nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 4.0

Zzippy

Thread continued from here

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Neil3030

There's no governing you people, is there?

molloyjh

Our politicians should be setting the highest of standards for the population and should be looking to solve the issues society as a whole faces. This politician has done the absolute polar opposite. Insurance is one of the biggest issues facing this country. Excessive claims and awards are closing businesses and driving premiums up for everyone. And now we have a TD being a part of that because she couldn't sit on a swing.

[Deleted User]

Squidgy Black wrote: »

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

I never said she should be paid anything. I just pointed out it was foreseeable, likely even.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it?

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

Bazzo

What about bar stools? Maybe we should have everyone in a pub sit into a bucket seat and strap in case somebody has too many and falls off.

errlloyd

I fully agree with Venjur's Devils Advocate position and I'd go a step further and say much of the language about it being "unsupervised" etc probably came from her legal team, not her.

I think for the Hotel a simple sign that says "swings are decorative only" and then a policy of them ignoring anyone who ignored the sign would have worked.

I still can't believe she's taken this case though. She probably does have a legal position, but like also cop on. Every single girl on Instagram in Dublin has been on those swings without injuring themselves.

[Deleted User]

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'm sure there probably was some form of injury caused, but the whole grounds of the claim are ludicrous. The suit isn't that the swing broke, or was faulty. It's because she fell backwards because she had items in both her hands and she alleges the hotel was negligent because the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs to instruct patrons how to use it safely.

This is an adult in their 50s saying they need to be supervised and told how to use a swing.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it?

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have seen a great many claims that at face value looked completely spurious only to scratch beneath the surface and come to the conclusion that there was negligence and the complaint was fair enough. Often times when it looks and smells like BS, that's exactly what it turns out to be - just not always.

The optics of this look absolutely terrible and her political career is after taking a potentially fatal setback with the reporting. I've read nothing which suggests this is anything other than a completely frivolous claim but the one caveat I'd keep in mind is that optically frivolous claims sometimes have genuine merit.

I'm sure there probably was some form of injury caused, but the whole grounds of the claim are ludicrous. The suit isn't that the swing broke, or was faulty. It's because she fell backwards because she had items in both her hands and she alleges the hotel was negligent because the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs to instruct patrons how to use it safely.

This is an adult in their 50s saying they need to be supervised and told how to use a swing.

[Deleted User]

stephen_n wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/td-bailey-ran-10km-race-three-weeks-after-swing-fall-38146778.html

If this doesn’t end up as a fraud conviction and with her resignation as a TD, I will lose all faith in this country.

I have seen a great many claims that at face value looked completely spurious only to scratch beneath the surface and come to the conclusion that there was negligence and the complaint was fair enough. Often times when it looks and smells like BS, that's exactly what it turns out to be - just not always.

The optics of this look absolutely terrible and her political career is after taking a potentially fatal setback with the reporting. I've read nothing which suggests this is anything other than a completely frivolous claim but the one caveat I'd keep in mind is that optically frivolous claims sometimes have genuine merit.

stephen_n

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/td-bailey-ran-10km-race-three-weeks-after-swing-fall-38146778.html

If this doesn’t end up as a fraud conviction and with her resignation as a TD, I will lose all faith in this country.

Neil3030

Just drove 17 hours in a single day, think that's my new record. Only 750 miles covered though, thanks to three crashes and Friday evening traffic in the Bay Area.

Edit - crashes involving other vehicles that slowed down traffic, to clarify. Even I'm not thick enough to keep driving after crashing twice.

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

Mental photo!

https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1131931349030457345?s=19

Nepal aren't going to start limiting them soon. Licenses start at around $10k and while paid poorly by Western standards, the Sherpas support entire villages with the comparitively huge wages. Climbing is simply too important to the economy in these areas.

Zzippy

Mental photo!

https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1131931349030457345?s=19

ClanofLams

Jon Walters on the late late. Very likeable guy, lost his mother to suicide at 11 and his brother committed suicide at 35, the day after while making funeral plans his wife lost a child.

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Yes, it's not the technical climbing that many enjoy, it's just the extreme altitude that kills so many. I follow Joe Simpson on twitter (Touching the Void). Spent a day fishing with him once, fascinating guy. He is pretty scathing about how commercial Everesting has become.

