Has the RNLI has gone mad?

[Stemar]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for that approach - drown like a gentleman - but I suspect those unfortunate idiots at Durdle Door would probably have used the same words to anyone who told them not to jump, and it isn't just you that you're putting at risk. I don't know how close this guy was to becoming a statistic, but it was a lot closer than if Idiot hadn't jumped

 

[sur-la-mer]

Had there been fora like this in the 50s and 60s, I'm sure there would have been the same debates. The youth of today, blah blah...

Which is true, but does not account for things also really becoming worse. In sociology, and you're talking about "moral panic" here (a theory developed about teenagers in that era). They talk about "deviancy amplification spirals". But these days, it more about an idiocy amplification spiral.

There is another element to this Lulworth story and it's the effect of Instagram onto the morons that is, quite literally destroy sites of natural beauty, social and environmental worth etc ... all to repeat that photo they have seen of someone else on Instagram.

"The Beach" in Thailand is a perfect example. Environment crapped on, had to be closed down. Machu Picchu is a similar. Lulworth and the Door's gone the same way.

Why were they there?

A survey of 78,994 people by travel dating website MissTravel found that 48 percent of Instagram users turn to the Facebook-owned photo- and video-sharing network to help choose vacation destinations, and 35 percent use Instagram to discover new places.

I found one link at random to illustrate it but remember other that were pitiful, eg that picture of a solo "traveler" (because they're not "tourists") standing on a cliff top looking down a New Zealand fjord ... then when you take the photo backwards, there's a queue of 200 people all waiting to take the same photograph to prove they were there.

Search for "Instagram vs Reality tourism" (not "Instagram vs Reality women" it'll give you nightmares). It just did not exist until a few years ago and here is the problem, "old world" establishments like the RNLI just cannot keep up with it because, unlike digital images, they've got to move real people and tonnes of steel and GRP around, and can't click an app to fix how things look.

 

[NormanS]

Yes, yes, too many people in the world. What we need is a good plague.....Oh, wait a minute....?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Why were they there?

Because they wanted to go? Can't see why it's my business otherwise.

I found one link at random to illustrate it but remember other that were pitiful, eg that picture of a solo "traveler" (because they're not "tourists") standing on a cliff top looking down a New Zealand fjord ... then when you take the photo backwards, there's a queue of 200 people all waiting to take the same photograph to prove they were there.

Search for "Instagram vs Reality tourism" ...

I am shocked, shocked to learn not only that people use photographs of possible destinations to decide where to go on holiday, but also that popular tourist destinations often have lots of people at them. Also that Mount Fuji looks less attractive on a rainy autumn day than it does during cherry blossom time.

Next you'll be telling me that Flatford Mill was actually rather scruffy, the fighting Temeraire was just an old hulk being towed to the breakers and the Lake District never looked like the eighteenth century paintings of "An Arcadian Landscape in Westmoreland".

 

[sur-la-mer]

You're deliberately being a tw*t so as not to admit the obvious.

"Because they wanted to go?" Because they saw a photo on Instagram. Monkey see, monkey go.

Communities and environments that not only don't need people coming, that cannot support the quantity of individuals going, are being pointlessly destroyed with far reaching impacts upon other species and the eco-sphere. And it's accelerating exponentially beyond your ken.

Come back Joni Mitchell, all is forgiven.

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

 

[JumbleDuck]

You're deliberately being a tw*t so as not to admit the obvious.

"Because they wanted to go?" Because they saw a photo on Instagram. Monkey see, monkey go.

Leaving the silly personal abuse aside, why the hell shouldn't they go somewhere because it looks nice? I choose places to go in my boat by reading descriptions, consulting pilot books and, yes, sometimes looking at pictures and I don't think my "Ooh, that looks nice, I think I'll go there" is superior to someone else's "Ooh, that looks nice, I think I'll go there" just because their source was Instagram.

The sustainability of tourism is certainly a matter for concern but I don't thing it's solved by deciding that some people have no right to go because they saw a picture on a particular platform. That's sheer snobbery.

 

[sur-la-mer]

Or, in my case, concern for the environment, local communities, and vulnerable species. And I could give you 1,000s of cases of it, sex tourism in Thailand, the backpacker raves in Cambodia, destruction of rare turtle beaches, the buses locking up single track roads on Skye, so the Chinese tourists can get their selfies at the fairy pools, the constant rolling of luggage wheels in Venice and waste from day tourists, the impossibility of locals renting in Barcelona now it's AirBnB central, the English in Magaluf.

You're still not factoring in the *exponential* part of it, and the degrees of excess, from when you were young.

 

[newtothis]

You're deliberately being a tw*t so as not to admit the obvious.

"Because they wanted to go?" Because they saw a photo on Instagram. Monkey see, monkey go.

Communities and environments that not only don't need people coming, that cannot support the quantity of individuals going, are being pointlessly destroyed with far reaching impacts upon other species and the eco-sphere. And it's accelerating exponentially beyond your ken.

Come back Joni Mitchell, all is forgiven.

Come back Talking Heads, all is forgiven
This was a Pizza Hut, now it's all covered in daisies....

