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

There we go again. Cobra_Head, seriously, this shit helps no-one. Not a single person in this thread has defended these people having gone camping during COVID time. They have put themselves, their community and MRT in additional risk of catching COVID and/or of further becoming a burden of an already stretched health service, which is ultimately what happened.

However, you have to separate the accident itself from them having done so, because the causes are not related to COVID itself. Otherwise you are opening a huge can of worms with very long reaching potential consequences in any adventure sport during normal times, do you seriously not see this? Yes, this sort of accident will not have happened if they had stayed at home as they should have, but the situation would have been exactly the same had this not been a national pandemic. SAF put it quite well, this sort of thinking can result in people thinking that any injury to any emergency responder during a misadventure and/or illegal activity is the fault of the injured party.

Think about this from an external (non-climber) perspective one moment, if not being out on the hills results in less risk to MRT, it's only logical that people should either not be on the hills or not be rescued from the hills, it's a pandora's box that would outlive this pandemic.

In reply to AllanMac:

Yes..I've channelled all my negative reaction into a donation....it's the least I could do.

Thanks for the link

 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

If you go from the centre of Ashby to Starbucks and then to Foremark car park its 8.5 miles on Google maps.  

It's less if you go without visiting Starbucks, because then you could go there without going on the bypass. But they did go to Starbucks.  

I don't see the crow flying argument or the Scottish situation being at all relevant because they didn't drive across the fields and they aren't in Scotland.  

I feel sorry for the police being told to enforce stay in your local town and only essential journeys, because that journey to Starbucks was not essential and there are plenty of lovely walks in and around Ashby without driving anywhere.  

As for the sexism, I don't think anyone said all women are gobby.  I said something about them but I don't think that was the word I used.  Entitled princesses I may have said? I don't remember..

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You've not got it wrong as far as I know, people just want you to be wrong.

Having just read the actual legislation, I agree that I am not wrong and haven’t got a clue why some folk think I am. Oh well. 

Post edited at 17:12
In reply to rogersavery:

Took a screenshot of the actual law (or part of). Black and white: 


In reply to Alkis:

Thanks for this. 

In reply to mick taylor:

I haven't read anything that you've posted to be deemed a thumbs down.

I think I felt like you at the start of this thread..but then I've had the most thumb downs..🤣..

In reply to Cobra_Head:

I hate to tell you but I've just notice who has replied to you..

😉.rather you than me Man.

Post edited at 17:26
 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't see the crow flying argument or the Scottish situation being at all relevant

You're right it isn't relevant, except in the context of the argument that the English rules should have a precisely defined limit like the Scottish ones do instead of using the word "reasonable" and therefore being open to interpretation.  In the case of these two women what they did would have been legit under the Scottish rules, just as it was under the English ones.

>  that journey to Starbucks was not essential

That isn't relevant either really, but I would agree with you.  It does beg the question why is Starbucks open?  And if the business is 'non-essential' and it's unjustifiable that it's open during the current lockdown, why are we be blaming their customers for the fact that it is?

> As for the sexism, I don't think anyone said all women are gobby.

Indeed not, but it is what would be implied if you assume that these women were 'gobby' or 'entitled' solely on the grounds that they are women wouldn't it?  For example if you were to accept that what they were doing that day was both legal and reasonable, but insist that they deserved to be fined anyway because they must have been uppity when the police spoke to them.

I don't think their case is at all relevant to this thread btw., they really should never have been dragged into it but I just couldn't help biting when they were, sorry.  I'm not commenting on anything that's been said about them in any other thread really, only in the context of what's been said in this one.

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> There we go again. Cobra_Head, seriously, this shit helps no-one. Not a single person in this thread has defended these people having gone camping during COVID time. They have put themselves, their community and MRT in additional risk of catching COVID and/or of further becoming a burden of an already stretched health service, which is ultimately what happened.

> However, you have to separate the accident itself from them having done so, because the causes are not related to COVID itself. Otherwise you are opening a huge can of worms with very long reaching potential consequences in any adventure sport during normal times, do you seriously not see this? Yes, this sort of accident will not have happened if they had stayed at home as they should have, but the situation would have been exactly the same had this not been a national pandemic. SAF put it quite well, this sort of thinking can result in people thinking that any injury to any emergency responder during a misadventure and/or illegal activity is the fault of the injured party.

> Think about this from an external (non-climber) perspective one moment, if not being out on the hills results in less risk to MRT, it's only logical that people should either not be on the hills or not be rescued from the hills, it's a pandora's box that would outlive this pandemic.


This shit helps no one either!!

You can't separate the accident from them having done so, because if they HADN'T done so there wouldn't have been an accident.

There's no can of worms to open, because we know MRT do their job anyway, same as the police, fire and nurses.

You are talking about non- specifics, "Yes, this sort of accident will not have happened....", that's not what I'm discussing, I'm talking about this specific accident, and it needn't have happened. You can put all the "ifs" and "could have" and "sort ofs" you like and make anything seem reasonable , but I'm talking about THIS incident. Trying to divert from that, or "project fear" it into some future occurrence where MRT don't bother is ALL fiction.

You're conflating actual facts and occurrences with works of fiction and what "might" happen.

Doing so does no one any good at all. Like you said, "this shit helps no one". Staying where you are supposed to helps, untold and unseen numbers.

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

> I hate to tell you but I've just notice who has replied to you..

> 😉.rather you than me Man.


I didn't "get" your post at first. ha ha

 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to SAF:

> I think there has been mention of [the team trying to sue the campers] upthread, but no idea of the source.

There's been no mention of it in the thread, but I did mention a conversation I saw on Facebook between two former MRT members saying that they would be suing in the place of the injured rescuer.

