Off Topic Thread 3.0

Rigor Mortis · 17-10-2017 10:01AM

errlloyd wrote: »

It should be! Why do we have to be living in a nanny state devoid of personal responsibility. How come the Himalayan mountain rescue team are able to draw a line at 7000m and say after that if you're a sportsperson on your own, but the RNLI can't draw a line at Beaufort Force 10 and say "after this point if you're a sport-person you're on your own". Again I'll say it. If those guys were never going to call the emergency services, why does anyone else care? The Dundalk Democrat reported that the two windsurfers rescued off Blackrock were "not stranded, and a local passerby called the emergency services because they thought they were being irresponsible" - so who put who in danger?

There are people in this state that think Rugby playing injuries are selfish for taking valuable A&E resources from genuine injuries. My dad says the only time one of his mates got any sympathy in hospital for motorcycle injuries was when he hurt himself avoiding a skateboarder.

It wont be a nanny state that leads the outcry, it will be the public. It will be the media. If the state or a state funded organisation says meh, they were warned and chose not to listen, the public will still crucify them for inaction. We all like to say no to the nanny state, until the state decides not to nanny us and someone dies.

I am engaged in a dangerous water sport on a regular basis, but to go out when expressly warned by the Coastguard and Met Services shows an appalling disregard for the lives of people who we depend on every time we set foot in the water.

17-10-2017 10:05AM

Oh for crying out loud. We now live in a nanny state because the state (and FWIW the RNLI are not a state body, it's a charity) will rescue you if you're about to die in the sea.

irishbucsfan · 17-10-2017 10:06AM

errlloyd wrote: »

Why do we have to be living in a nanny state devoid of personal responsibility

I can't imagine this is a serious argument

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 10:20AM

Buer wrote: »

Why should anyone else care?! Sure if I see a motorist knock down a pedestrian on my way home this evening, should I keep on driving and say that it's not my problem?

Buer that is weak. That is so far from analogous to what I said I don't even know where to begin. The differences between the pedestrian hit by a car and the emergency services are as following.

They did not choose to be there.
They actually are in danger and you can see it - you're not assuming it.
You are not putting yourself in danger to help.
They could not be possibly not be in danger.

Rugby is at least partly analogous because of this.

Rugby puts people in danger and takes up state resources that could be used for people who actually need them. Surfing during a storm takes up state resources that could be used for people who actually need them - That is analogous. The analogy is clear as day. So when Sullivo says "but the chopper and boat are tied up with the surfers who chose to be there." it's the same as me saying "what happens when a person dies in a car accident because the ambulance is attending a neck injury at Old Belvo."

And Everest is at least partly analogous because of this.

The Himalayas are a place where both state (Nepalese military among others) and volunteer resources will be used to rescue people taking part in sport. The Atlantic Ocean is a place where state and volunteer resources will be used to rescue people taking part in sport. In the Himalayas those organisations have a well accepted limit to the point they will help you. Sporting figures are aware of this limit and if they choose to act beyond that limit everyone accepts the consequences IE there is a limit on the danger the state will force employees to accept, but not a limit the danger the state will force people to accept. In the Atlantic Ocean there is no limit to the point that emergency services will help you, so for some reason the individual has a socially enforced limit.

I am going to opt out of anymore of this conversation. My position remains what it always was - that trained sports people SHOULD be able to go out in storms. You can describe those particular surfers as selfish because of the status quo in Ireland, my issue is with the status quo.

irishbucsfan · 17-10-2017 10:25AM

errlloyd wrote: »

You can describe those particular surfers as selfish because of the status quo in Ireland, my issue is with the status quo.

This is not an Irish thing, at all.

This talk about nanny state stuff is the sort of thing I'd expect from right-wing Americans. I'm really shocked you can't see why its a problem for emergency services.

I had a close family member who was in the coast guard so maybe its more a personal thing, and it always seemed to be foolish behaviour that put lives at risk, but I can't see how anyone would want to defend these foolish decisions. If they want to create a specific and clearly delimited no-go area where state services will not assist people then thats a completely different thing, it doesn't apply to anything that has happened in Ireland, ever.

17-10-2017 10:26AM

Rugby puts people in danger and takes up state resources that could be used for people who actually need them. Surfing during a storm takes up state resources that could be used for people who actually need them - That is analogous. The analogy is clear as day. So when Sullivo says "but the chopper and boat are tied up with the surfers who chose to be there." it's the same as me saying "what happens when a person dies in a car accident because the ambulance is attending a neck injury at Old Belvo.

