UKC

Saving lives at sea - perplexed

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.

Not a programme I normally watch but caught episode 3 of season 6 of saving lives at sea last night. 

Around 18 mins in it shows a climbing rescue. The climber is on the sea cliffs in Pembroke and is lowered into a route that is too hard. She describes ending up on an overhanging section and her partner can't pull her up and she can't climb. Then somehow manages to remove both rope and harness and jump into the sea. 

I am very confused about what happened! How did she manage to get off the rope while hanging in mid air? and also why jumping into a rough sea was a better idea than staying on the rope. 

She ends up nearly dying and having to be rescued by the coastguard with a helicopter in attendance. 

Anyone seen the episode and can explain? 

In reply to crimpsoplenty:

When things go wrong people will often make bad decisions. Nothing else to explain really. 🙂

In reply to crimpsoplenty:

The real question is where were her prusiks...?

 Cake 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

Maybe she climbed down to a kind of rest and got her harness off there.

 Stichtplate 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

It’s a TV reality show. I usually take everything they say, do and film on such things, with a large pinch of salt.


 colinakmc 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

Was Bear Grylls anywhere to be seen? Would explain a lot.

 jkarran 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

> I am very confused about what happened! How did she manage to get off the rope while hanging in mid air? and also why jumping into a rough sea was a better idea than staying on the rope. 

> She ends up nearly dying and having to be rescued by the coastguard with a helicopter in attendance. Anyone seen the episode and can explain? 

Haven't seen it but I know I've weighed up the prospect of swimming out of such a situation before now. How bad an idea it is depends how rough it is and how far to a safe exit. Lots of people aren't very familiar with the sea so underestimate how hard/dangerous it can be to get out onto rocks even in a small swell. People make mistakes when they're pressed, I know I have. Mostly we get away with them, often unacknowledged, some end up as dinnertime light entertainment.

jk

 Siward 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

A very different reality TV show though in that there are no directors, or cameramen, just footage from the crews.

Obviously there's still the editing.... 

 gravy 15 Sep 2021
In reply to jkarran:

Just don't do it if you're a bit foreign and Priti Patel is around!

 John2 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

It's fairly straightforward - her partner lowered her to a ledge at the start of the climb, she couldn't do the climb, and she was lowered back down to the ledge. She then took off her harness and jumped 3 metres into the sea.

 elliot.baker 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

No idea about that episode but I f*****g love that show. Get emotional nearly every time I watch it,   some real heros on there, not just the RNLI but people like a random man that saw a boy getting dragged out to see on his SUP so he swam out to him and kept him company for three hours while waiting to be rescued. Then gets dropped back on the beach and he's like "my wife'll kill me"

Recharges my faith in humanity!

 GrahamD 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

I've not seen it but I know from experience that emotions can run pretty high faced with not being able to get up a seacliff climb.  People don't always take the most rational course of action. 

 chris_r 15 Sep 2021
In reply to crimpsoplenty:

I'm still mystified as to why the RNLI isnt govenment funded. They seem the equal to Fire and Rescue in many ways. I wonder which service gets more call outs.

 deepsoup 15 Sep 2021
In reply to chris_r:

> I'm still mystified as to why the RNLI isnt govenment funded.

Same reason Mountain Rescue isn't I would suggest, historical reasons plus the fact that they overwhelmingly don't want to be government funded.  An attitude that can only have hardened while we have a government that would apparently like to be able to tell them who they may and may not rescue.

In reply to chris_r:

> I'm still mystified as to why the RNLI isnt govenment funded. They seem the equal to Fire and Rescue in many ways. I wonder which service gets more call outs.


Given the RNLI works so well, one might equally ask why are the Fire service and Ambulance service not run as a charity?

 Jamie Wakeham 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Dear christ don't give Boris ideas like that!

 Philip 15 Sep 2021
In reply to chris_r:

> I'm still mystified as to why the RNLI isnt govenment funded. They seem the equal to Fire and Rescue in many ways. I wonder which service gets more call outs.

Me too. But it's the tip of the iceberg - there is a staggering amount of things in society that rely on donations.

Police £22B, Fire £3B, RNLI £0.14B.

Raise tax, spend on improving country without f**king up environment.

In reply to chris_r:

> I wonder which service gets more call outs.

I was going to suggest MRT but a lazy google suggests MRTs get a mere 3080 (MREW so only England and Wales stats) callouts a year vs 8941 (RNLI so also covers Scotland + Ireland), couldn't be bothered so search further.

I imagine if the RNLI was government funded they would probably be worse off both in terms of money and being under government control

Edit to add before I get the usual "I don't believe you, show me a link and I will show you an angry youtube video"
https://rnli.org/what-we-do/lifeboats-and-stations/latest-lifeboat-launches
https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/news/annual-figures-tell-a-mixed-story-across-mountain-rescue-in-england-and-wales/

Post edited at 12:40
 gethin_allen 15 Sep 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> The real question is where were her prusiks...?


Or alternatively, how come the belayer couldn't set up a hauling system to haul her over the crux.