Neither of them (as far as I know) has ever had anything to do with the Patterdale team though, and I only mentioned it because I was a bit baffled really as to how they thought that would even be possible.

 alimckay 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Timmd:

https://www.mountainrescue.org.uk/support-us/

This is the official Patterdale Mountain rescue team donation page.

“We strongly encourage you to be cautious about donating to independently established funding sites, none of which we have authorised, as it is not uncommon for these to be set up with fraudulent intent”

I’m sure the one you linked to is set up honourably, but might be best donating through the official route if that’s what you want to do.

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Just to add, you seem to be taking the point of view, that I and many others here, are suggesting MRT shouldn't have gone out.

I'm pretty certain no one is saying anything of the sort.

If no one is saying that, then where does your doomsday scenario come from, when MRT don't come out for dangerous stuff in the future.

 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I said whatever I said based on the interview in the local paper, not her gender. She came across as quite a entitled pain in the bum in my view.  

I totally agree that there should be a legal definition of local, its unfair to expect the police to decide and then complain when they decide "wrong".  Its also so subjective that you and I don't agree what it is, so how is it sensible or possible for anyone to decide.  

 Ramblin dave 09 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I think the original point was that "local" isn't defined in the law.

I don't think this is a major issue, though - the vast majority of people seem to be interpreting it fairly sensibly either as "don't drive" or "don't drive more than about ten or fifteen miles", neither of which seems like a massive problem. The small minority of people who are obviously taking the piss by deciding that local means 200 miles away get fined if they get caught, and can't really complain.

Honestly the worst thing about it is probably the cumulative impact on people's mental health from the incessant bad-tempered arguments about it, and that's probably only an issue if you spend too much time online.

Post edited at 18:00
 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Just to add, you seem to be taking the point of view, that I and many others here, are suggesting MRT shouldn't have gone out.

> I'm pretty certain no one is saying anything of the sort.

It's interesting as a thought experiment though.  

If it was known that MRT were, for example, not permitted to come and rescue anyone, would this lead to fewer people doing illegal things like camping?  

If the armed forces were deployed in place of mountain rescue with instructions to lock up anyone they found breaking the rules would people still drive miles to the hills? 

Is a fine of £200 much of a deterrent to anyone who has a bit of spare cash?  

In reply to Cobra_Head:

I am taking no such view, but I am getting rather tired of going round in circles. You, Shaun and many other people are taking the view that an MRT member is in hospital with life changing injuries because someone broke COVID regulations. That view is basically the law of unintended consequences and consistent with the reality that going out on the hills is what caused the accident.

No-one has stated that what these people have done is reasonable. I certainly have not either, as you insinuated above. We are in a pandemic, the hospitals are at breaking point, we have new variants of the disease and two people, one with underlying medical conditions on top of everything else, travelled from half-way across the country to go camp in an inaccessible setting. That is neither in the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, common sense or indeed anything else you can possibly apply at this time. But they did not cause someone to have an accident any more that they would have caused them to have an accident during normal times.

Would it have been a less dangerous rescue if COVID was not around, if we discount the added danger of MRT catching COVID? Have you ever seen the views of the general public with regards to rescuing climbers, during normal times? They are *exactly* aligned with what you are saying here and they are absolutely talking about people not being rescued, or paying, or being prosecuted for endangering emergency services personnel. This is not just limited to the likes of the Mail either. If we as climbers start playing the same blame game, then we really need to rethink MRT in the UK.

 PaulW 09 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

The MRT choose to go and try to help people. No one orders, directs or pays them to do so. I for one think they perform a very valuable function.

They do not choose who they go rescue. Some people requiring help have been stupid, others acting illegally. Some just unfortunate. It is not possible to separate those acting illegally with things that we have all done at times, perhaps setting out when the forecast is for adverse weather.

I'm sure there would be no appetite to sue those who required rescuing after setting out with an avalanche grade of 3 or higher

In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I think the original point was that "local" isn't defined in the law.

Not aimed at you, and a very trivial point, but that’s exactly what I said 19.10 on Monday.  My previous posts contained text cut and pasted from the govt website - the text ‘this is the Law’ was not a hyperlink. It was a sentence contained within the guidelines. There is a hyperlink on the website but not in the text cut and pasted. As I previously stated, some of this (eg what does ‘local’ mean) he would need to be tested in court first. Anyway, not that important really. 
 

I think in this specific debate, and the wider ‘should we climb during Covid’, a significant number of people are trying hard to interpret the guidelines to suit what they want to do (passionate folk, best winter in ages etc).

In reply to Alkis:

Can I just interject.

I was at a Rescue on Helm Crag last November  there was alot of apprehension when approaching a casualty. 

It was deemed covid secure....

These are not normal times...

Post edited at 18:52
 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> I said whatever I said..

You weren't the one who dragged them into this thread.  I don't really remember what you said before either tbh, don't think I can have read/seen the interview you mentioned and was commenting only on what's been said about them above.  (Rather pointlessly really, as their case is entirely irrelevant here.)

> I totally agree that there should be a legal definition of local..

I feel differently as I've said above, but that's cool.
Again I don't think it's really relevant to this thread because there is no possible argument that the campers' trip to Cumbria could have been reasonable by any definition of 'local', even if it is a bit woolly.

I fully appreciate the irony of me saying that stuff is irrelevant having spent so much time banging on about it btw.  What can I tell you?  In my current addled state, half mad with the cabin fever, once it did get dragged in it was more than I could do not to bite.  Offwidth's pomposity is a red rag to a f*cking bull man, I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse that I at least have the self-awareness to realise I'm as ridiculous as he is!

 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

Its pure and simple a thought experiment  based on Covid and the lockdown. 

What would happen if MRT weren't permitted to rescue people during lockdown? 

At no point did I say explain to me how MRT works.  Nor did I say what they should or shouldn't do, or question their value or their choices.  Nor do I think this should or is likely.  

