Has the RNLI has gone mad?

[sur-la-mer]

I don't know about flattening hills into the sea, but I always did regret the navy didn't blow the hell out of some near the surface rocky outcrops around some harbours as target practise before environmental issues became a thing.

I'll concur with you on the above, I didn't even know they had lifeguards these days. Red flags were always a bit of excitement for some additional fun. I can remember being disappointed when we went to a beach and there weren't any (true). I agree with you those that argue people should be allowed to kill themselves being stupid/adventurous if they want, if they are willing to take full responsibility for what they are doing. The Jester is a great example of that.

The trend I don't agree with is the extension of expecting other people should bail them out, risk themselves, and, worse, be held accountable for their stupidity.

"Something that to be done about it!!!"

I'm thinking of when those 5 Indian students drowned at Camber Sands and how it was all someone else's fault because no one had been there to nanny them.

Although the NHS, RNLI, Coastguard, mountain rescue and all the rest are great things, it's heading towards the wrong extreme and making people individually and collective weak, irresponsible, and neglectful. Part of which involves dumbass bravado and risk taking which they wouldn't be doing if they had to individually pay for the consequences for the rest of their lives.

I also think ... I'm guessing due to all of the immersion in virtuality, movies, the internet, games etc ... that people really aren't in reality. Life's become a just movie or game to them.

In Japan they had a problem with people committing suicide by jumping in front of the Shinkansen, high speed railway. A very effective way of killing oneself. They can do 200 mph.

So they starting billing the families for the cost of it. About 100 to 140 million yen, which is about £1,000,000. (In reality, it comes down to 8 million which is about £60,000).

Soon brought the numbers down.

I can only imagine the hair pulling and shrieking if one tried to introduce such a system into this country ... "How terrible! How could they!!" it's all about the victims' rights, not those who have to pay for it.

(There is more to it but my coffee's finished, so I've got to get on today).

 

[Sharky34]

I'm pretty sure that medical staff don't match treatment to their assessment of the patient's usefulness to society. Anyway, what if the drowning person was a consultant surgeon?

How, do you identify a drowning person, as "a consultant surgeon"?

 

[JumbleDuck]

How, do you identify a drowning person, as "a consultant surgeon"?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Probably by the golf clubs.

 

[sur-la-mer]

I'm pretty sure that medical staff don't match treatment to their assessment of the patient's usefulness to society. Anyway, what if the drowning person was a consultant surgeon?

I missed that response but it's a good one. I think they should.

Hopefully the surgeon would have more brains not to put the investment that's been made into at such risk.

I remember the good one days, when fire engines would only put out the fires of houses that had an insurance plaque on the outside. Sure encouraged householders to buy insurance. Now, in all these things, the pendulum's swung too far in the other direction to the point where , eg it is my right to eat myself to the point of obesity, but society's responsibility to fix or sustain me in that condition.

Memories of taking a relative to their cancer treatment and watching all the generally unhealthy, over weight, pastey, tattooed patients wheel their drips outside ... so they could have a fag. I had to ask myself, why was the hospital/society bothering?

 

[Stemar]

Probably because we have a national health service. It's for the whole nation, not just those we consider to be deserving. You have your exclusion list, I have mine, and we're probably both on someone else's list. Which list are we going to use? Or are you one of the number of, mostly well off, people who want to do away with the NHS? If so, I suggest you look at the statistics for people in the US whose health is being ruined because of the obscene profit margin on, for example, insulin - something like 10,000%, IIRC, or the bankruptcies and homelessness caused by medical bills.

Actually, those obese smokers do find they don't get some treatments because their weight and damaged lungs and hearts make quit a lot of surgery too risky

 

[sur-la-mer]

It's a paradox that the National Health System was put in place at the time when the nation's health was at its best ... thanks to war time rationing. (approx)

Obviously support the theory, but, as I wrote, think it's gone too far to encourage the opposite, a National Sickness, via a lack of self-responsibility.

I think it should only cover essentiality and is one steps outside of those, one should be required to top up with additional insurances by law, eg innocent victim of an accident or congenital defect etc, fine; play rugby, ride a horse, above average BMI etc, required to buy cover in some way. It could be individually, or eg in the case of smoking, via the industry paying and the price being passed down to their consumers, rather than all of society.

Knowing they had to pay would make people more cautious.

 

[penberth3]

Two drowned in the Avon at Bath yesterday - has anyone blamed the RNLI yet?