Both are options, but I'm assuming that the belayer was the stronger and therefore maybe more experienced climber and would be in a better state to safely set up a rescue.

 chris_r 15 Sep 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> Same reason Mountain Rescue isn't I would suggest, historical reasons plus the fact that they overwhelmingly don't want to be government funded.  An attitude that can only have hardened while we have a government that would apparently like to be able to tell them who they may and may not rescue.

Good point. Gov funding would only come with political control attached. 

 guffers_hump 15 Sep 2021
In reply to chris_r:

The RNLI says its because it proves the People want them there. Probably the same for MRT's.

Also it stops the government cutting stuff. 

 Stichtplate 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Given the RNLI works so well, one might equally ask why are the Fire service and Ambulance service not run as a charity?

Errr, maths?

According to the RNLI’s database, the charity responded to more than 112,000 call-outs between 2008 and 2020.

The NHS responded to one million 999 calls in July.

Edit: for clarity

Post edited at 12:52
 chris_r 15 Sep 2021
In reply to JoshOvki:

> I was going to suggest MRT but a lazy google suggests MRTs get a mere 3080 (MREW so only England and Wales stats) callouts a year vs 8941 (RNLI so also covers Scotland + Ireland), couldn't be bothered so search further.

vs 518,263 Fire & Rescue Service incidents in England. Totally different scale.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fire-and-rescue-incident-statistics-england-year-ending-march-2021/fire-and-rescue-incident-statistics-england-year-ending-march-2021

In reply to Stichtplate & others

yes, clearly scale is very different - but the principle is not - The RNLI run a very professional service and its funded by charitable donations (manfully ignoring the rescue helicopters here as a component of rescue at sea).

How did we end up with some emergency services paid for by charity and others by the state?

 Stichtplate 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> In reply to Stichtplate & others

> yes, clearly scale is very different - but the principle is not - The RNLI run a very professional service and its funded by charitable donations (manfully ignoring the rescue helicopters here as a component of rescue at sea).

That’s a little like saying “if you can eat a steak for your tea, why not a whole cow?”.

Yes, it’s a matter of scale.

> How did we end up with some emergency services paid for by charity and others by the state?

To look at a field your perhaps more familiar with, why do you think all emergency Vetenary services aren’t charity funded?

 TomD89 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> How did we end up with some emergency services paid for by charity and others by the state?

Well services like RNLI and mountain rescue are pretty environment specific, while police/fire/ambulance are more universal requirements. I think there's a fair argument for someone living nowhere near the coast or mountains, and potentially never requiring rescue related to those areas, not wanting to be taxed for life to cover such services.

 fred99 15 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Well services like RNLI and mountain rescue are pretty environment specific, while police/fire/ambulance are more universal requirements. I think there's a fair argument for someone living nowhere near the coast or mountains, and potentially never requiring rescue related to those areas, not wanting to be taxed for life to cover such services.

Well an awful lot of people from inland towns and cities end up needing help from the RNLI due to their "occasional" trips to the seaside - probably due to their lack of (local) knowledge.

On the other side, ever since the ambulance services in the West Midlands came under one organisation, ambulances have been moved further and further towards the centre of Birmingham, particularly on Friday nights and the weekend, so those of us "in the sticks" are now paying for a "service" that has had almost half the ambulances taken from us and moved to the "smoke".

Paying for something that you get either nothing or very little of is quite normal for some of us unfortunately.

 artif 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> In reply to Stichtplate & others

> How did we end up with some emergency services paid for by charity and others by the state?

Thankfully they aren't run by the state, constantly having funding cuts. Who knows how much paperwork would need to be filled out before each launch, and how much would you want to be paid to go out in a force 12 looking for a disabled yacht in the middle of the night.

I have utmost respect for the RNLI, and utter distrust of this and any other government. 

Post edited at 13:42
In reply to Stichtplate:

> That’s a little like saying “if you can eat a steak for your tea, why not a whole cow?”.

> Yes, it’s a matter of scale.

But some charities work at a very large scale - eg National Trust, some Universities,  I dont think the size of the organisation means it can or cannot be a charity.

> To look at a field your perhaps more familiar with, why do you think all emergency Vetenary services aren’t charity funded?

I dont know, hence my idle musings.

If you take the PDSA, RSPCA, etc - they are actually pretty big providers in a veterinary context, either through their own hospitals or via paying for treatment elsewhere. I guess my question is really how is it that some services that are quite similar in terms of aim ended up being run as charities and others not - to take a field you might be more familiar with, why did St Johns get subsummed into the NHS rather than continue as an indpendent organistaion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Ambulance_(England)

Perhaps the ambulance service would be better run and equipped as a charity than as part of the state?

In reply to gethin_allen:

If they were using double ropes and the route didn't have significant traverses, then it should never be an issue. Tight on one rope, slack on other, tie loops for pulling on and standing in, tight on "loops" rope, pull on loop to stand up in lower loop, take in slack on "normal" rope, repeat. 

 gethin_allen 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

That's not the method I was thinking of but it's creative and would probably work.

