A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Walking in the UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 15th 10, 06:15 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Graham Seed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.


wrote

They also said:

A spokesperson for the fire service said: 'Every fireman costs ?30 an
hour and add to that the costs of vehicles at ?40 an hour and
helicopters at ?2,000 an hour it is easy to see how the costs mount
up.

'Of course we will still rescue everybody in danger but we have to
recoup the costs somehow.'


Yes, they propose to charge people who are negligent.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...#ixzz15MmCGZbU


There is no more. Its the same article. Para 1 is the mails view of
'negligent' ie not being able to read a map. This is not mentioned in Para
8. Para 2 the 'fact'. Para 3 tells us how much they plan to charge negligent
people. Para 4 talks about a negligent person in Aus. Para 5 appears to be
Mailspeak. Para 6 says how many they rescued. Para 7 how much it cost. Para
8 says they will still rescue negligent people but they are going to have to
pay. Para 9, when negligent people will have to pay from. Para 10
recomendations on how to avoid negligence. Para 11 common sense. Para 12
reiterating Para 8.

Quite a lot about negligence in there Angus. Not much about careful walkers
having to pay if they get into trouble.

Still. You read what you want to.

Graham


  #22  
Old November 15th 10, 07:08 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:15:13 -0000, "Graham Seed"
wrote:


wrote

They also said:

A spokesperson for the fire service said: 'Every fireman costs ?30 an
hour and add to that the costs of vehicles at ?40 an hour and
helicopters at ?2,000 an hour it is easy to see how the costs mount
up.

'Of course we will still rescue everybody in danger but we have to
recoup the costs somehow.'


Yes, they propose to charge people who are negligent.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...#ixzz15MmCGZbU


There is no more. Its the same article. Para 1 is the mails view of
'negligent' ie not being able to read a map. This is not mentioned in Para
8. Para 2 the 'fact'. Para 3 tells us how much they plan to charge negligent
people. Para 4 talks about a negligent person in Aus. Para 5 appears to be
Mailspeak. Para 6 says how many they rescued. Para 7 how much it cost. Para
8 says they will still rescue negligent people but they are going to have to
pay. Para 9, when negligent people will have to pay from. Para 10
recomendations on how to avoid negligence. Para 11 common sense. Para 12
reiterating Para 8.

Quite a lot about negligence in there Angus. Not much about careful walkers
having to pay if they get into trouble.

Still. You read what you want to.


What about "careful walkers" getting lost?
  #23  
Old November 15th 10, 07:54 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Graham Seed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 174
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:15:13 -0000, "Graham Seed"
wrote:


wrote

They also said:

A spokesperson for the fire service said: 'Every fireman costs ?30 an
hour and add to that the costs of vehicles at ?40 an hour and
helicopters at ?2,000 an hour it is easy to see how the costs mount
up.

'Of course we will still rescue everybody in danger but we have to
recoup the costs somehow.'


Yes, they propose to charge people who are negligent.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...#ixzz15MmCGZbU


There is no more. Its the same article. Para 1 is the mails view of
'negligent' ie not being able to read a map. This is not mentioned in Para
8. Para 2 the 'fact'. Para 3 tells us how much they plan to charge
negligent
people. Para 4 talks about a negligent person in Aus. Para 5 appears to be
Mailspeak. Para 6 says how many they rescued. Para 7 how much it cost.
Para
8 says they will still rescue negligent people but they are going to have
to
pay. Para 9, when negligent people will have to pay from. Para 10
recomendations on how to avoid negligence. Para 11 common sense. Para 12
reiterating Para 8.

Quite a lot about negligence in there Angus. Not much about careful
walkers
having to pay if they get into trouble.

Still. You read what you want to.


What about "careful walkers" getting lost?


According to the criteria in Para 10 and 11, getting lost isn't considered.
The Mail journalist mentioned 'getting lost' in the first para then failed
to substantiate it, which is about par, as Tim said, for that paper. Careful
walkers probably wouldn't get lost by definition........

G


  #25  
Old November 15th 10, 09:03 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Bob Douglas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.



"Tim Jackson" wrote in message
et...

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:08:41 +0000, wrote...
Quite a lot about negligence in there Angus. Not much about careful
walkers
having to pay if they get into trouble.

Still. You read what you want to.

What about "careful walkers" getting lost?


They won't have to pay. 95% of the people the Catalonian Fire Service
rescue won't have to pay. Ditch the Daily Mail and read the rather more
accurate report quoted by Bob Douglas.


Verbatim from The Grauniad (and the numbers cover walkers/climbers AND
skiers)

Always assumes you trust the Grauniad more than The Mail, my views on which
are rather neatly encapsulated by

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

......for that small number of people who possibly still haven't seen it.

I have to confess, when I first glanced at the o/p I thought it said
"Catatonia charging for mountain rescue".

I had visions of Cerys Matthews swarming over Crib Goch to rescue me.

At one time I would have paid good money for THAT.


  #26  
Old November 15th 10, 09:14 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Tim Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:03:52 -0000, Bob Douglas wrote...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI


My wife came in as I watched this. I asked her if the Daily Mail was
her newspaper of choice. She said it depended how absorbent it was.

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
  #28  
Old November 15th 10, 11:48 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Catalonia charging fior mountain rescue.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:54:01 -0000, "Graham Seed"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:15:13 -0000, "Graham Seed"
wrote:


wrote

They also said:

A spokesperson for the fire service said: 'Every fireman costs ?30 an
hour and add to that the costs of vehicles at ?40 an hour and
helicopters at ?2,000 an hour it is easy to see how the costs mount
up.

'Of course we will still rescue everybody in danger but we have to
recoup the costs somehow.'

Yes, they propose to charge people who are negligent.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...#ixzz15MmCGZbU

There is no more. Its the same article. Para 1 is the mails view of
'negligent' ie not being able to read a map. This is not mentioned in Para
8. Para 2 the 'fact'. Para 3 tells us how much they plan to charge
negligent
people. Para 4 talks about a negligent person in Aus. Para 5 appears to be
Mailspeak. Para 6 says how many they rescued. Para 7 how much it cost.
Para
8 says they will still rescue negligent people but they are going to have
to
pay. Para 9, when negligent people will have to pay from. Para 10
recomendations on how to avoid negligence. Para 11 common sense. Para 12
reiterating Para 8.

Quite a lot about negligence in there Angus. Not much about careful
walkers
having to pay if they get into trouble.

Still. You read what you want to.


What about "careful walkers" getting lost?


According to the criteria in Para 10 and 11, getting lost isn't considered.
The Mail journalist mentioned 'getting lost' in the first para then failed
to substantiate it, which is about par, as Tim said, for that paper. Careful
walkers probably wouldn't get lost by definition........


I note the "probably" quaification.

So what if "careful walkers" do get lost?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mountain Rescue Team of the year Tony Gillon Walking in the UK 3 January 16th 10 06:40 PM
Mountain rescue classic Martin Richardson Walking in the UK 7 July 13th 09 09:42 PM
Mountain Rescue Exemption from VAT Tony Gillon Walking in the UK 6 April 3rd 09 07:06 PM
Donating (legacy) to Mountain Rescue Allan Gould Walking in the UK 5 February 28th 07 11:54 AM
Mountain rescue... Richard Layton Walking in the UK 18 June 28th 05 02:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.