 

[JumbleDuck]

Or, in my case, concern for the environment, local communities, and vulnerable species. And I could give you 1,000s of cases of it, sex tourism in Thailand, the backpacker raves in Cambodia, destruction of rare turtle beaches, the buses locking up single track roads on Skye, so the Chinese tourists can get their selfies at the fairy pools, the constant rolling of luggage wheels in Venice and waste from day tourists, the impossibility of locals renting in Barcelona now it's AirBnB central, the English in Magaluf.

All problems, but it's still hard (maybe) to see why you think banning Instagram inspiration is the answer. As as matter of interest, when you go sailing (if you go sailing) do you tend to stick to marinas or do you prefer to go off the beaten track to remote places? Hint: there is no right answer.

 

[jac]

+1. I'm happy for the RNLI to man their lifeboats to save distressed mariners. They're damn good at it.

However, I do object to the RNLI (or anyone else for that matter) telling me that I can't use the beach near my own home. Sorry, but that's overstepping the mark. I'm happy to manage my own risks and they can f. off.

Does anyone else think this unreasonable?

No

i think you’re being perfectly reasonable.

we seem to be adopting a more European approach the law. Historically in England you could do anything unless the law precludes it. In Europe, everything is banned unless expressly permitted.

my view is that the RNLI have every right to request you to not go on the beach or in the water and should certainly explain why it’s a bad idea but if some snot nosed lifeguard was going to try and ban me I would want to know which act of parliament gave him the authority to do that. Obviously local government may have local orders in place but unless a part of government has authorised it then the RNLI lifeguard has as much authority on their as the local chip shop owner.

Personally I’d probably deliberately flout the “instructions“ even if I didn’t want to go in the sea!!!

 

[Mark-1]

In Europe, everything is banned unless expressly permitted.

Got a link for that? Seems implausible.

 

[jac]

Got a link for that? Seems implausible.

ok a slight simplification but one simple source here.

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed - Wikipedia

it’s basically down to the difference in the origin of the law.

Our legal history was based on courts making judgements based on common practice and that precedence being something that binds subsequent courts. So that became the foundation. Of course, over time laws have been introduced Which narrow the scope but the implication is that unless the law bans it or a previous court decision found against it, you can do it.

Much of the continent was heavily codified most notably by the Code Napoleon which still survives (albeit modified) today. The basic principle of codification is to describe every action and what can or can’t be done. Of course there is still grey but that basic principle of ok unless banned is not present.

 

[Mark-1]

ok a slight simplification but one simple source here.

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed - Wikipedia

it’s basically down to the difference in the origin of the law.

Our legal history was based on courts making judgements based on common practice and that precedence being something that binds subsequent courts. So that became the foundation. Of course, over time laws have been introduced Which narrow the scope but the implication is that unless the law bans it or a previous court decision found against it, you can do it.

Much of the continent was heavily codified most notably by the Code Napoleon which still survives (albeit modified) today. The basic principle of codification is to describe every action and what can or can’t be done. Of course there is still grey but that basic principle of ok unless banned is not present.

Nothing in that link says that "In Europe, everything is banned unless expressly permitted. ".

 

[jac]

Nothing in that link says that "In Europe, everything is banned unless expressly permitted. ".

Look at the section on German law

 

[dom]

Look at the section on German law

This expression may be traced to Winston Churchill:

”In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted."

The Wiki example - I have on good account being related to a German - applies to very specific technical circumstances and doesn’t in any way prove what it claims to.

Still, it’s a fun quote!

 

[Mark-1]

Thanks Dom, that sorts it all out.

 

[Capt Popeye]

+1. I'm happy for the RNLI to man their lifeboats to save distressed mariners. They're damn good at it.

However, I do object to the RNLI (or anyone else for that matter) telling me that I can't use the beach near my own home. Sorry, but that's overstepping the mark. I'm happy to manage my own risks and they can f. off.

Does anyone else think this unreasonable?

Quite quite reasonable, perhaps a bit of encroachment outsde responibilities and abilities, a sort of 'sea grab' to enhance their control ?

 

[Capt Popeye]

This expression may be traced to Winston Churchill:

”In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted. In France, everything is allowed, even what is prohibited. In the USSR, everything is prohibited, even what is permitted."

The Wiki example - I have on good account being related to a German - applies to very specific technical circumstances and doesn’t in any way prove what it claims to.

Still, it’s a fun quote!

Thank you, most apt most apt was it a Monty Python sketch by any chance ?

 

[Stemar]

A bit like the joke about traffic law in Europe.

In Germany, all the laws make sense, and everyone obeys all of them
In England, most of the laws make sense and most people obey most of them
In Italy, none of the laws make no sense, but everyone ignores all of them
In France, most of the laws make no sense, but there's no way to know which ones have to be obeyed.

Not quite right, but I couldn't find a way to correct my defective memory

 

[fisherman]

Our local beach will not be covered this summer. It's not very dangerous but two (local) kids got blown away on bodyboards last week and had to be rescued by a local mum. The lifeguard does not have his work cut out, but he has had incidents to deal with, and I don't think people will take any more care when he's not there. OTOH before lifeguards there never was a death there, but there has been the odd LB rescue, blown away inflatables mostly.
The RNLI can see they will be blamed for any incident, which may be primarily the fault of, or due to the negligence of, or ignorance of, the casualty. As it usually is.
Someone will undoubtedly die somewhere, told you so won't bring them back.
Lifeguards will have problems for instance with close proximity and CPR, but that didn't stop the ladies who brought the Durdle Door casualty back with CPR.