Post edited at 18:58
 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Honestly the worst thing about it is probably the cumulative impact on people's mental health from the incessant bad-tempered arguments about it, and that's probably only an issue if you spend too much time online.

Yep.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

If I'm honest, I wouldn't blame the MRTs if they decided that at this point in time the best course of action would be to stand down for all but the most exceptional circumstances. At least then people wouldn't think they have the usual safety net that they are used to having. These are no normal times, as you said.

Post edited at 19:05
 marsbar 09 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I apologise for misreading the local thing.  

I got accused of sexism on the other thread. 

Cabin fever has set in.  

Roll on summer.  

In reply to Alkis:

I think you'll  find most rescuers are Non judgemental on turning out...

I liked your post..time to open a can

Post edited at 19:13
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Opened one myself. Let's have one for MRT.

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Let's try this, if they hadn't gone out, would an MRT bloke be in hospital?

I'm not suggesting they we there CAUSE, they are however the REASON.

You seem determined to turn what is a very simple scenario into philosophical thought experiment.

Post edited at 19:28
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Let's try this: Take the first sentence. Apply it to any mountain rescue in history. If a rescuer is injured, the people needed rescuing being there is obviously the reason.

Post edited at 19:36
 deepsoup 09 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> I apologise for misreading the local thing. 

Did you?  I didn't realise so I'm sure there's nothing to apologise for.

> I got accused of sexism on the other thread.

Don't tell anyone, but I was 90% trolling when I described Offwidth's thesis as "not at all sexist" (he only assumed I was being sarcastic).  ;-)

I don't really think he's any more sexist than I am - which is to say at least a little bit, some of the time.  You probably shouldn't trust any ludicrous opinionated middle-aged bloke like him or me who claims otherwise.

> Cabin fever has set in. 
> Roll on summer.  

Oh god yes.  Amen to that!

 Dave the Rave 09 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Hope this guys alright.

Isn't the simple answer just for MRT’s  not to  be available at the minute? 
If they needed to, they could base a callout on where the victim is from in relation to the area?

 Dave the Rave 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Ok. Talking to myself again but nothing new.

This afternoon I drove 5 miles to a secluded area to walk up a local hill. Naughty boy and a collie. A small hill and the site of a recent MRT callout. I knew the risks and wouldn’t expect to be rescued in any event. Loved it, decent wintry weather and I would have gone even if there was no possibility of MRT in the event of an emergency. 
I would not have called anyone out at all just sucked it up.

Why should MRT’s feel the need to help anyone presently. People make decisions about what they can get away with but they should accept the consequences of their actions?

 Cobra_Head 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> Let's try this: Take the first sentence. Apply it to any mountain rescue in history. If a rescuer is injured, the people needed rescuing being there is obviously the reason.


Yes of course it it, that's not what THIS accident is about, or what I'm talking about. I'm say, once again, if they had done as they were supposed to, there wouldn't have been an accident.

Now, I've answered yours even thought you dodged mine, your turn.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

> This afternoon I drove 5 miles to a secluded area to walk up a local hill. Naughty boy and a collie. A small hill and the site of a recent MRT callout. I knew the risks and wouldn’t expect to be rescued in any event. Loved it, decent wintry weather and I would have gone even if there was no possibility of MRT in the event of an emergency. 

> I would not have called anyone out at all just sucked it up.

I assume you didn't take your phone with you then, because I bet that if you had found yourself lying with a broken femur rapidly going hypothermic and death not too far away and you'd had it with you'd have used it.

> Why should MRT’s feel the need to help anyone presently. 

Presumably because they'd find it hard to live with themselves if they sat with their feet up knowing somebody was lying out there with a broken femur dying of hypothermia.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

There is nothing to respond to, you are making an obvious and irrelevant statement. No, if they hadn't been out he would not have been out rescuing them, but this is about blame. You can blame them for being out *in a pandemic*, but it's not the "in a pandemic" bit that caused the accident, it was the "being out" bit that caused the accident.

They would have needed a massive bollocking for the first bit even if no-one had been injured, hell, even if they hadn't needed rescuing to start with.

You could blame them for any material difference caused in the sequence of events by the pandemic, say, if the MRT was staffed differently or had different practices than normal to comply with COVID safety, or if the poor guy ends up catching COVID in hospital, but otherwise it was a rescue that went wrong, there is no way anyone could have foreseen such a tragic accident to link the COVID breach to someone nearly dying.

Post edited at 22:51
 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I have no idea what the interaction was, do you? I said above (and before) it could have been the fault of either side or both. If other people didn't get an FPN something must have happened. My concern is so many people blaming the police (which undermines the pandemic response) when the women went straight to the press to sensationalise their position and the officers are not allowed to present their side of the argument. All this in the context that the Home Secretary gives the impression she would have treated them harsher if she could but instead the government effectively forces the Derbyshire police to reverse all those fines (some of which may have been very justified).

The fact I wind you up probably indicates we are both emotive. My justification is I'd love things to be normal again and that the government would stop delaying clearly necessary policies, resulting in tens of thousands of preventable deaths, and sending out so many mixed messages... what's your reason? The Derbyshire police were trying to prevent virus spread, however cack-handed you think they approached things. Friends of mine in Derbyshire have exercised locally with no issues and good reports of police attitudes.

Post edited at 00:36
 PaulW 10 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

Interesting idea.

Not sure permitting is the right word.

MRT had a choice. They could have said that because of the pandemic we will not respond to any callouts. If we were all following the spirit of the advice to keep ourselves safe then none of us should be putting ourselves in a situation where we MAY require a complicated rescue in any event.

Given that, quite rightly, they chose to keep responding then they shouldn't get more upset at helping COVID breachers than people setting off without coat and maps. Both put their members at equal risk.

 deepsoup 10 Feb 2021
In reply to PaulW:

> .. they shouldn't get more upset at helping COVID breachers than people setting off without coat and maps.