It does make me think I should review rescue techniques.

 Rob Exile Ward 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

O believe the RNLI is in fact quite wealthy; it is funded by a lot of wealthy ex-Naval and Merch types as well as wealthy boat owners who leave huge legacies in their wills. (Some bloke recently left his 'collection of Ferraris' to the RNLI which paid for a new top-of-the-range boat.)

I'm not sure regular ambulances or fire engines would attract the same sort of well-heeled loyalty.

 Stichtplate 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> But some charities work at a very large scale - eg National Trust, some Universities,  I dont think the size of the organisation means it can or cannot be a charity.

You're taking a very simplistic view of a complicated matter. Put simply, emergency medical response is already all charitied out in this country. The volume of demand is immense and there's already a huge charitable input into responding. Community first responders are all volunteers, Good Sam clinician responders are all volunteers, BASICS doctors and paramedics are all volunteers and all helimed services are charities. Plus all passer by clinicians are beholden to help out as a duty of care. There isn't enough cash or volunteers to expand current charity based operations, let alone take over the millions of incidents the ambulance service responds to, year in year out.

Beyond this, MRT and RNLI work hand in hand with government funded emergency response services. You may get rescued by MRT or RNLI but as soon as you get to roadside or dockside your further medical care and transport to hospital is in the hands of the ambulance service. Without government funded clinicians in ambulances and coastguard helicopters, your typical serious casualty wouldn't be getting any where near the consistent level of care provided by the current system.

> Perhaps the ambulance service would be better run and equipped as a charity than as part of the state?

Yeah sure, except it'd take the combined funding of all five of the UKs biggest charities to run it.

Remember what I said about eating a cow? It's that bothersome scale thing again.

In reply to Stichtplate:

So if charities are already heavily involved - why not go all of the way?

It all needs to be paid for - why is taxation a better method than donation?

In reply to gethin_allen:

Without looking it up, I'd have to think really hard to work out how to set up a hauling system and in a "panicky" situation that might not be possible. The double rope loop technique is (if nothing else) simple and reasonably intuitive - it (obviously) isn't much use if someone has a serious injury.

I've not climbed on sea-cliffs (or serious multi-pitch) for a while but I can see that I (and my climbing partners) were woefully ill-prepared for possible serious situations, however unlikely we might have thought they would be.

 Stichtplate 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> So if charities are already heavily involved - why not go all of the way?

> It all needs to be paid for - why is taxation a better method than donation?

 I've explained as well as I can and I haven't got the psychological fortitude to get into a debate where I carefully explain something and you endlessly ask "but why?"

Sorry, but the interminable exchange where I tried (and failed) to explain why paramedics aren't trained for once in a century pandemics (on top of every other clinical presentation from birth imminent to end of life) is still painfully emblazoned across my hippocampus.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> So if charities are already heavily involved - why not go all of the way?

Why have any government-funded activities, of any sort...?

Much of the push for a welfare state, NHS and ancillary services came directly from facilities created for reasons of efficiency during WW2; people saw what the State machinery could achieve, when pushed, and thought that machinery ought to continue in peacetime, for the benefit of all. A wartime economy of that nature is about as 'Big Government' as it gets.

 PaulJepson 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

There's a simplified method about 9 mins into this video:  youtube.com/watch?v=0EZ1Umt4Kqw&

I've done a few self-rescue courses and I must admit that a lot of it is forgotten a week later. This haul is one I try and remember, as I reckon I could bodge my way through a lot of the other stuff like escaping the system. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

fair enough - but maybe if the ambulance service was funded to the same level proportionally as the RNLI then you would have a better chance of the training

I dont really find the "beacuse its big and complex" an especially good argument against the notion of a charity or charities running things. I'd be much more worried about the funding level not reaching that of the RNLI because it would be such a large sum of money and I dont think people are that generous - but in the absence of an alternative and with a markedly lower tax burden, who knows?

In reply to captain paranoia:

> Much of the push for a welfare state, NHS and ancillary services came directly from facilities created for reasons of efficiency during WW2; people saw what the State machinery could achieve, when pushed, and thought that machinery ought to continue in peacetime, for the benefit of all. A wartime economy of that nature is about as 'Big Government' as it gets.


Yep, and that makes tons of sense, my innured inclinication is to get the state to do things like health care and fund that from general taxation - I'd be fascinated to see any larger scale health care systems that rely more on charities and see how they compare. 

 Pedro50 15 Sep 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>  (Some bloke recently left his 'collection of Ferraris' to the RNLI which paid for a new top-of-the-range boat.)

The Ferarris were worth about £8m and paid for an entire equipt new station I think.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Yes, quite. I'd hope that any team planning on abbing into a committing sea cliff would familiarise themselves with these techniques beforehand, but I can understand that not everyone will be confident in setting up an impromptu haul system. Prusiking up a rope is an essential technique that every climber should know and be familiar with, and prusik loops are essential equipment that every climber should have with them. Mine are racked with a tiny knife and never leave my harness — a bit overkill in the Peak, maybe, but it ensures that they'll definitely be there if I ever do need them. Failing that, it's inconceivable that they wouldn't have a couple of slings between them.