 

[JumbleDuck]

I remember the good one days, when fire engines would only put out the fires of houses that had an insurance plaque on the outside.

Golly. Since Edinburgh had a municipal fire brigade in 1825, London got its in 1866 and everywhere else had one by 1900, you're doing pretty well for someone who must be at least 130 years old ...

 

[NormanS]

Golly. Since Edinburgh had a municipal fire brigade in 1825, London got its in 1866 and everywhere else had one by 1900, you're doing pretty well for someone who must be at least 130 years old ...

I just assumed that he was referring to some far away parts, where civilisation was only recently established. I wonder where? ?

 

[JumbleDuck]

I just assumed that he was referring to some far away parts, where civilisation was only recently established. I wonder where? ?

Oban?

 

[Rum Run]

It's a paradox that the National Health System was put in place at the time when the nation's health was at its best ... thanks to war time rationing. (approx)

Obviously support the theory, but, as I wrote, think it's gone too far to encourage the opposite, a National Sickness, via a lack of self-responsibility.

I think it should only cover essentiality and is one steps outside of those, one should be required to top up with additional insurances by law, eg innocent victim of an accident or congenital defect etc, fine; play rugby, ride a horse, above average BMI etc, required to buy cover in some way. It could be individually, or eg in the case of smoking, via the industry paying and the price being passed down to their consumers, rather than all of society.

Knowing they had to pay would make people more cautious.

I think that by most metrics that people care about: lifespan, infant mortality, death in childbirth, cancer surviveability, survival after major trauma and no doubt many other things I can't even be bothered to look up, you are incorrect regarding the nation's health.
You also seem to want various Authorities to have control of us on the grounds that we cost too much money if we do something that the newspapers think is dangerous, which strikes me as odd.

 

[sur-la-mer]

It's headed off topic but ... no government is willing to fund it properly (we've gone from £13bn to £149bn, 11% of budget to 30% but still not all get served, nor in a timely manner), so how and where do you apply the cut backs to make it all fit?

Not everyone can everything they want. Bear in mind that an accidental death costs the nation over £1m a time. Could we not make them count rather than bare needless and pointless ones?

Given that we all pay it, why should certain groups who cost more, or have contributed less, or are prone to and enjoy risk taking, not pay more? Why should our contributions to it not vary, like car insurance policies, or pensions?

We're just getting over smoking, for which their can be no excuse, but headed towards a huge and costly crisis caused by diet and lifestyle habits, heart and obesity, again, for which there is no good reason.

How do you get people to wake in order to stop? "Education" isn't working (there's a correlation between the above and stupidity), so you need a stick too.

I'd probably say something like, the National Health should only serve the nation's interests, not the individual's; need and essentiality, not want and indulgence ... and, along with that, state the obvious, that we actually don't need to exploit more immigrant BAME workers to empty our bedpans, we need a healthier nation who does not need more immigrant BAME workers to treat its illness of affluence and serve them. They are needed far more back home. It would be relatively easy to ring fence what is unnecessarily and not require the Daily Heil to arbitrate. Probably the easiest way through taxes on the industries who cause and fuel the excesses. Like the sugary drink tax.

Having the alcohol industry pay for all the Saturday night fighting and alcoholism would be first on my list.

I would have said that prior to Boris our future looked as if it was to be blue for some time to come, which would mean more cut backs and, potentially, pressure from the USA towards privatisation, and that was before Covid made its huge dent in the economy. The NHS is going to be under even more pressure.

Probably the same kind of arguments apply to the RNLI. When the RNLI started, who and what was it for? Certainly the founders did not imagine things like drunken boneheads on jetskis.


The 22 year old man - typical high risk demographic - who died provoking discussing about limiting water access had only bought his the same morning. Cost to the nation ... £2m probably. Another 22 year woman a couple of years ago, heart ripped out after being hit by a young man riding a jet ski for the first time that day. Another £1m +. For what? Who needs one?

It's a simple job to work out that actuaries to do.

 

[38mess]

Having worked at sea all my life spending most of my life abroad in some hell hole port waiting for cargo, if you fell in the sea you died. from what I know about the charity I have the upmost respect for the RNLI.

But have they the power to close beaches?

I thought that they were a charity funded mainly from donations from the public.
They do a great job I think, savings lives, but have they any authority over you or I?