It's not as clear as day and it's not analogous other than they're both voluntary situations. A rugby match doesn't put strain on emergency services like surfing in that storm does. I can't believe this needs stating but a rugby match generally takes place on land. Surfing does not. There are very few boats and there are very few helicopters and there are very few people capable of operating those boats and helicopters. Nor is a rugby match a dangerous environment for first responders, no paramedic or doctor is endangered by treating rugby injuries.

Bridge93 · 17-10-2017 10:30AM

In this case surely the status quo is irrelevant. Whether you agree with it or not, it is currently what it is and to ignore it is incredibly selfish. Until the services get to this stage of being able to pick and choose who they save (will never come as it's a ridiculous notion) you are putting others in danger with your actions.

17-10-2017 10:31AM

I don't really want to live in a country where people, even idiots, can just be left to die tbh. If that makes me a status-quo-loving-nanny-stater then sign me up.

Bridge93 · 17-10-2017 10:38AM

Should the fire service not bother with those who light too many candles in their house and something catches fire?
Should hospitals and ambulances not help those sick from abuse of smoking, drink or drugs?

These people all know the risks and are in many cases explicitly told not to do them. Doesn't stop the services helping them. This is as selfish as some of these examples. More so actually given none of these risk the lives of those helping

Yeah_Right · 17-10-2017 10:51AM

I spent over a decade as a lifeguard. I worked at a public swimming pool and volunteered at beaches back in NZ. We used to often say that we were protecting people from their own stupidity. I was often pissed off at idiots getting themselves in trouble but I had signed up to help them, so I did. After saving them I would tell them they were a moron.

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 10:53AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I had a close family member who was in the coast guard so maybe its more a personal thing, and it always seemed to be foolish behaviour that put lives at risk, but I can't see how anyone would want to defend these foolish decisions. If they want to create a specific and clearly delimited no-go area where state services will not assist people then thats a completely different thing, it doesn't apply to anything that has happened in Ireland, ever.

My brother in law is in the air corps - he's an engineer and winchman in the Air Corp and commonly rescues people from emergency situations. My parents met when both were RNLI volunteers. My whole family sail. Perhaps your experience is personal, but you are in the majority here. I am not. So perhaps it is my experience that is personal?

There are a lot of people in this thread who are outraged at these guys for different reasons, and for very good reasons. I guess I am in a much more theoretical positions where I don't really feel that an adult should bear the responsibility for another adult's actions and have no way of opting out of that.

irishbucsfan · 17-10-2017 11:05AM

errlloyd wrote: »

I guess I am in a much more theoretical positions where I don't really feel that an adult should bear the responsibility for another adult's actions and have no way of opting out of that.

That's not really the way that society works though. For good reason.

If we were going to have a system where the emergency services did not have to respond to certain areas or people that would have to be planned miles in advance, it would need to be clearly legislated, and it would need to be made very clear to everyone. Not just something we wish would happen retroactively.

If there were areas in Ireland that emergency services weren't going to help pensioners swimming in the sea, then I think insurance providers would be very keen to hear the exact details of that.

Buer · 17-10-2017 11:33AM

errlloyd wrote: »

Buer that is weak. That is so far from analogous to what I said I don't even know where to begin. The differences between the pedestrian hit by a car and the emergency services are as following.
They did not choose to be there.

They actually are in danger and you can see it - you're not assuming it.

You are not putting yourself in danger to help.

They could not be possibly not be in danger.

I was being just a tad facetious with my car reference. Mostly because I find the whole idea of the emergency services not helping or people opting out of having them assist rather absurd. It's not how a modern, civil society operates. The analogy of rugby to activities open water in life threatening conditions is even more absurd. I'm not sure if you're taking the p*ss or not.

The vast majority of trained sports people would not go out on the water yesterday. That's the point of them being trained.

thomond2006 · 17-10-2017 11:33AM

Don't be a dick.

Endangering emergency services and/or wasting their time is, to put it mildly, being a dick.

sullivlo · 17-10-2017 12:13PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

Don't be a dick.

Endangering emergency services and/or wasting their time is, to put it mildly, being a dick.

That’s my point. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Burkie1203 · 17-10-2017 12:43PM

errlloyd wrote: »

My brother in law is in the air corps - he's an engineer and winchman in the Air Corp and commonly rescues people from emergency situations. My parents met when both were RNLI volunteers. My whole family sail. Perhaps your experience is personal, but you are in the majority here. I am not. So perhaps it is my experience that is personal?