The very last thing I'd be fancying is detaching from the rope and lobbing myself into the sea — as long as there is a rope heading up the crag to a passable belay, there is a solution.

Of course it's easy to critique after the fact, but ending up in this situation on a sea cliff is very foreseeable and converting it into a life-threatening emergency is a huge shortcoming. I sincerely hope both that they see it as such and learn from it, and aren't put off climbing as a result. I don't mean criticism, just airing my hopefully constructive thoughts.

In reply to Pedro50:

IIRC the RNLI "only" got about £2.8m from that person's estate - presumably a %age of the total value of the estate - the Ferraris obviously pushed that total further than initial expectations.

In reply to tehmarks:

> Prusiking up a rope is an essential technique that every climber should know and be familiar with,

This - I've previously related my "fun with prussiks" escaping up Triple Overhang Buttress in Pembroke - basically if you can't remember how many times to wind round the rope, do one too many rather than one too few - however it wasn't a serious situation, merely embarrassing/amusing. 

 John2 15 Sep 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

'I'd hope that any team planning on abbing into a committing sea cliff would familiarise themselves with these techniques beforehand'

My impression, having watched this segment of the programme, is that neither climber abseiled in to the climb but the climber who was rescued was lowered in by her partner with the intention of toproping the climb.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> I'd be fascinated to see any larger scale health care systems that rely more on charities and see how they compare. 

Well, take a look across the pond and the number of GoFundMe pages created to help people with their hospital bills. It's not a system to emulate, IMHO.

To paraphrase Henning Wehn, charity is a failure of the responsibilities of the state.

Post edited at 16:44
 peppermill 15 Sep 2021
In reply to guffers_hump:

> The RNLI says its because it proves the People want them there. Probably the same for MRT's.

> Also it stops the government cutting stuff. 

In addition could the government actually fund the professionals (Doctors of a range of seniority, Nurses, Paramedics, EMTs etc etc) that get involved with the RNLI and MRT, alongside volunteers that may not on paper be medical professionals but are highly trained in their field?

Dread to think what the wage bill would be for an equivalent full time service, even equated to NHS bandings!

In reply to planetmarshall:

yep, thats a poor model - they also though have hospitals that run as non-profits that have to do a proportion of charitable work to qualify for the status which seems a bit better.

However for a charity model to work I think it would be better if it was a very large proportion of the provision as then more work and funds would tend to go to it. It seems in the UK we have charities filling in the gaps in state provsion for healthcare which as Henning says seems a bit wrong.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The people most likely to donate to 'niche' services such as the RNLI or MR would seem, logically, to be those who feel most connected with the thing they're helping with. Poor choice of words — I mean those who love the sea, or those who love the hills. The modal customer might actually be random members of the public who get into trouble paddling or walking, but the support base seems likely to be those who feel a passion for the sea or the hills.

Does anyone feel a passion for health? Services that are an essential part of life in the developed world should be funded publicly, ultimately through taxation, because they are an essential part of life in the developed world. Access to healthcare — or fire rescue, or policing — shouldn't be dependent on benevolent people, because they could be needed by absolutely any one of us.

The flip side is that they are subject to government meddling. They are so fundamental however that many people will vote based on attitudes to these services. Those who care passionately about rescue at sea or in the hills are somewhat more limited, and so there are obviously great advantages to separating them and protecting them from idiotic political meddling and posturing.

In reply to tehmarks:

good points - I think lots of people have a passion for health - there are loads of disease specific charities, and as Stichtplate says some services that are using a charitable model for delivery. 
 

the accountability argument is a strong one for govt involvement

 

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Yep, and that makes tons of sense, my innured inclinication is to get the state to do things like health care and fund that from general taxation - I'd be fascinated to see any larger scale health care systems that rely more on charities and see how they compare. 

I could envision a more mixed/balanced approach combining reduced state funding with charitable funding and a bit more of the individual paying for the treatment they receive depending on the nature of the treatment and the availability of charitable funding.

Perhaps to use climbing as an example, if I injured myself doing a bold trad route then perhaps I should incur 75% of the cost myself (being as this was a totally optional endeavor with known risks) while 25% is covered by the taxation pot. Maybe if there was a climbing charity or other type of organization/body that was encouraging climbing they could chip in a percentage to reduce my costs to the degree that they could. I think that encourages a tighter knit community, more personal responsibility and avoids the dread total privatization that most in this country are fearful of.

Dietary/sedentary lifestyle obesity would incur a larger cost to recipient and encourage better lifestyle choices vs blanket sugar taxes which negatively impacts everyone.

Genetic/hereditary cancer would be completely covered by tax and charity vs cancer caused by smoking 40 a day or alcohol abuse, which would be almost all user incurred, unless a charity wants to help out.

I do think having everything health related covered by tax causes quite a lot of unintended negative public health impacts. Changing this frees people to be a bit more autonomous in their decision making; reducing/eliminating blanket, low resolution, policies.