Nor do they, as far as we know, the team(s) themselves.

There's no way they could not be upset at the dreadful outcome of this particular rescue, it's a personal tragedy for them and there's no way for it not to hit them hard.  And it's just a simple matter of dispassionate, objective fact this particular rescue shouldn't have been necessary because the campers ought not to have been there.  (According to the rules, even if they'd been 'local'.)

While speaking to the media the spokesman for the team urged people to comply with the current lockdown and stay close to home, just as all the other MRTs, the RNLI etc. have any time they've been speaking to the media during any of the lockdowns.

Connecting the dots from that and then making the leap to blaming the casualty for the accident suffered by a member of the team is something wholly made by 'armchair' commentators on social media like facebook, the Daily Mail comments and this forum.  As far as I can tell we've seen nothing of the kind from anyone with 'skin in the game'.

 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I'd say it's much more about the obvious need for clear messaging that the behavioural scientists in SAGE said was vital from the beginning. The government deliberately never defined this travel distance putting police and rescue services in England under a good bit more pressure than they needed to be (and accidents will happen from time to time in rescues) and ministers kept moving the goalposts and even at times contradicting each other (Patel very hawkish, other ministers libertarian). As an academic and a covid geek even I struggled to keep up with the rules and what the government message was.

People on social media will say what they will. On one side the zero risk brigade will deny almost any excercise (never putting yourself in a position you might end up in A&E would arguably preclude most serious excercise outdoors on a bike, and running and walking on anything but perfect terrain). On the other hand many people here backed strict adherence only to rules in law, ignoring guideance, so you can legally travel as far as you like in England. A few even backed the Lord Sumption position that lockdowns were an infringement of civil liberty and should not have happened: a position if followed to its logical conclusion would have destroyed hospital functionality and caused widespread carnage and probably social chaos....  the BBC were still reporting his mad views on current issues yesterday.

Post edited at 09:52
 Cobra_Head 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> There is nothing to respond to, you are making an obvious and irrelevant statement. No, if they hadn't been out he would not have been out rescuing them, but this is about blame.

I'm not saying it is about blame, I'm saying, one  more time, if they'd stuck to the rules, there wouldn't be a MRT bloke in hospital.

You can read that however you like, but there is a simple chain of events for THIS accident, not one that happened previously, not one that might happen in the future, this one, and it started when they decided they didn't need to follow the rules. The rules that most of us seem to understand and live by.

>  there is no way anyone could have foreseen such a tragic accident to link the COVID breach to someone nearly dying.

But there is, I've not gone out because of the chance of exactly that!!

And I don't think I'm the only one. You don't have to foresee everything to realise there might be a possibility.

You can't separate out covid, because you have no idea, what difference that made to their decision to go where they did, when they did, whether being out when they weren't supposed to changed their reaction to calling MRT out, or what other differences it made to MRT procedure, any minute detail, might have changed this outcome. Change one thing and you change the timeline.

But they shouldn't have been out, that changes the outcome.

 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

You are just venting. Firstly there is little liklihood of additional legal redress and secondly karma is going to be a bitch as the two muppets will have to live with that accident on their conscience. Breach of covid rules are not the only situations with gross stupidly involved in preventable accidents, putting MRT at serious risk. A classic example were the family who were buried when having a picnic in Glencoe under an area of the highest avalanche risk and MRT were avalanched trying to save their lives.

Post edited at 11:18
In reply to Offwidth:

1.Can you remember a rescue were an MRT member has received life changing injuries and the rescued have been penalised by the Police...I'm trying to think of another case like this?

2.Life Changing to me means..trauma,loss of future earnings,adapting lifestyle..house car.

3.Someone is going to have to come up with alot of money on this one..

4....I could go on....

In reply to Cobra_Head:

We're going around in circles so it's best to just agree that we have a difference of opinion on the matter. My view is that if you start arguing that that are to blame for the accident itself, as opposed to just being to blame for breaking the rules and needing rescuing, you are opening us all to post-COVID consequences, because a rather high percentage of rescues involves people doing stuff they shouldn't be doing and any injury incurred by emergency responders will then be seen in the same light.

In reply to Alkis:

> .........a rather high percentage of rescues involves people doing stuff they shouldn't be doing and any injury incurred by emergency responders will then be seen in the same light.

Shouldn't be doing as in illegal? Really?

 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Why remember that specifically and obsess on that particular definition when team members have died and been seriously injured in the past?

As I understand it a significant amount of money has been raised already to help in this case on top of standard entitlements.

Where deaths and serious injury occur as a result of reckless behaviour you need a clear causal link in law. I'd welcome extension to a wider definition on such causal links but such changes take time...I still remember when drunk drivers who killed others were not prosecuted for manslaughter and/or served no jail time.  

Post edited at 13:09
In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't really want to go further into what-if land but establishing legality of one's actions before establishing potential liability for injuries during rescue sounds like the legal profession's wet dream right there, remember that in England we do have a government intent on criminalising trespass as an example.

In reply to Offwidth:

Entitlements?

Ok..next question.

Do you think the H&S should investigate this accident?

There was a time when you could drink and drive..

Significant amount of money...how much?

Post edited at 14:21
In reply to Alkis:

> I don't really want to go further into what-if land but establishing legality of one's actions before establishing potential liability for injuries during rescue sounds like the legal profession's wet dream.

We have already done that in this case .Police have prosecuted the campers...

I'm intrigued that you say there are lots of illegal activites going on in the outdoors....can you elaborate?

I'm not interested in trespass at this point.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

I didn't specifically mention illegal activity, Robert did, by "should not be doing" I meant misadventure. Going out underprepared, going off route, going out when the avalanche risk is high etc. Basically all situations where we're "asking for it" so to speak and by extension we endanger rescuers that have to extricate us from the mess we put ourselves in. Robert brought legality into the picture, because as you correctly pointed out legality has been established in this case, and I mentioned trespass as an example (that will hopefully not come to pass and become law...) of where that could lead. 

