Saving Stupidity why ???

Teyla Emmagan · 26-07-2015 04:33PM

Close off the feckin mountain. It's crumbling anyway with all the eejits climbing all over it. Of course there will be broken ankles when you're sliding down a hill of scree.

It's only open because of the business it brings in locally, with the poor volunteers enabling that.

Samaris · 26-07-2015 04:53PM

"A family has died after their boat got into difficulty off the Cliffs of Mohar on Friday. Under the controversial Darwin Act of 2015, emergency services risk hikes in insurance premiums if they endanger themselves to rescue people dubbed 'Too Stupid To Live'.

"Ah, sure, its a great shame there were a couple of kids on it. Jimmy called in the boat in difficulties, but there'd been a weather warning, so what can you do. Besides, if the parents were daft enough to do it, they probably passed on the Idiot genes, you know what I'm saying?"

The High Arbiter of Stupid, Paddy Nolen, is under fire after 63 people died since April in various freak accidents around the coast, including a classful of teenagers celebrating the end of exams. Paddy Nolen defended his decision to leave the group;

"Like lemmings going in after each other when that tide caught the first. Pity, but they were old enough to know better. And it's all a great auld saving on the equipment. We've managed to cut down on callouts by 60%. "

Meanwhile, the volunteer services are continuing to protest the new law, with one spokesman commenting that he "wouldn't piss on that man Nolan if he were on fire."

And now for the Sports news."

biko · 26-07-2015 05:07PM

I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

bnt · 26-07-2015 05:09PM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

That he's a gobsh*te?

Sexist. What if she's a gobsh*te?

Paramite Pie · 26-07-2015 05:09PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Why should emergency services be forced to put their lives at risk when people clearly and against all clear warnings endanger themselves.

Because the people in the emergency services are better people than you'll ever be.

Shelflife · 26-07-2015 08:03PM

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Because the people in the emergency services are better people than you'll ever be.

You may well be right, doesn't answer the question of whether it's right for their lives to be put at risk because people clearly and blatantly ignore safety advice .

Son Of A Vidic · 26-07-2015 08:18PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Why should emergency services be forced to put their lives at risk when people clearly and against all clear warnings endanger themselves.

Probably for the same reasons they're obligated to go out on any Saturday night to help the severely inebriated. I'd think the emergency services are probably more worried about working the dreaded Saturday night shift. Where they face the possibility of being assaulted, bitten, headbutted, stabbed or punched by a selection of out of control piss heads around the country. I say they would take the Croagh Patrick shift over that in a heartbeat.

Shelflife · 27-07-2015 10:59AM

So despite been told that it was extremely dangerous and advised not to climb, many still went ahead and did it.

11 casualties, one of them a 14yr old with hypothermia -dont blame him but you have to wonder what the parents have between their ears, anecdotal evidence of parents with young children (u10) ignoring advise and heading up the reek.

Could they be charged with child endangerment ?

stimpson · 27-07-2015 11:05AM

Shelflife wrote: »

So despite been told that it was extremely dangerous and advised not to climb, many still went ahead and did it.

11 casualties, one of them a 14yr old with hypothermia -dont blame him but you have to wonder what the parents have between their ears, anecdotal evidence of parents with young children (u10) ignoring advise and heading up the reek.

Could they be charged with child endangerment ?

Apparently there was a 3 year old treated for hypothermia and a couple with a 12 week baby ignored Mayo Mountain rescue advice and climbed with the baby.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-year-old-treated-for-hypothermia-after-climbers-ignore-croagh-patrick-warnings-688314.html

Twats.

VinLieger · 27-07-2015 11:16AM

Shelflife wrote: »

So despite been told that it was extremely dangerous and advised not to climb, many still went ahead and did it.

11 casualties, one of them a 14yr old with hypothermia -dont blame him but you have to wonder what the parents have between their ears, anecdotal evidence of parents with young children (u10) ignoring advise and heading up the reek.

Could they be charged with child endangerment ?

The couple with the 3 year old and 12 month old definitely should be

Samaris · 27-07-2015 11:54AM

VinLieger wrote: »

The couple with the 3 year old and 12 month old definitely should be

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree.

ColeTrain · 27-07-2015 12:24PM

A THREE YEAR old was among at least eight people who were treated for hypothermia after climbing Croagh Patrick yesterday – despite warnings not to do so because of adverse weather conditions.
The annual Reek Sunday pilgrimage was cancelled yesterday after a yellow weather alert was issued. However a number of people ignored warnings from authorities and started their climb anyway.
This morning Paul Feeney from Mayo Mountain Rescue told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland that it was “very frustrating” for the volunteers in his organisation to see people traversing the peak after they had been told not to.

http://www.thejournal.ie/croagh-patrick-hypothermia-2237366-Jul2015/?utm_source=shortlink

I feel sorry for the child but the parents need a serious kick up the arse. The article also mentions that a 12 week old was also brought up the mountain, who in their right mind would subject an infant to yesterday's conditions?

Dimithy · 27-07-2015 12:26PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/croagh-patrick-hypothermia-2237366-Jul2015/?utm_source=shortlink

I feel sorry for the child but the parents need a serious kick up the arse. The article also mentions that a 12 week old was also brought up the mountain, who in their right mind would subject an infant to yesterday's conditions?

****ing idiots is the best I can come up with.

ben.schlomo · 27-07-2015 12:28PM

Absolute morons, the lot of them. Kids should have been rescued and parents left there, better off without them. "Wheres your Messiah now, eh".

suicide_circus · 27-07-2015 12:31PM

Bringing a three year old up a mountain which has been deemed unsafe due to hazardous weather conditions....parent of the year award.

Dyr · 27-07-2015 12:31PM

Someone should be up there taking a fking hurl to these gobsheens.