Also note, less tax means people have more spare income to actually consider giving to charity, buying more climbing gear, which funds those businesses to innovate and make better safety gear going forward etc. This seems like a better positive feedback loop than always upping taxes to me.

Post edited at 09:13
In reply to TomD89:

And when you fall off a sport route, have a freak accident, deck and spend weeks in intensive care, and it's deemed the bill is 100% yours to pay because the average person thinks intuitively that all rock climbing is patently dangerous and with known risks...?

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I gave the example of 75/25 split so as to avoid the '100% individuals burden for healthcare' argument. You could have a flat ~25% covered by the tax across the board as a universal baseline. Charities/climbing bodies could fund the rest so there is never going to be a 100% burden on anyone.

What freak accident would there be that isn't actually inherent to rock climbing/ mountaineering? (sudden adverse weather, rockfall, avalanche). Anything truly freak could be factored into reducing or removing the percentage burden incurred by the individual. Gear failure is either manufacturer liability or failure of maintenance/inspection by the user no?

Post edited at 09:43
In reply to TomD89:

That only really works if you think the risk of paying for healthcare would be a strong factor in making people change their lifestyles. There's no evidence at all that it would (obesity rates in the US as just one example).

What you're suggesting is basically a private healthcare model. If individuals may potentially have to fund their own treatments, those who can afford it will take out medical insurance.

In reply to TomD89:

> I gave the example of 75/25 split so as to avoid the '100% individuals burden for healthcare' argument. You could have a flat ~25% covered by the tax across the board as a universal baseline. Charities/climbing bodies could fund the rest so there is never going to be a 100% burden on anyone.

> What freak accident would there be that isn't actually inherent to rock climbing/ mountaineering?

You used the example of bold trad, which I'm sure most climbers would consider more hazardous than clipping bolts on solid rock. Yet there's an article on here written by someone who fell clipping the first bolt and fractured their skull. I personally know of someone who fell clipping the first bolt, smashed their knee in and subsequently almost died at the crag from complications related to the initial paramedical response.

> Anything truly freak could be factored into reducing or removing the percentage burden incurred by the individual.

You've missed my point, I think. Who decides on the percentage split? I can all but guarantee they won't be a climber, and climbing is clearly and unambiguously irresponsible and dangerous to the average person on the street regardless of the genre of climbing being undertaken.

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Durkules:

> That only really works if you think the risk of paying for healthcare would be a strong factor in making people change their lifestyles. There's no evidence at all that it would (obesity rates in the US as just one example).

I think it would change behaviours, obesity in American is a multi-faceted issue. However it definitely does stop the cost of someone's unhealthy lifestyle being placed on you. If you feel it's your responsibility to cover their decisions then you have more discretionary income to donate to a related charity. What's the problem?

> What you're suggesting is basically a private healthcare model. If individuals may potentially have to fund their own treatments, those who can afford it will take out medical insurance.

No it's self-evidently a mixed model.

In reply to TomD89:

The negative effects of a sugar tax? So you would rather buy an energy drink for 20p less and forgo universal healthcare? Have you ever looked at the annual costs for chemo drugs or stays in intensive care, unless you're incredibly cash rich any "At fault" illness or accident is going to leave you buried under a mountain of medical debt.

These libertarian social security ideas are just laughable.

 john arran 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Arguing that essential health care should be, even in part, the responsibility of charities, is transparently arguing for the 'I'm alright Jack' right not to contribute.

Arguing that essential health care should be, even in part, the individual responsibility of those who are sick or injured, is transparently arguing that 'I can afford health insurance and I think that would be cheaper for me for my health than tax/NI contributions would be for the health of everybody. I notice you failed to describe that part of your masterplan that applied to unfortunate people without funds to pay; maybe they can receive a lower quality of treatment, for their sins?

First-degree selfishness has rarely been so blatant.

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> You used the example of bold trad, which I'm sure most climbers would consider more hazardous than clipping bolts on solid rock. Yet there's an article on here written by someone who fell clipping the first bolt and fractured their skull. I personally know of someone who fell clipping the first bolt, smashed their knee in and subsequently almost died at the crag from complications related to the initial paramedical response.

While tragic, that is a danger inherent to rock climbing and not a freak accident. Were they wearing a helmet? What height was the fall from? If someone fell 2 meters down a flight of stairs and cracked their skull I'd consider that accidental and expect that to be covered entirely by tax (barring edge extenuating circumstances). So you could just as much consider a fall from up to 2 meters in any setting as 'everyday accidental'. However, if I take a fall off a highball boulder, is that an accident in quite the same sense that other people should involuntarily cover me for?

> You've missed my point, I think. Who decides on the percentage split? I can all but guarantee they won't be a climber, and climbing is clearly and unambiguously irresponsible and dangerous to the average person on the street regardless of the genre of climbing being undertaken.

I can't claim to have a worked out a perfect system that covers all eventualities in the minutest details, this is coming out of some light chin scratching over the course of reading through the thread. However to dismiss it entirely out of hand because conceivably someone will have to make a tough decision about some cases. I'm just speculating that this system could be more fair and less burdensome in general than the current one.