Post edited at 14:29
 Cobra_Head 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> You are just venting.

Sort of, yes. But I'm also trying to point out the accident is linked to their leaving the house. There no ifs, ands or buts about this. I really don't understand why he's arguing against this.

Alkis, keeps mentioning "blame" as if I'm trying to have them hung. I'm simply pointing out that had they done as they were supposed to, i.e. stay local, then we have a MRT bloke not injured.

I said in a previous post, I'm not trying to "blame" anyone and then he mentions blame in the very next post. Infuriating might be the word to use.

I'm NOT saying they shouldn't have gone out.

I'm NOT saying they shouldn't try and rescue anyone, however stupid they are.

Alkis, and a few others, seem to be suggesting I keep quite in case in the future MRT might not come out.

He also, seem to be trying to deny the fact, if they'd done what they were supposed to the MRT bloke wouldn't be injured.

Post edited at 14:44
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Right, you do seem to be unable to read, I'm sorry to say. Where did I deny that? Here is a quote:

"There is nothing to respond to, you are making an obvious and irrelevant statement. No, if they hadn't been out he would not have been out rescuing them".

Of course I keep bringing up blame, literally most of this thread is discussing whether the rescued party is to be blamed for the accident or not. Of course they are to blame for breaking regulations and being out and of course if they physically weren't there rescue wouldn't be needed, that has never been part of the debate here, you appear to have made it part of the debate somehow.

My thesis is, for the n-th time: If you attribute blame *for the accident* to a party *needing rescuing* then the logical conclusion is that this becomes the norm, COVID or no COVID. If I am not on the hills, legally or illegally, no-one will ever need to risk their neck rescuing me, especially when the backdrop is that the general public does not understand or agree with the risks rescue teams are put under. This isn't novel, it is already the case in other countries (see: USA).

In reply to Alkis:

Misadventure...can vouch for that.

I think you describe these discussions and the resulting reactions leading to a Pandora's box....👍.

I have lots of questions but asking on here is probably going to make it seem like speculation.

The work of a rescuer is fraught with difficulty.

Post edited at 16:18
 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Go look it all up yourself. The only further point I'd make is HSE have been useless on the covid related statutory notice front during recent months, despite very large numbers of formal complaints, so good luck getting them to do anything with volunteers in a known hazardous environment out of cboice.

Post edited at 18:08
In reply to Offwidth:

£17k raised so far for MRTeam member....

👍

 Lord_ash2000 10 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but from a quick skim it's good to see there is at least some understanding that although the campers shouldn't have been out due to lockdown they are no more responsible for the rescuer's injuries than any other person who ventures out into the hills is.  

I was having a scan of the (non-climbing) social media comments about this story and there is so much hate being directed towards these specific campers which calls for them to go to prison and/or be fined tens of thousands of pounds etc because if they weren't there it wouldn't have happened.  

However as tragic as this case is, any rescue operations carry risk. And if enough people do it enough times then, unfortunately, an accident like this is pretty much inevitable. It just happens that this one happened while attending someone who wasn't supposed to be there at that time.

But really anyone who goes out of range of a standard paramedic is risking the injury or death of a rescue team member. 99% of the time, of course, you don't need recusing, and even when you do 99% of those rescues won't result in a team member getting badly hurt, but every so often they will.

It's no different really from calling an ambulance in normal times for a perfectly legit reason. Eventually, an ambulance driver is going to crash on his way to a call out and kill himself or someone else. So if you want to "save lives" stay off the hills forever and while you're at it stop anything that might ever cause you to get hurt just in case. 

Post edited at 21:43
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The responsibility for the accident rests solely with the rescuer and team...in any other organisation there will be an investigation.....

Thank you for the advice...I'll will wait till I'm allowed to return before I venture out....don't want to be giving ammunition to the wrong kind do we...

Post edited at 07:35
 EdS 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

HSE have pretty much nothing to do with Covid - even in the work place. IT  is the H&S of council Env Health that are empowered under the legislation -- in relation to "businesses" and some gatherings, and the police forthe "general public"

 Offwidth 11 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

That's simply not true. HSE are involved in many ways and have been good with advice on making workplaces covid safe but they have been poor on acting when employees complain their organisation is breaching H&S law.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/concerns.htm

https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/16/staff-pressured-back-to-work-breach-of-uk-covid-rules

"Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors have not issued any enforcement notices on companies for Covid safety breaches since the start of the latest lockdown, despite having been contacted 2,945 times between 6 and 14 January about safety issues. Just 0.1% of about 97,000 Covid safety cases it has dealt with during the pandemic appear to have resulted in the issuing of an improvement or prohibition notice. No company has been prosecuted for a Covid-related breach."

 wercat 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

this isn't a binary thing.  There is a spectrum of behaviour and I think you are ignoring some aggravating circumstances.  Aggravation is indeed a legal concept and it plays a part in deciding where on a spectrum of culpability a particular behaviour lies

 deepsoup 11 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

Not a lawyer, so won't attempt to explain it.  But I think this is an important legal concept in the context of a skilled and experienced person having a dreadful accident whilst voluntarily engaging in a rescue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria

 deepsoup 11 Feb 2021

Ok.  I think I'm ready to respond to this now.  The first draft was ugly, glad I didn't post it.

With apologies to the rest of the thread for coming back to this irrelevance one last time:

In reply to Offwidth:

> I have no idea what the interaction was, do you? I said above (and before) it could have been the fault of either side or both.

Only what I've read, which is the only account available. The two women say they got fined while others didn't because they were meeting each other there and had brought a hot drink with them, which police officers present decided constituted a picnic (against the rules) as opposed to going for a walk together (within the rules).