There are a lot of people in this thread who are outraged at these guys for different reasons, and for very good reasons. I guess I am in a much more theoretical positions where I don't really feel that an adult should bear the responsibility for another adult's actions and have no way of opting out of that.

THis was a nationwide red alert. People were implored To not undertake any unnecesaary journeys. It wasnt a localised issue in Munster so full focus could be given to one area.

Instead we have people going for a swim in the atlantic at salthill, kite surfing off the louth coast. If those people got into trouble then coastguard etc have to undertake dangerous rescue missions in the midst of winds of 90-150kmh.

Three people died. Im sure their families would love to rewind to yesterday morning and change their decisions to go outside.

It wasnt a red alert for the craic. Cork Citys ground had the roof collapse on one side and the roof of a school in Cork is now in someones back garden 300m away . Thousands of trees are blocking roads etc.

School, colleges, public offices and many other places closed in the interest of preserving life.

Some people are just dumb and there is no excusing their idiocy.

Neil3030 · 17-10-2017 01:07PM

Just on a side note, I found a touch ironic yesterday to hear people on the radio, who had ignored the red alert and gone for a walk near the sea, then complaining that they saw people out swimming or whatever.

Rigor Mortis · 17-10-2017 01:20PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

Just on a side note, I found a touch ironic yesterday to hear people on the radio, who had ignored the red alert and gone for a walk near the sea, then complaining that they saw people out swimming or whatever.

Not to mention journalists standing on the quays in Galway and elsewhere

thomond2006 · 17-10-2017 01:20PM

sullivlo wrote: »

That’s my point. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The punishment for being a dick in this case should at least match the punishment for a blatant hoax phone call to 999/112.

molloyjh · 17-10-2017 02:39PM

errlloyd wrote: »

If those guys were never going to call the emergency services, why does anyone else care?

I'd love to know how many surfers and swimmers who need the emergency services actually call them themselves.

Sorry errlloyd, I do tend to try and see multiple points of view and look for that middle ground but on this one you are just wrong.

If I decided I wanted to go surfing or swimming or whatever I have to do a few things. Those things include making my way from my house to where I'm going to surf/swim and making my way back again if I manage to make it out of the water with no issue. During either of those trips a tree could fall on my car (or on me on my way to/from my car) like what happened to people yesterday. So regardless of the surfing or the swimming I might need the emergency services. And that would be because I chose to ignore the warnings and left my house.

Then, when it comes to the water, I have very limited control in regard to what happens once I'm out there. What I'm at is entirely unsupervised other than strangers who happen to see what I'm doing from afar. I've seen others try to claim that most of them know what they are at. So do Formula 1 drivers when it comes to driving at speed. That doesn't mean speed limits don't apply to them outside the track. Because, like the surfers and the swimmers, what happens on the road is so far outside of their control and not in the same (relatively) controlled environment.

Finally, the whole idea of a society is that it is a collection of individuals working together to protect and help each other. If we just let members of our society die because we decide it's too "overbearing" to help them then we are pretty much failing in the most basic concepts of what a society is. And how do you define and identify those people who decided they didn't want help? Do you assume that someone who is out there doesn't want help? Legally speaking how do you prove something like that, or back up assumptions made off the back of that? I honestly can't see a real life example of how something like that could function.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have an idealised and very short sighted view on this. There is no way that there is any excuse for people to ignore all the public warnings that were issued and leave the house unless absolutely necessary when the storm had hit. None. Those people who died are proof of that. It doesn't really matter if they were going to the shops or to see a friend or to hop into the sea for a swim. As soon as they left their house they were putting their lives in danger and potentially adding to the demand for emergency services. And there is no way any of them could have known whether anything would happen or not. It really is that simple.

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 03:00PM

What do we think of this?

https://www.redbull.com/int-en/events/red-bull-storm-chase

Buer · 17-10-2017 03:09PM

errlloyd wrote: »

What do we think of this?

https://www.redbull.com/int-en/events/red-bull-storm-chase

I think it's a planned event in a monitored environment, with less dangerous conditions and featuring a very select group of professional athletes with specific, dedicated safety personnel in place to react to any issue that occurs.