In reply to TomD89:

God that sounds like a special version of hell ruled by lawyers and insurance burocrats where only the rich get healthcare and what you can climb is dictated by how much cash you have. What if you had had a beer, or were chatting on the phone before falling down the stairs? How do you disentangle the massively complex genetic vs behavioural risks of getting cancer? 

It's such a batshit crazy awful idea it's hard to know where to start.

Post edited at 10:35
 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

> The negative effects of a sugar tax? So you would rather buy an energy drink for 20p less and forgo universal healthcare?

> Have you ever looked at the annual costs for chemo drugs or stays in intensive care, unless you're incredibly cash rich any "At fault" illness or accident is going to leave you buried under a mountain of medical debt.

Cancer was specifically mentioned as a 100% covered case, only with the caveat of not necessarily fully covering people who are knowingly and actively contributing to their illness, which again would likely be offset, if not entirely covered, by charities. They would be more well funded then now because people would have more funds available to them to make charitable donations.

It's 20p less on a vast swathe of purchases over millions of human lifetimes, you make it sound like I'm unwilling to make a one off 20p payment to save humanity. So now we have give up one more little piece of autonomy to the state, we cannot be trusted with sugar content so please make that decision for us, we are incapable children.

Perhaps we should tax high fat cheeses next?

 wintertree 16 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> It's such a batshit crazy awful idea it's hard to know where to start.

55 Tufton Street?

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> God that sounds like a special version of hell ruled by lawyers and insurance burocrats where only the rich get healthcare and what you can climb is dictated by how much cash you have. What if you had had a beer, or were chatting on the phone before falling down the stairs? How do you disentangle the massively complex genetic vs behavioural risks of getting cancer? 

> It's such a batshit crazy awful idea it's hard to know where to start.

If you altered the ratio of % of burden on individual vs covered by tax would that alter your reaction any? Or it's crazy no matter what the ratio? 

I mean, if the solution is just do more of what were doing then job done I suppose.

In reply to TomD89:

> Cancer was specifically mentioned as a 100% covered case, only with the caveat of not necessarily fully covering people who are knowingly and actively contributing to their illness, which again would likely be offset, if not entirely covered, by charities. They would be more well funded then now because people would have more funds available to them to make charitable donations.

So people will blindly donate to charities throughout their life in an attempt to hedge their bets as to what illness will befall them from their lifestyle? No this would introduce health insurance products into the market, as a gap of a voluntary charity providing you with the funds would see you denied care, not many could live with that risk and those that couldn't afford the premiums would have to.

> It's 20p less on a vast swathe of purchases over millions of human lifetimes, you make it sound like I'm unwilling to make a one off 20p payment to save humanity. So now we have give up one more little piece of autonomy to the state, we cannot be trusted with sugar content so please make that decision for us, we are incapable children.

Is this some Ben Shapiro big state "got ya"? you are literally asking for activities outside of those mandated by some superior authority to be only undertaken by those with multiple thousands of pounds set aside to do so. As i presume only incapable children have an emergency fund balance below £500k 
 

> Perhaps we should tax high fat cheeses next?

If it was responsible for a global epidemic of diabetes a responsible government would do something about it. I don't see many people in the office smashing down whole wheels of cheese, I do see them necking 3-4 red bulls in a day

In reply to TomD89:

> If you altered the ratio of % of burden on individual vs covered by tax would that alter your reaction any? Or it's crazy no matter what the ratio? 

Anything short of universal healthcare is American-style madness.

In reply to TomD89:

I think it is basically impossible, but a gift to the the rich who hate paying tax, the insurance industry and lawyers to try to attribute % blame on individuals for health issues. Not to mention a really horrible thing to do.

There is a reason the USA has the most expensive (and the most inefficient in terms of cost per treatment) healthcare system in the world).

In a climbing context, I plan to knock of work early today and attempt a highball/solo, whitch is it? Suddenly what was an esoteric debate on here dictates whether I receive lifesaving medical cover if I have an accident.

Also, if successful I will no doubt find it an incredibly enriching experience. I don't want such experiences to be limited to those who can afford very expensive insurance.

Post edited at 11:18
 girlymonkey 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Well services like RNLI and mountain rescue are pretty environment specific, while police/fire/ambulance are more universal requirements. I think there's a fair argument for someone living nowhere near the coast or mountains, and potentially never requiring rescue related to those areas, not wanting to be taxed for life to cover such services.

I get taxed for schools for life despite having no children. 

People who don't cycle get taxed to pay for cycle infrastructure and people who don't drive pay for roads through their tax. 

Getting taxed for something you don't use is pretty normal!

But, I get why the likes of MRT and RNLI want to stay as charities and keep gov well away from them!

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

> Is this some Ben Shapiro big state "got ya"? you are literally asking for activities outside of those mandated by some superior authority to be only undertaken by those with multiple thousands of pounds set aside to do so. As i presume only incapable children have an emergency fund balance below £500k 

No I'm just concerned we cause unintentional harm when personal accountability slides and instead we continually up the ante on taxation. It feels like a negative feedback loop. I'm here for discussion not proclaiming this is the definitive answer.