Here's you being balanced and saying it could have been the fault of either side:

"Yeah well I think its the other way round..
..On a few occasions I've talked to police during the pandemic they have been fabulous."

"The reason they received an FPN must have had something to do with the way they interacted with the police when questioned."

> the women went straight to the press to sensationalise their position and the officers are not allowed to present their side of the argument.

(My bold.) I don't think you really know they even did go to the press.
Maybe they did, but it's equally likely a reporter picked something up off social media and approached them. There was much discussion on Facebook by all accounts. Initially it seems it mostly centred around a similar operation the police were conducting just up the road at Calke Abbey and didn't involve them at all.  The BBC account we've both linked to lifts quotes from the Calke Abbey NT facebook page directly.

The officers remain anonymous, their names and photos are not in any of the various newpaper stories, and the police have professional PR people to speak for them. Individual coppers have hardly had their names dragged through the mud so there's really no need for violin music for them.

The only criticism I've made of them, no criticism at all really, is that officers present on the day got it a bit wrong. The rules keep changing, it's all somewhat vague and confusing and they are only human.

What you have said about them, supposedly in their defence, is much more damning. You've got some neck accusing me of "blaming the police".

You said:

"I completely agree driving the 5 miles to a lake walk was within any sensible interpretation of the regulations."

If the police on the day issued those FPNs on the grounds that they thought the regulations had been breached, it follows logically that I'm correct: simple, honest mistake.

If, as you seem to be suggesting, those women were fined purely on the grounds that the police found them annoying, that would have been a breach of professionalism at best.  (Illegal, at worst.)

> instead the government effectively forces the Derbyshire police to reverse all those fines (some of which may have been very justified).

This assertion that the Derbyshire force as a whole caved in to political pressure on an operational matter is a much more serious accusation than you seem to think.  If you genuinely believe that you're actually quite a lot more cynical about the police than I am.

> My justification is I'd love things to be normal again and that the government would stop delaying clearly necessary policies, resulting in tens of thousands of preventable deaths, and sending out so many mixed messages... what's your reason?

This is really offensive.  You think wanting things to be normal again and not being in favour of 'tens of thousands of preventable deaths' is something that differentiates you from me?  From anyone posting their blether on these forums? (The odd Russian troll-farm bot excepted perhaps.)

My reason?  Precisely this sort of blatantly sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, passive-aggressive shite.  You think you're better than me.  You think you're better than just about anyone on here.  How dare you even hint that "I'd love things to be normal again" is a sentiment not shared by every single user of this forum.

You've spoken before about how UKC is full of 'childish bullies', and contrasted yourself to them as the champion of the downtrodden.  That isn't you - you're just another opinionated middle-aged white male gobshite who is never ever wrong.  Like me.  But I at least am blessed with some small degree of self-awareness. 

You think 'dislikes' is what makes this place look unwelcoming to newbies?  Acts to reduce the 'diversity' of this place?  Nope.  It's this.  Me and you arguing, pointlessly, endlessly, about nothing.

For the sake of my mental health I obviously need to spend much less time on here in general, and engaging with you in particular.  The sun is shining and I'm off out for a walk.  I'm going to see if the van will start and drive a few miles for a change of scene.  Taking a flask.  Might sit by a reservoir for a bit.  Somebody call the police.

 Blanche DuBois 11 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Yup to all that you say above.  Offhisnut will never agree with any single point you make though.  He never agrees with anything anybody ever says, including those that agree with him. 

 wercat 11 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

while I think that concept is useful in assessing consent to risk in a recreational/sport  setting it is not quite adequate where the individual is engaged in a public service activity - I'm not saying it should not apply at all as the activity is quite voluntary but it does not mean that unlimited risk is accepted as "part of the job".  I suppose the extreme limit would be soldiers where extreme hazard is sometimes involved but that does not mean that the govt through MOD does not owe a duty of care in training, particularly to young recruits (at the other end I had a friend who was aRoyal Marine who joined up in the 1960s when some of the instructors were still of the WW2/Korean war vintage - on his first day arriving at the barracks he saw someone in basic training fall from a high rope exercise breaking his ankles.  The instructor then proceeded to administer a good kicking as punishment to the injured recruit)

Post edited at 12:02
In reply to wercat:

https://www.fbu.org.uk/workrelated-accidents

The MRT are volunteers so I'm not sure how Riddor will apply.

In reply to deepsoup:

I came away from an exchange with him thinking much the same...better to move on.😉

I'd book him in for a safe and well visit...he's probably got 'post it' notes everywhere at home.

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> Right, you do seem to be unable to read, I'm sorry to say. Where did I deny that? Here is a quote:

You're right, sorry I missed it, I was hoping for a simple yes or no, and I lost the line in the rest of your posts, and although you'd replied to my posts I had to ask twice for you to address the point, which seemed a little evasive.

Although I'd expressly posted about not trying to blame anyone, you mentioned it in almost every reply to my posts, to my mind if you're replying to me you address my posts not what others i the thread are posting about.

Anyhow, nice one, thanks for the experience.

At least we can agree there's a link between these numpties and the MRT bloke being injured.

Post edited at 14:04
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> However as tragic as this case is, any rescue operations carry risk. And if enough people do it enough times then, unfortunately, an accident like this is pretty much inevitable. 

Can any one elaborate on this?

This attitude would give any H & S rep a 🤨

Post edited at 14:09
 EdS 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

That is because it falls to Local Authorities (Env Health normally) to do the work place enforcement in relation to Covid not HSE

Principle enforcement is under Public Health (Control of Disease) Act:

Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

Authorities administering Act.