 

[CLB]

Tell me, when HIV first came out, did you go around shagging everything just to prove you weren't afraid of it?

I certainly tried my hardest, although with limited success ?

 

[sur-la-mer]

But have they the power to close beaches?

Nope, but the right to tell a government gone mad that they're going to have to make other plans for pulling corpses out of the water.

Bit of a unique relationship between all the parties involved in the water, isn't it?

As an aside, I saw two separate petitions, .gov and change.org about nationalising them and one got 23 and the other 19 votes.

 

[38mess]

Nope, but the right to tell a government gone mad that they're going to have to make other plans for pulling corpses out of the water.

Bit of a unique relationship between all the parties involved in the water, isn't it?

As an aside, I saw two separate petitions, .gov and change.org about nationalising them and one got 23 and the other 19 votes.

I don't think the government are worried about corpses.

 

[DownWest]

Waiting for a phone call, so read this thread.
Like others, I was brought up in the era when you did not expect anybody to fish you out if you made a mistake. Plus, one's parents would now be the subject of social service attention for letting us get on with some fun.
The concept of the RNLI being used as the AA if your engine hiccups, would never have occured to us. Apart from not having radios to call them. They were called out to help ships and other commercial mariners in serious trouble. We followed the 'Flying Enterprise' drama while in Falmouth.
I still sail like that and have managed to avoid screwing up, so far.
Most countries would expect you to take a test and insure your boat. France certainly does. And, they only save lives (as the US lot), your boat is saved at a cost.
The free for all in UK needs a bit of adjustment. How, not sure.. Maybe focus on the areas that cause problems, like small mobos (jetskis?) With registration as a minimum. Even the SSR is tracable. And insurance.
Then there is enforcement. When I was in Portugal, Everthing was quite controlled, in theory.. All boats registered. Engines too, as seperate entities. Licences required for any boating. Yet, I was showing some visiting friends the local caves when a jetski came the other way at speed. We were in a narrow cave and I don't know how we didn't have a major accident. We hit the wall, but not the 'ski. The driver was clearly under age to use it, but from a large mobo moored nearby, so exempt from the rules....Money.

Edit: Tests and licences in France apply to Mobos. Boats with sails as primary power don't need a drivers licence.

 

[sur-la-mer]

Jetskis, I'm starting to abhor. Should be classed the same as motorcycles with all the same precautions. What's the difference?

Yes, I think in the UK it's a wider, broader issue. An attitude of entitlement of both being bailed out and fixed later. Blame, who? The Guardian, compensation lawyers, social media (because they've seen someone do it), I don't know. How did we get here, and where do we want to go from here?

4 morons, presumably on their very first weekend after lockdown relaxation, decided to celebrate by throwing themselves off the 200ft arch at Durdle Door, Lulworth and putting themselves into hospital. HM Coastguard and the RNLI, boat, helicopter, police, ambulance, hospital. Add it all up.

I choose this photo though to highlight how many other lives they put at risk by having the beach cleared and everyone's social distancing through the wind. Literally. Of the helicopter blades.

Now, if they knew they and their families were to pick up the bill for it all, might it have modified their behaviour a little?

 

[oldgit]

" their families were to pick up the bill for it all, might it have modified their behaviour a little? "

Young males having "fun" with few mates.............having the least concern as to something their parents might worry about .
What planet are you on.
You definately have no children of your own and went straight from birth to the age of 50.

 

[sur-la-mer]

What planet are you on.

One suffering an infectiously exponential increase in idiocy. For long enough to note changes in behaviour. Having visited other nations with different patterns of behaviour. Considering where things are going. With a reasonable knowledge of modern history.

I think we've got two things going on here, the rise of idiocy/disassociation from reality; with people becoming weaker for the lack of getting out and playing while they are young, and harder labour (add to which drugs getting stronger).

A few family's getting saddled with the full rescue bill, big hullabaloo in the press and media, do you think it wouldn't start to curb excesses? What happened to them, break their neck hitting rocks, or just the water?

Take something like the RNLI. It was started when people had to go out onto the water for the sake of necessity, often without other options, right? Locals risking their lives for others.

It wasn't meant as a safety net for indulgence idiots or, as someone else wrote, an AA 'get-you-home' service.

It's going from one excess to another and actually encouraging risk taking by the unsuitable because they think someone else will be there for free to bail them out. (Discussion follows other similar theories re NHS).