Could there be any benefit in even slightly adjusting the current ratio of individual burden vs collective burden or do we have a perfectly calibrated and flawless system already? Do you think there are any downsides to separating consequence from peoples decision making and spreading the impact it across everyone?

> If it was responsible for a global epidemic of diabetes a responsible government would do something about it. I don't see many people in the office smashing down whole wheels of cheese, I do see them necking 3-4 red bulls in a day

Then we'll all continue to pay for those necking 3-4 red bulls a day. People are powerless and blameless in the face of such an addictive substance as red bull. It's the sugars fault for existing really.

 wintertree 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Could there be any benefit in even slightly adjusting the current ratio of individual burden vs collective burden or do we have a perfectly calibrated and flawless system already?

A good question.  I like a questioning approach to things.

For someone taking a questioning approach, you have rather paradoxically pre-determined that the adjustment must be in one particular direction.

I don't like the combination of a questioning approach combined with a pre-determined skew on the answer.

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I get taxed for schools for life despite having no children. 

> People who don't cycle get taxed to pay for cycle infrastructure and people who don't drive pay for roads through their tax. 

I'm not suggesting the elimination of all taxes, I'm suggesting skewing the ratio of tax burden slightly more towards those predominantly making use of a giving service. 

> Getting taxed for something you don't use is pretty normal!

Normal is not synonymous with optimal or fair.

> But, I get why the likes of MRT and RNLI want to stay as charities and keep gov well away from them!

My general stance is avoid gov interference where possible, perhaps you could explore why you sympathize with that for the likes of MRT and RNLI but not potentially other organizations?

 wbo2 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:  Does the 'normal' rope pull through a belay device ok?  I assume you've done this

In reply to TomD89:

What you are doing is skewing the tax burden on to the poorest in society. Which IMHO is a pretty shitty thing to do.

 spenser 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> My general stance is avoid gov interference where possible, perhaps you could explore why you sympathize with that for the likes of MRT and RNLI but not potentially other organizations?

Your stance is not to avoid government interference, it's to shift responsibility onto people who can't necessarily help themselves, do you sit with a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a bunch of Conservative Party members in the evenings?

You raise the point of alcoholism, this is very often something which arises as the result of abuse during childhood and the inadequate provision of mental health services. Would you expect survivors to be forced to pay for their mental health care, or does their status as a survivor to be judged by government/ one of these charities you propose? Does the accused abuser pay (noting the appallingly low rate of cases even going to trial, let alone resulting in a conviction)?

Under your system I would most likely have killed myself before the age of 19 as I would have been unable to access mental health care as a child, and if it was universal for children I would instead have done so in my early 20s through no fault of my own.

In reply to TomD89:

A very left wing friend of mine believes that everyone earning an income should pay an income tax and that the current tax free thresholds are counterproducive as it means those on low incomes have no " skin in the game" as regards the political process.He strongly believe that if your working earnings are say £5000 you should be paying a few hundred £ as income.tax.

Its a similar view point to your liberterian view.

I did have to put out to him VAT, but this is hidden, optional and often not charged on essential items.

Out of interest your view point us usually put forward by single blokes of a certain disposition who basically disown society...are you really one of those?

Post edited at 12:37
 fred99 16 Sep 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> The people most likely to donate to 'niche' services such as the RNLI or MR would seem, logically, to be those who feel most connected with the thing they're helping with. Poor choice of words — I mean those who love the sea, or those who love the hills. The modal customer might actually be random members of the public who get into trouble paddling or walking, but the support base seems likely to be those who feel a passion for the sea or the hills.

I was at a "bike nite" last night - loads of motorcyclists turn up at a pub each Wednesday during summer. Food and drink (including non-alcoholic !!) available. Money collected for the Air Ambulance - everybody collared to pay up. Getting to be quite a sum collected each year.

Strange nobody has mentioned that the Air Ambulances rely on donations just like the RNLI and MRT's.

In reply to john arran:

> Arguing that essential health care should be, even in part, the responsibility of charities, is transparently arguing for the 'I'm alright Jack' right not to contribute.

That pre-supposes that the charity is funded by donations, rather than payments. Lots of charites have a charging model to generate most of their income. That payment of course could come from individuals or from general taxation.

I appreciate I'm splitting the question here a bit, but the good bits for the RNLI etc may well be due to its governance model as much as its funding model.

In reply to fred99:

mentioned upthread I believe

In reply to Dr.S at work:

A charity is just a tax efficient way of running a business, based on it meeting a specific criteria (charitable objective). Clearly this helps significantly when a big part of the income stream is through donation, however I assume you are not suggesting we take healthcare back to where it was a century ago, with a mix of private and charitable provision.

Assuming you want to fund healthcare, what would the advantages of a charitable structure be.