[F1(1)In this Act “ local authority ” means any of the following—

(a)a district council;

(b)in England, a county council for an area for which there is no district council;

(c)in Wales, a county council or county borough council;

(d)a London borough council;

(e)the Common Council of the City of London;

(f)the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple;

(g)the Council of the Isles of Scilly

Supplemented by : 

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(b) and (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1).

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020

This one gives Local Authority the power for improvement, restriction and fix penalty notices etc...

Bit like HSE don't enforce HSWA in non "industrial" workplaces --- shops, offices etc - that is local authorities to 

 EdS 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

not a work place so not covered by H&S at work legislation, HSWA, RIDDOR etc directly. 

Any legal action would not be brought under them - although in a negligence case they would be cited  as best practise to used as guidelines. As confirmed by HSE officers themselves in the conversations I've  had in relation to H&S and rescue teams.

In reply to EdS:

In my time in the Fire Service we have been served quite a few improvement notices relating to Operational Activity...particular a line rescue at Edinburgh Castle,a few yrs back due to injuries received while rescuing.

I never really thought about the operational difference between our service and a MRT before...I feel more indepted to them now, knowing the risk is far greater to them than I've had in Service.

At least I had the protection of the Authorities and Rep Bodies.

Post edited at 16:05
 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I'm glad you dumped the ugly earlier version as this is bad enough. If you can't debate wth me without making really personal attacks, yes, it's probably best you stop for your own health. So, with one exception,  I'll ignore the personal stuff and suggest you talk to people as I know we must share the odd common friend.

The point I was clumsily trying to make about being in a pandemic and away from climbing (one of my main coping mechanisms in life) is I get to feel more than normal in my comfy middle class existance how things are not great for anyone and how in such times tempers can fray. I am lucky compared to most in my personal situation but still have had to face many serous domestic and work problems in the last year.

Part of why things are so bad in England is many MPs in the government party don't believe in the efficacy of lockdowns and in that (dangerously for everyone) put political philosophy above science. Major newspapers of similar views have also tried to undermine lockdowns. This links to what should have been a small subject, the Derbyshire police, as these dangerous politically driven people targetted them in their efforts to undermine lockdowns. From the beginning in lockdown one we had national headlines, yet the local complaints and the many quiet chats asking people not to drive again to very popular parking areas for walks was not part of that (nor were the partly blocked roads due to horrendous verge parking in the preceding weeks). We didn't know then that outdoors formite spread or proximity was as low risk as we do now.

In terms of my personal philosophy I don't think I'm better than anyone else, ever (ask people who know me well), but we are responsible for what we say and what we do, including that opinions don't 'trump' science and we are subject to law and morality.

Finally you can argue all you like about the Derbyshire police and insult the complaining locals who caused the senior officers to choose to police in that way; but under the current system with police and crime commissioners they are publicly accountable to the people in the area. I am very angry that lockdown deniers like Lord Sumption get mainstream airtime to attack police efforts without being questioned on why he thinks any lockdown measures are wrong. He is abusing his position of senior legal expertise and senior legal roles to further a dangerously unscientific political campaign. I agreed all along that walking (even after an 8 miles drive via Starbucks) isn't something that normally should ever have got an FPN, but pointed out there are many reasons why an FPN could happen in such circumstances, depending on how the public respond to police questions. I have said this could be the fault of either party or both ......it's a small world and one day we will know the other side of that story that led to that FPN. Where we are in agreement, they rightly felt they were doing nothing wrong..... if I was in their position and innocent and saw those press reports I would write and defend the intent of the force and complain about misuse of the incident for political reasons. I think the Derbyshire police intent has been good all along.... to reduce the risk of viral spread. The leading national commentators critisising them often have dangerous intents. 

Post edited at 11:09
 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

The information I get from my union and from the TUC is several parties are responsible for policing, including the HSE. The Guardian could have been clearer in that respect but in the end people are told to contact HSE with covid related H&S abuses and who polices that is a secondary issue (possibly partly causal) to the fact that there are no prosecutions and only a tiny number of improvement notices despite some terrible unsafe reported behaviour.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/one-in-five-britons-going-into-workplace-unnecessarily-covid

https://www.tuc.org.uk/resource/covid-19-coronavirus-guidance-unions-updated-04-jan-2021

Post edited at 11:10
 Newbuild100 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Folks, forgive me if this has been covered in the above.; Im sure my question may have been answered in all the other posts. Any clues as to why the incident regarding the woman who got "caught" a few weeks ago made national news and yet the Patterdale incident doesnt seem to have ? Can I presume MR just want to play it down (Even though its serious and sad etc !!)

 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Newbuild100:

It's obvious to me... papers are major issue driven on headlines... right wing press titles really don't like UK lockdowns and so the Derbyshire police become a big target; for centre and left papers they will disapprove of the Patterdale incident but don't usually headline victim shame (even when the victim is a covidiot and someone else got badly hurt as a result of the rescue).

Post edited at 11:44
In reply to Newbuild100:

> Folks, forgive me if this has been covered in the above.; Im sure my question may have been answered in all the other posts. Any clues as to why the incident regarding the woman who got "caught" a few weeks ago made national news and yet the Patterdale incident doesnt seem to have ? Can I presume MR just want to play it down (Even though its serious and sad etc !!)

The two women: it was a borderline law break, thousands of people doing similar on a regular basis so ‘it could be you’ and makes good headlines. 
The Red Screes wild campers: their law break was clear cut, nothing really ambiguous and a rare event - few folk go camping in winter in the mountains - so not newsworthy.

The MRT volunteer issue: probably not a lot to report on, won’t sell newspapers etc. 

 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

Life is full of equivalent everyday 'everyman' incidents. Ask yourself why the Derbyshire police became such a big issue? Why was Lord Sumption, a lockdown denier, so prominently quoted from the start?

 EdS 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

HSE aren't authorised to serve under the Public Health Act - so can't serve any- and their official line is it is best left to public health official / Env Health to deal with/ As confirmed 2 minutes ago by the manager overseeing Covid workplace enforcement in this district.