It has no relevance to Joe Bloggs hitting the waves in hurricane force winds against the advice of authorities.

molloyjh · 17-10-2017 03:18PM

errlloyd wrote: »

What do we think of this?

https://www.redbull.com/int-en/events/red-bull-storm-chase

Honestly? It's bonkers. But they don't go out in any weather. They have full safety and medical teams at all events, meaning it has to be deemed safe for those people to be there. They need to get permission from local authorities to hold the events, as that would be a legal requirement. This would not be given in conditions like we had yesterday. So while I think they are mad, even they wouldn't have been out in the weather we had yesterday.

irishbucsfan · 17-10-2017 03:23PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Honestly? It's bonkers. But they don't go out in any weather. They have full safety and medical teams at all events, meaning it has to be deemed safe for those people to be there. They need to get permission from local authorities to hold the events, as that would be a legal requirement. This would not be given in conditions like we had yesterday. So while I think they are mad, even they wouldn't have been out in the weather we had yesterday.

It was pretty much exactly the weather we had yesterday. Actually no I am wrong, it was force 12 in parts down in the South-west. So you are correct, they likely wouldn't have gone for it in hurricane winds.

But there are so many reasons, quite obvious ones, that it is different. A force 10 gale out at see is completely different to a (and this has been said so many times that this stage its just getting boring) national state of emergency.

molloyjh · 17-10-2017 03:26PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was pretty much exactly the weather we had yesterday. Actually no I am wrong, it was force 12 in parts down in the South-west. So you are correct, they likely wouldn't have gone for it in hurricane winds.

But there are so many reasons, quite obvious ones, that it is different. A force 10 gale out at see is completely different to a (and this has been said so many times that this stage its just getting boring) national state of emergency.

Yeah that's kind of what I'm getting at, i.e. that the conditions on land wouldn't permit an event to take place and so it wouldn't. Admittedly it was phrased badly...

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 03:43PM

The weather they surfed in that day (off Kerry in 2013) was 70 Kts according to the guy in the video. The max off the East Coast of Ireland yesterday was 60. But that is where the comparisons end.

I agree with all of you. I never defended the specific group of windsurfers who went out yesterday. I only ever made the point that it is an extreme sport and I thought there should be a mechanism for consenting adults to do it without endangering emergency services. It clearly exists, and tbh I think it's pretty cool.

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 03:49PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Honestly? It's bonkers. But they don't go out in any weather.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was pretty much exactly the weather we had yesterday. Actually no I am wrong, it was force 12 in parts down in the South-west. So you are correct, they likely wouldn't have gone for it in hurricane winds.

Just for the record again. The final in 2014 was held in conditions that were status red for the UK Met office.

UK Independent wrote:

The contenders windsurfed in hurricane conditions in St Ives Bay as winds reached 80mph and towering waves threatened to engulf them.

17-10-2017 03:49PM

errlloyd wrote: »

I thought there should be a mechanism for consenting adults to do it without endangering emergency services. It clearly exists, and tbh I think it's pretty cool.

How can this mechanism possibly work though? If you're out windsurfing and you get into trouble do you have a phone in your pocket and you give 999 a call while you're drowning, or does someone else call for you?

If someone else calls for you, do the emergency services show up, see you're on the 'do not save' list and then just bugger off again? It's completely unworkable, aside from the moral/ethical side of things.

irishbucsfan · 17-10-2017 03:51PM

errlloyd wrote: »

The weather they surfed in that day (off Kerry in 2013) was 70 Kts according to the guy in the video. The max off the East Coast of Ireland yesterday was 60. But that is where the comparisons end.

I agree with all of you. I never defended the specific group of windsurfers who went out yesterday. I only ever made the point that it is an extreme sport and I thought there should be a mechanism for consenting adults to do it without endangering emergency services. It clearly exists, and tbh I think it's pretty cool.

I must have missed the national state of emergency in 2013

errlloyd · 17-10-2017 03:52PM

Emilee Bitter Ginseng wrote: »

How can this mechanism possibly work though? If you're out windsurfing and you get into trouble do you have a phone in your pocket and you give 999 a call while you're drowning, or does someone else call for you?

If someone else calls for you, do the emergency services show up, see you're on the 'do not save' list and then just bugger off again? It's completely unworkable, aside from the moral/ethical side of things.

I guess they have identified a beach beforehand and requested permission? They seem to have their own helicopters and a lot of jet skis around so the public probably aren't going to call. The whole thing seems controlled. It's very different from 5 lads off Dundalk - but it's all I was really ever saying!

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments