Fast approaching 60, and a little overweight, I think mine might be Norma Snockers!
Hey Stuart – you must remember that old Elgin worthy Geordie Desperate, and Rosie Bottom?

Wouldn’t you prefer Al Mann?

How come aliens only ever abduct *******wits?

Let’s not forget Gerald Fitzroy and Roy Fitzgerald.

And I really did know a chap by the name of Jimmy Riddle. Disappointingly, although he lived on the coast he’d no interest in watersports.

In Rothes in 2002 we had a long spell of rain and watched the water rising in the street until eventually it came up through the floor to a depth of around 2.5 feet. We lost a lot of photos and other irreplaceable stuff as did a lot of others in the village. It was a bizzare sight, seeing torrents rushing down the street and over bridges. My car, a Volvo, parked outside the house was flooded half way up the windscreen. Once the water receded everything stank and the clear up began. The car insurers sent a truck to pick up the car and just out of curiosity, I put the keys in the ignition and it started first time!

All of that is of course true and all choices about jobs are free choices. Whatever the reasons people make their free choice to work on rigs fully cognisant of the risks.
If the jobs were not worth it for whatever reason employers would have make sure they were. As it happens they apparently are.

No, that is just so wrong. There is very little ‘free choice’ in employment. No matter what job you take you are entitled to expect your employer to look after your health and safety. I’d be sacked if I fail to wear the hi-vis jacket, safety goggles and ear defenders, so if my employer takes ‘expedient’ risks with my health and safety, I’d be pretty damned sure I’d expect some real comeback, rather than, ‘people make their free choice to work on rigs fully cognisant of the risks.‘

Would you right off Lolly Pop ladies in the same way if they were being decimated? ‘Well, they knew the risks of crossing the road and that’s why they get paid £7 per hour’.

I heard on the news today that there are approximately 100 flights per day to oil rigs, and around 50% of those are Super Puma. There have been 4 accidents in 4 years involving the Super Puma.

The maths would suggest there are approximately 50 Super Puma flights per day, which over 365 days equals 18250 flights, and the figures over 4 years suggest that at a rate of 1 accident per year, so there is a 1 in 18250 chance that a flight will end in an accident. A worker, one month on, one month off will fly 24 times per year which by my calculation means they have a 1 in 760 chance of being involved in an accident over a year.

Are my maths skills at fault, or would workers be justified in refusing to fly in this series of helicopter?

The DM also failed to mention how much the pilots house was worth. Poor research all round.