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

Corbett - Breabag TR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 27th 06, 12:10 AM posted to uk.rec.walking
Bootlaces - the very slow fellrunner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Protection of the public

uk.rec.walking

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:52:50 +0100
:

The prime objective should be safety;


Is this meant to be adventure?

--
We kitted up. Small stones fell around us. A striking route, indeed...
{G J F Dutton}
  #13  
Old July 27th 06, 08:21 AM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:03:29 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

Message-ID: from
contained the following:

Angus, I have sympathy with some of the causes you champion but your
incessant trolling of this group simply makes you a prize ****wit in my
eyes. Do you seriously expect to change anyone's mind here or are you
just bored?


What make you think I'm trolling?


Well if you're not you are a bigger ****wit than I thought.


That's not an answer to the question. What does that make you?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
  #14  
Old July 27th 06, 08:26 AM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:38:23 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:39:11 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:
In article ,
writes


In the light of yet another accident this week where a schoolgirl fell
30 feet at a waterfall, it is surely time for these organisations to
face up to their responsibilities to protect the public from hazards
encountered on their land.

In case it has escaped your notice, Angus, the group of children which
included this girl (for whose accident you have shown no sympathy
whatsoever, merely attempted to exploit) were on an adventure holiday
and she was "part of a group of nine young people which, along with two
instructors, was taking part in pool jumping at a waterfall in the
woodland.", pool jumping being one of the established activities at the
centre where the children were staying.


Sounds to me like a pretty pointless activity. Is this meant to be
adventure?

It may seem pointless to you, Angus, but that is the activity which was
going on when this girl slipped, and the activity was part of an
adventure holiday.


Doesn't make it any less pointless.



Perhaps you would like to explain, taking account of your personal
knowledge of the site (and I note you haven't said whether you have ever
visited it), how pool jumping could take place if the children were
"protected from hazards" there.


The prime objective should be safety; pool jumping isn't important.

I'm sure the prime objective was safety, but accidents will happen.
Whether or not you think pool jumping is important is irrelevant.

Perhaps you would now like to explain, taking account of your personal
knowledge of the site (and I note that you still haven't said whether
you have ever visited it), how pool jumping could take place if the
children were "protected from hazards" there.

Well, Angus, have you ever visited that waterfall in the Galloway Forest
Park?


No, and I have no wish to do so. But one doesn't need to visit a
place to say that there should be safety measures to prevent
accidents. That should be up to the owners. The child who slipped
probably hadn't visited the place previously either.

Have you visited it?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
  #16  
Old July 27th 06, 10:23 AM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:20:18 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:38:23 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:39:11 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:
In article ,
writes

In the light of yet another accident this week where a schoolgirl fell
30 feet at a waterfall, it is surely time for these organisations to
face up to their responsibilities to protect the public from hazards
encountered on their land.

In case it has escaped your notice, Angus, the group of children which
included this girl (for whose accident you have shown no sympathy
whatsoever, merely attempted to exploit) were on an adventure holiday
and she was "part of a group of nine young people which, along with two
instructors, was taking part in pool jumping at a waterfall in the
woodland.", pool jumping being one of the established activities at the
centre where the children were staying.

Sounds to me like a pretty pointless activity. Is this meant to be
adventure?

It may seem pointless to you, Angus, but that is the activity which was
going on when this girl slipped, and the activity was part of an
adventure holiday.


Doesn't make it any less pointless.

The fact that it seems pointless to you is immaterial. Some people think
that go-karting is pointless yet you have expressed an interest in it.
Other people think that your obsession with the Woodland Trust and other
conservation organisations is pointless.


Other people might think you're pretty pointless :-))




Perhaps you would like to explain, taking account of your personal
knowledge of the site (and I note you haven't said whether you have ever
visited it), how pool jumping could take place if the children were
"protected from hazards" there.

The prime objective should be safety; pool jumping isn't important.

I'm sure the prime objective was safety, but accidents will happen.
Whether or not you think pool jumping is important is irrelevant.

Perhaps you would now like to explain, taking account of your personal
knowledge of the site (and I note that you still haven't said whether
you have ever visited it), how pool jumping could take place if the
children were "protected from hazards" there.

Well, Angus, have you ever visited that waterfall in the Galloway Forest
Park?


No, and I have no wish to do so.


Thank you for admitting that, Angus. It is always helpful to know
whether, when you accuse an organisation or landowner of not making a
place safe, you have personal knowledge of the site.


It doesn't make one bit of difference. If a child can fall down a
30ft face then it's obviously not safe.


Perhaps you would like to tell us whether you have been to Linn of
Quoich or climbed to the top of Arthur's Seat.


You have said I "confirmed" I haven't. So where was that then? Or
was that just another of your stupid lies?

But one doesn't need to visit a
place to say that there should be safety measures to prevent
accidents. That should be up to the owners.


No, Angus, it was up to the two instructors in charge of the group of
nine children.

Are you accusing them of negligence?

The child who slipped
probably hadn't visited the place previously either.

Immaterial, again. She was in the charge of two instructors pool-jumping
at a site which according to the reports is used for that activity.


Perhaps it shouldn't be. If a child can fall 30 ft it's obviously
dangerous.

Have you visited it?

No,


Ho Ho You're a joke!

but then I haven't been accusing the owners of not making the site
safe. I have, though, been to Linn of Quoich and have climbed to the top
of Arthur's Seat and can confirm, as everyone else who has been to
either or both, that your claims that "there should be safety measures
to prevent accidents" arises from ignorance and prejudice and nothing
else.


It arises from the fact that accidents have occurred and that
landowners should take steps to ensure the safety of the public if
they invite them onto their land for recreational purposes.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
  #17  
Old July 27th 06, 10:25 AM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:12:17 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

Message-ID: from
contained the following:

Angus, I have sympathy with some of the causes you champion but your
incessant trolling of this group simply makes you a prize ****wit in my
eyes. Do you seriously expect to change anyone's mind here or are you
just bored?

What make you think I'm trolling?

Well if you're not you are a bigger ****wit than I thought.


That's not an answer to the question. What does that make you?


I'd quit while you were ahead. Accusing you of trolling is doing you a
favour compared to the alternative.


Still not answered the question.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 




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
Corbett - Creag Uchdag Lindsay Walking in the UK 0 May 20th 06 09:12 AM
Corbett - Am Bathach Lindsay Walking in the UK 9 April 8th 06 09:18 AM
Corbett - Braigh nan Uamhachan -Loch Eil Lindsay Walking in the UK 0 March 10th 06 08:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 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.