ColeTrain · 27-07-2015 12:32PM

Bambi wrote: »

Someone should be up there taking a fking hurl to these gobsheens.

Or a replica of St.Patrick's big **** off stick, the one he used to drive the snaaaakes out..

27-07-2015 12:33PM

Threads merged.

diomed · 27-07-2015 12:57PM

Has anyone ever "did the Reek" and not mentioned it?

Wibbs · 27-07-2015 01:00PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/croagh-patrick-hypothermia-2237366-Jul2015/?utm_source=shortlink

I feel sorry for the child but the parents need a serious kick up the arse. The article also mentions that a 12 week old was also brought up the mountain, who in their right mind would subject an infant to yesterday's conditions?

The world is full of real morons alright. Even a passing glance at the comments on Adverts.ie would reinforce that. Still you have to legislate and allow for these morons.

Sunny Dayz · 27-07-2015 01:09PM

Seriously who would bring a 12 week old or even a 3 year old up to climb a mountain?! I climbed Mt Errigal a few weeks ago (I've never climbed Crough Patrick), I found it tough so why on earth would you bring such small children with you. I'm guessing the 12 week old was carried up, what if the parent slipped, stumbled on loose stone, gust of wind caught them off guard...

Menas · 27-07-2015 01:11PM

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

Seriously who would bring a 12 week old or even a 3 year old up to climb a mountain?! I climbed Mt Errigal a few weeks ago (I've never climbed Crough Patrick), I found it tough so why on earth would you bring such small children with you. I'm guessing the 12 week old was carried up, what if the parent slipped, stumbled on loose stone, gust of wind caught them off guard...

Whatever about the parents been victims of their own stupidity, hate to see kids been victims of their parents stupidity.
But could you imagine the fury from the God botherers if Social services intervened?

27-07-2015 01:19PM

I'm one of those who climbed it yesterday. When I arrive at the car park I was told mass was cancelled. When I asked if it was ok to climb I was told yes but be careful. I didn't see any signs or get any warnings from Gardai or other volunteers at the bottom. I'm a fairy experienced mountain hiker and athough the conditions were poor I felt I'd be okay. As I climbed I passed a few mountain rescue guys but received no warnings about going further. It was only when I got down I heard the authorities were telling people not to climb. It wasn't too bad at the bottom but it wasn't very nice at top. I had my doubts but I was confident in my ability as I have been in worse conditions on harder mountains, I did sea to summit some years back in simular conditions too. Also I felt I had the correct equipment with me which is very important. But saying all that I did see some crazy things like a guy climbing it with a six pack of Guinness and his daughter and other guy carrying his baby in a sling. If people are going mountain climbing no matter what the conditions are like it's very important to have the correct equipment and I don't think it's ever right to bring children under 12 on that mountain. I think if I was told not to climb it I would do what I was told, I guess it was hard to individually warn everyone.

Paramite Pie · 27-07-2015 01:27PM

Shelflife wrote: »

You may well be right, doesn't answer the question of whether it's right for their lives to be put at risk because people clearly and blatantly ignore safety advice .

Honestly I think the outcome of death is not proportionate punishment to the stupidity of those getting in trouble. I was implying that the people in the Emergency Services certainly feel it's right to risk their lives, or else they wouldn't do it.

Deciding who's worth saving based on perceived (or in this case, actual) stupidity makes me uncomfortable. I know some very smart people (mentality) but they bumble the simplest, basic tasks by over complicating them.

Ultimately the Emergency Services are in less danger due to training and equipment. The fact that many of them volunteer also makes the question somewhat redundant -- they've already decided.

eamonnq · 27-07-2015 01:36PM

VinLieger wrote: »

The couple with the 3 year old and 12 month old definitely should be

12 week old !!

They should be, but will they be ?? Probably not.

kowloon · 27-07-2015 02:17PM

Emergency services exist to help people, I don't see how someone who risks their safety for religion deserves this help any less than someone who does it for sport. Call them out for their stupidity, even charge them for reckless endangerment of others, but the emergency services aren't there to be arbiters.

Jaden · 27-07-2015 02:22PM

6781 wrote: »

I'm a fairy experienced mountain hiker

Sometimes the innuendo just writes itself.....

topper75 · 27-07-2015 03:15PM

diomed wrote: »

Has anyone ever "did the Reek" and not mentioned it?

Given that there is nothing up there beyond a small church that is usually locked, the answer I would venture is "no".
You do it partly for the views, partly for the exercise, but mostly to tell people you did it so as to inspire envy and/or admiration.
It's your ego that drives you up the path. It's egos that drive people up Everest.

Drive the new Ford Ego 1.6 Diesel

€18,995 ex works

-You'll never guess what I did
-Do you want to see the pictures
-What about that then

all included as standard

eamonnq · 27-07-2015 03:20PM

kowloon wrote: »

Emergency services exist to help people, I don't see how someone who risks their safety for religion deserves this help any less than someone who does it for sport. Call them out for their stupidity, even charge them for reckless endangerment of others, but the emergency services aren't there to be arbiters.

I don't think it is the religion vs sport aspect that is the problem here, it is the fact that they were allegedly advised against it on safety grounds.

Shelflife · 27-07-2015 03:43PM

kowloon wrote: »

Emergency services exist to help people, I don't see how someone who risks their safety for religion deserves this help any less than someone who does it for sport. Call them out for their stupidity, even charge them for reckless endangerment of others, but the emergency services aren't there to be arbiters.

Religion has nothing to do with this discussion.

Emergency services exist to help people that get into trouble, however if someone deliberately and in spite of receiving clear warnings still goes ahead and put themselves in harms way would you expect the emergency services to put themselves in danger to save them ?

Saving Stupidity why ???

Comments