It's the extreme altitude, the weather and over crowding.

Joe Simpson is some man. Don't think many would have walked away from that.

Zzippy

troyzer wrote: »

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Yes, it's not the technical climbing that many enjoy, it's just the extreme altitude that kills so many. I follow Joe Simpson on twitter (Touching the Void). Spent a day fishing with him once, fascinating guy. He is pretty scathing about how commercial Everesting has become.

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Ha, he's as far from a hipster as it's possible to get! But yeah, it's supposed to be a more technical ascent/descent I believe.

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Zzippy

errlloyd wrote: »

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Ha, he's as far from a hipster as it's possible to get! But yeah, it's supposed to be a more technical ascent/descent I believe.

errlloyd

Zzippy wrote: »

A retired colleague of mine is just back from Everest. He didn't make a summit attempt in the end, wasn't feeling great and made the right choice to pull out. He did climb Manaslu last year (8,163m) at the age of 65! He met the guys who died at base camp. My impression from chatting to him is that it becomes an obsession, and some people just don't know how to recognise their limits.

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Buer

Part of the problem is that it's impossible to recognise your limits at that altitude. You're not only drunk on fatigue but the oxygen deprivation makes it impossible to have a clear mind.

It's akin to seeing rugby players attempting to play on after having their clock cleaned. They think they're grand but they cannot assess the situation rationally. Unfortunately the Everest situation has far more serious consequences.

Zzippy

A retired colleague of mine is just back from Everest. He didn't make a summit attempt in the end, wasn't feeling great and made the right choice to pull out. He did climb Manaslu last year (8,163m) at the age of 65! He met the guys who died at base camp. My impression from chatting to him is that it becomes an obsession, and some people just don't know how to recognise their limits.

Podge_irl

swiwi_ wrote: »

Yeah I suppose. It’s got a lot safer over time, but there still seems to be 10 or so deaths every year. The human body is not made for those altitudes, once you get to that death zone above a certain height you are literally dicing with death. If you’re single then yeah maybe but with young kids I think it’s just irresponsible.

8 have now died in the last week.

I'll be honest I don't really get the appeal but they're taking their lives in their own hands and ultimately can do what they want. All things in life come with risk but I think either their risk appetite or their risk judgement is a bit ****.

troyzer

Climbing Everest isn't the problem. It's not even close to the most dangerous mountain in the world technically.

The problem is how over commercialised it is. There are too many companies taking people who are too inexperienced. Most of these people are dying because they end up burning oxygen and energy for two hours waiting to get up the Hillary Step

swiwi_

errlloyd wrote: »

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

Yeah I suppose. It’s got a lot safer over time, but there still seems to be 10 or so deaths every year. The human body is not made for those altitudes, once you get to that death zone above a certain height you are literally dicing with death. If you’re single then yeah maybe but with young kids I think it’s just irresponsible.

Squidgy Black

errlloyd wrote: »

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

Wife was at home, 5 months pregnant also. All because he wanted to achieve a personal goal before he was 40.

It's a horrific accident and really sad for the family, but it's one of the most idiotic things I've heard of in a while.

errlloyd

swiwi_ wrote: »

The definition of reckless is climbing Mt Everest. I see 2 Irish victims in the last week.

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

swiwi_

The definition of reckless is climbing Mt Everest. I see 2 Irish victims in the last week.

[Deleted User]

Stheno wrote: »

It was like they were melting from the outside in

Yup, and I was trying to eat these new ginger and wasabi crisps at the time.

Stheno

troyzer wrote: »

I'm heading to the world cup and one of the things I'm most looking forward to (if that's the right way of putting it) is the Hiroshima peace museum. There are meant to be really harrowing displays in there.

I was in the Schlindler factory in Krakow and it left an impression.

Didn't get to Auschwitz on that trip.

Such places are important to remind us of our collective history harrowing as they may be.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah. It's actually horrific. Nightmarish. The real life actualisation of maybe the worst possible way to die. Acute Radiation Syndrome really is the sum of all fears, literally being torn apart at a molecular level and spending your last days in total and utter agony and more or less immune to the benefits of pain medication.

It was like they were melting from the outside in