 TomD89 16 Sep 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> > Could there be any benefit in even slightly adjusting the current ratio of individual burden vs collective burden or do we have a perfectly calibrated and flawless system already?

> A good question.  I like a questioning approach to things.

So can we discuss your view/answer/counterpoints? I'm also happy to entertain any critique of my posting style but ideally while we're staying on topic.

In reply to TomD89:

I agree there is a good debate to be had around the best way to fund healthcare (as much as Brits love the NHS, it clearly has its issues and isn't the perfect solution).

However all your suggestion does is say the rich (who can afford medical insurance) live their life as they do now, the poor have a choice of either: 
 - abstaining from (a somehow determined amount of) alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy foods and any risky activity for the rest of their life, or
 - risk doing the above, but have no healthcare available to them if they become ill or injured as a consequence.

 wintertree 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So can we discuss your view/answer/counterpoints? I'm also happy to entertain any critique of my posting style but ideally while we're staying on topic.

I have done about as much research as you on the specific topic of this thread (FA), so I don't feel qualified to give a specific view on the current topic under discussion of RNLI vs MR vs 999 funding.

I have no interest in fuelling your "just questioning" approach to generic issues of small vs large statism.

My critique is not of your "posting style" but an observation that for someone "just questioning", you appear to have pre-determined the direction the answer must fall in.

Re: "staying on topic" - the topic of this thread was the specifics of a sea rescue; you seem to have dragged it far, far off topic to start advocating for small statism so I'm not sure you're in any position to try and bound my comments with comments about staying "on topic", because you are way off it...

In reply to John2:

> 'I'd hope that any team planning on abbing into a committing sea cliff would familiarise themselves with these techniques beforehand'

> My impression, having watched this segment of the programme, is that neither climber abseiled in to the climb but the climber who was rescued was lowered in by her partner with the intention of toproping the climb.

I'm just gobsmacked that they though leaving a nice dry ledge was a better option than stopping there.

In reply to However might be interested:

The RNLI sustains around 2,300 paid staff and 33,000 (mostly part time) volunteers. If it was government funded and controlled, would it be able to sustain those volunteer numbers.

The NHS employs around 1,171,000 people. Whilst there are volunteers in certain roles in the NHS, this is very different to the RNLI situation. It would be ludicrous to suggest that we could run the NHS on a similar basis.

In reply to The New NickB:

I think the major benefit would be clarity of purpose and freedom from the whims of politicians - so governance structure rather than income source. 

On the size/scale point - U.K. universities are nearly all charities, employ about half a  million people and have an income of about 50 billion - I don’t think size or complexity is a strong argument against charitable status.

 Michael Gordon 16 Sep 2021
In reply to above:

I thought this was meant to be Rocktalk? The thread was originally about discussing the minutiae of a sea cliff rescue/escape scenario - clearly of interest to rock climbers...

In reply to wbo2:

>   Does the 'normal' rope pull through a belay device ok?  I assume you've done this

Don't think I have actually used this method although I've certainly had it in mind as a "backup" when really struggling up something that's obviously too hard for me.

On a "straight up" route, I would expect the 'normal' rope to pull through ok, although I'm sure I could think of ways that the rope might get snagged, etc.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I'd realised there were 2 separate conversations going on here, but until I had a look back at the OP I'd been feeling a bit guilty about interrupting the other conversation - I'd forgotten that "my" conversation was actually closer to the OP 😁

 wbo2 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:  I was more concerned with pulling slack on rope A when it's got someone dangling on rope B thro' the same device.

In reply to wbo2:

Hmm, that might get a bit fiddly, how much would depend on exactly which belay device - would probably be easier in guide mode (if available).

Ideally, and especially if this was required for many moves, it would be best to have the two ropes on separate belay systems.

You're complicating my simple solution ☹️

 jkarran 17 Sep 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I gave the example of 75/25 split so as to avoid the '100% individuals burden for healthcare' argument. You could have a flat ~25% covered by the tax across the board as a universal baseline. Charities/climbing bodies could fund the rest so there is never going to be a 100% burden on anyone.

Even 5% of the bill for a big freak injury suffered while doing something you thought safe but others (who decides exactly what the activity was and who pays them to compile the list of activities vs liabilities?) consider unsafe would bankrupt you or hamper your productivity for the rest of your life. More realistically you'd actually bankroll a whole new parasitic insurance and ambulance-chaser 'industry'. To what end, what's the point? All you do is force up your costs and or financial risk to fund someone else's profit.

jk

 climber david 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I can't speak for the fire and rescue services but for the NHS you'd still have the same problems of excess demand and abuse of the service, limited funding, too many layers of management and many more problems which are too complex to simplify into a post.

Charity or government organisation, these problems wouldn't change

In reply to climber david:

> Charity or government organisation, these problems wouldn't change

yep, very likely - certainly the experience of working for Universities does not lead to the conclusion that charities are a panacea for organisational issues....

 guffers_hump 21 Sep 2021
In reply to peppermill:

I'm sure it could the amount of money it wastes on bullsh*t contracts for their friends and not taxing big companies. It would be easily fund-able.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...