I'll take their word over the presses ---- what with been the manager authorising the legal action and having daly Silver command level meetings

Observer / Guardian getting the right fact - not served any, but for from wrong reason not legally able to.

What they should of asked is how many served by the authorised authorities = lots

Post edited at 12:15
 Newbuild100 12 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I thought that because the "woman" incident was marginal, it shouldnt have made the news but given "Patterdale" wasnt marginal (AND someone was hurt), it would have been  a lot bigger news story .  Just my thoughts  . . .I think the world has gone potty !!

 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

So would I normally, but it's not the press in this case...they are just reporting what Taylor (the person responsible under May's government) and the TUC are concerned with, that the enforcement system clearly isn't working and the government are not being transparent on details. There is no advice to directly report problems into local council based enforcement. Even the government source in that article (from BEIS) said "The Health and Safety Executive continues to investigate reports of unsafe working environments and carry out spot-checks.”

Post edited at 12:55
 Offwidth 12 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

I'd thought I'd add for clarity that I have friends who work in Environmental Health as well. They have been hit hard by austerity budget cuts and are now struggling under covid sickness and self isolation rules and often don't have the capacity to carry out their normal workload let alone additional covid responsibilities. HSE and other enforcement bodies can act on complex covid related H&S reported problems under other legislation. In the end its the government responsibility to ensure how neccesary enforcement happens.

 wercat 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Newbuild100:

BBC News editiorial values - not so much as on the blink as non present

 Dave the Rave 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

You are correct.

 Forester3 16 Feb 2021
 Lankyman 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Forester3:

You have to admire the magnanimity of the injured rescuer asking after the other casualty.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Very sad, but hopefully he will get lots of support to help cope with those injuries

 Jon Wickham 16 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Please consider donating to support Chris here: https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/Chris-Lewis-Support-Fund-LDSAMRA-Patterdale-MRT

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Country File today, MRT have had a 70%  increase in  call-outs over last year!!

 galpinos 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Did it say for what type of call outs? I remember in the very first lockdown there being a lot of criticism of people out on the hills causing the increase in call outs but that was negligible compared to people getting into to trouble in pretty benign, but rural, terrain, where they were too far from the road for an ambulance crew. Oh, and mountain bikers, there were a lot of mountain bike accidents.....

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to galpinos:

I had a look at a few (starting with Patterdale). There seemed to be a clear drop in incidents during actual lockdowns. A lot of people enjoyed the UK outdoors last summer as international travel was so limited, a good number were inexperienced, so I'm not surprised incidents increased. I'm also not surprised the 70% will get the cotton wool brigade excited.....a potential Daily Excess headline in a less busy news period.

 Mr Lopez 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Country File today, MRT have had a 70%  increase in  call-outs over last year!!

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2021/01/01/mountain-rescuers-saw-surge-in-callouts-as-covid-19-lockdown-eased-figures-reveal

While the Peak District, North-East, Mid-Pennine and south-western peninsula areas encountered significant increases in demand for rescues, other areas saw their callout numbers drop. Teams in the Lake District, north Wales, south Wales, and south-west England were called out fewer times than in 2019

Post edited at 07:48
 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Much more sensible reporting from Grough

"Overall, callout numbers for the year are remarkably consistent, with 3,080 callouts in 2020 compared with 2,973 in 2019, a relatively small increase of 107 – under 4 per cent. But this national view hides a much more complicated story once the figures are broken down by region, especially in the months following the arrival of Covid-19 in the country.”

 marsbar 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Presumably some incidents were people who would normally go to the gym?  

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

Wandering distraught at their loss?

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I had a look at a few (starting with Patterdale). There seemed to be a clear drop in incidents during actual lockdowns. A lot of people enjoyed the UK outdoors last summer as international travel was so limited, a good number were inexperienced, so I'm not surprised incidents increased. I'm also not surprised the 70% will get the cotton wool brigade excited.....a potential Daily Excess headline in a less busy news period.


"The cotton wool brigade" nice one!

The bloke interviewed was the Operational Lead for Mountain Rescue for England and Wales, "by 1st September [2020] we had the same number of call-outs we'd had for the whole of 2019".

What a fooking snow-flake? I suppose he might be lying mind, these MRT people love to exaggerate a bit.

@ others, does it matter what they were called out for? Surely a call-out is a call out. In the program they were called out to rescue a pig! They still went.

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to thread:

If anyone wants to pick holes in what the MRT bloke said, it's here, starts about 20 mins in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000sd9w/countryfile-winter-heroes

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The figures don't seem to be consistent with the actual cross UK data presented in that Grough link. I've never met or heard of anyone in MRT who was part of a cotton wool brigade... just the opposite their ethos is to rescue without blame. It's the people who get excited and imply the 70% means irresponsibility, that I was highlighting.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Lakes MRTs saw a big increase in early Jan (iirc) - most likely due to it being a ‘proper winter’. So they did a media campaign and numbers plummeted. But that would make for rubbish BBC headlines. 

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

> Lakes MRTs saw a big increase in early Jan (iirc) - .......

According to the MRT bloke on the program though, they'd already had a years worth last September.

Anyhow, I wasn't trying to denigrate or defend anyone, simply putting info out there, from what I thought might be a reliable source, which was then slandered. I can't see why the bloke would lie or that he wouldn't have the salient facts. I have no idea what the truth is, and to be honest it doesn't affect me, apart from feeling sorry for the MRT service.

Mike Margeson is the bloke quoted in Grough and the bloke on the program, so go figure!!

Post edited at 12:33
In reply to mick taylor:

The fact that the MRT had to do a media campaign suggests the BBC report isn't that alarmist, and is based on the big increase you mention in early January.

But that wouldn't make for rubbishing the BBC...


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