Stupidity seen at Beachy Head this Weekend

As for Tigers in Africa – they are found in Asia so not dangerous hunting Tigers in Africa.

Brian

It was a Monty Python reference…

A new thread or did you have in mind to keep it under the “stupidity at Beachy Head” title??:highly_amused:

But a short answer – yes, infinitely preferable to an elected President, for many reasons not worth taking space here. Blair managed to get rid of chunks of our traditions and heritage but fortunatley he didn’t succeed in placing himself above the Monarch – although he fancied his chances!!:D

No idea – must be something to argue about….Burmese Spitfires….??:D

Hows about, ” Do we need a Royal Family?”, If so, why?.
Jim.
Lincoln.7

leaping off the cliffs to rescue wayward Emmets for 18 years.

Baz

Baz, As a regular Emmet for the last 40 odd yrs, it’s us Emmets, that boost Cornwalls economy, Where would you be without us?.:p.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

No idea – must be something to argue about….Burmese Spitfires….??:D

Blimey! What do we do now??? :confused:

So, CD – having read your last three posts we are agreed!! Quite contrary to what I originally inferred. Yippee!!;)

Wouldn’t cost anywhere near £2M for a cliff faller, calling out a Sea King was around £10K ph, HM Coastguard cliff team X 12 + 4X4 for 3 hours (min callout + mileage) < £500, RNLI probably about the same for the big boat, less for the smaller ones, beat copper with notebook and Coroner £2K?

A few years ago, we had 10 fatals in one year in the Newquay area (and a couple of survivors), the cliffs range from 180ft up to over 300ft.

The Sea King was rarely used unless assisting with the search prior, so in some cases, cheaper.

There are a couple on this forum who know what a passion I had, leaping off the cliffs to rescue wayward Emmets for 18 years.

Baz

And as we discussed earlier we have no say whatsoever in how our taxes are spent.

Only our vote; and the truth is that government spending is about 99.999% the same whoever is in power…

…barring Monster Raving Looney / UKIP!!! :rolleyes:

And the argument about speed cameras reducing accidents is not proven.

Excessive speed (note: not necessarily speeding) may be a factor in many accidents but…..as I am fond of saying…

…excessive water is a factor in all drownings!

Do you know why we have speed-cameras on our roads? Because they haven’t invented idiot-cameras yet!!! :rolleyes:

But, that is not the case. The motorist just pays taxes – they are not hypothecated…

Agreed; that is what I said…..or what I was trying to say. 🙂

There is no link anymore between the tax paid and the service supplied, sadly.

But how could there be with the services we get in the United Kingdom? The three biggest government costs are the NHS, pensions and benefits. Who should pay the taxes to support those; the sick, pensioners and the poor?

The lack of a ‘link’ works both ways, thankfully, and it also transcends time; we pay-in today to take-out tomorrow (pensions) or we take-out today and pay-in tomorrow (education)…

…it is a good system but it is difficult to balance the books. Especially if a government takes-out today and…

…to hell with tomorrow…..because they’ll be long gone! (Usually on some lucrative book-tour!)

But, CD, that is not the case. The motorist just pays taxes – they are not hypothecated. There is no link anymore between the tax paid and the service supplied, sadly.

And the argument about speed cameras reducing accidents is not proven. And as we discussed earlier we have no say whatsoever in how our taxes are spent.

Yes but ” could do much better” is on the report card!!

Always! 🙂

So, cut to the chase, many of the Services have been allocated a budget, which is given to each of the Emergency Services, so, in actual fact, they are doing their job within those means/budget.
Why not lump ALL the money gleaned from Speed Traps, Cameras, Specs, Parking tickets el al into a pot where all the Emergency Services can draw from?.
Better still, fill all those bloody Pot Holes in, which undoubtably contribute to God only knows how many accidents they cause…

Well, that is effectively what government does; the poor motorist pays heavily for the ‘luxury’ of private car ownership and pays far more in tax than is spent on the roads. Much of the money is used to subsidise public transport including the railways; something the environmental lobby often forgets!

The money from speed-cameras is a drop-in-the-ocean, they are not a government cash-cow; the real saving is in reduced road accidents and the cost of them.

As I’ve said, government makes a calculation but it is us who decides how much we are willing to pay for health, safety and other ‘essential’ services.

Yes but ” could do much better” is on the report card!!

We are never given the choice, effectively, are we?

Only in which Party to vote for!

Look at the recent floods; nobody likes paying taxes and we all moan about the government wasting our money…

…but didn’t those who were flooded ‘bitch’ about how ineffective the Environment Agency was when the rain came!

Expensive to pay for, difficult to predict, wasteful if not needed…..but never enough when needed…

…welcome to government! 🙂

Yes of course that’s true but the point is that whether or not the accident is deemed as a result of foolhardy behaviour or not is irrelevant. The cost is there, so if people want individuals to bear the cost of their stupidity then it will not be the total cost but the one-off cost of attending the incident. A few gallons of diesel, perhaps….. And then someone has to make a judgement as to blame. I could foresee a few appeals along the way….so you have the legal costs etc etc…..a road to nowhere, except to top up the laywers bank balances.

The cost per incident would still be the ‘total cost’ but, no, I’d never want to go down that route; as you say once you get lawyers and courts involved the ‘costs’ would skyrocket!

But I still think we should never ignore or condone ‘stupidity’…

…I was watching something the other day about legalising drugs and one young woman was arguing that she was old enough to decide for herself whether the risks of habitually using illegal drugs were worth taking; she accepted there was a risk and said it was her responsibility. The problem was in the follow-up her sister and her parents related how she’d been brought back from the brink-of-death twice after being found overdosed in a squat…

…her ‘responsibility’ did not, of course, extend to the real cost of her drug-taking; the ambulances, the Paramedics, the A&E Doctors and Nurses, the hospital stay and the follow-up ‘rehabilitation’!

Too many in society today are completely unaware of the cost to others of their self-indulgent behaviour!

We are never given the choice, effectively, are we?

…true and over time the total cost would be reduce but the cost per incident would remain about the same. But in reality you cannot usefully forecast accident rates overall. Because they are accidents and therefore unpredictable. All you have to work on is historical precedence.

Road accident death-rates are changing fast; ten or so years ago it was about 3000 per year, next year it will be about half that. As a consequence the ‘cost per death’ is actually going up; even accounting for inflation and better (and therefore more costly) survival rates.

The thing is governments have to make some sort of calculation: how much are we (taxpayers)…

…willing to pay to save each life?

Wasn’t there a road safety campaign proposed a few years ago graphically illustrating the results of serious accidents, along the lines being discussed here? It was not given the go-ahead. Would it have made any difference? I doubt it – the “it doesn’t mean me” syndrome would kick in where we blank out unpleasant images as having no relevance to our lives. Dreadful things always only happen to other people.