Haverfordwest paddleboard deaths - MAIB report published

penberth3 said:
You've answered your own question. It's unlikely the individual here could afford a £7-figure fine, so it has to be prison.
Click to expand...

Which we all know doesn't work, especially for preventing one off crimes or those like manslaughter which don't have "intent". I don't know what the answer is but we certainly don't have one presently.
 
billskip said:
I don't believe it does though.
Click to expand...
Deterrants only work if there is a prospect of being caught. Obviously to get caught for manslaughter something first has to go horribly wrong and nobody really thinks it will happen to them - it takes a certain level of crazy to believe there's a big risk someone will die on your trip and shrug it off. But certainly if the personal consequences of catastophe are low there's little motivation on those who are perhaps not the most conscientous to get it right in the first place. However once someone dies you can be pretty sure someone is going to go through everything with a fine toothcomb to find possible blame.
billskip said:
I believe there are many "black" money making schemes and those that don't " get caught" will continue.
Click to expand...
She wasn't doing anything that would have raised clear-cut regulatory concerns before this trip. At most, she'd have been told to get her paperwork in order.
billskip said:
I would suspect there is at least one on these forums that makes a few bob with their boat,
Click to expand...
do you think whatever black money route they have actually exposes their customers to greater risk? do you think the MCA should clamp down on that? have you tipped them off? I don't think I could sleep at night if I knew someone here was dodging the rules and next week someone (especially someone unwitting) on their boat died and I'd taken a "not my problem" attitude.
billskip said:
they have absolutely no wish for disaster.
Click to expand...
but do they seem to be courting disaster anyway? will they have had a moment this week where they thought if something goes wrong they will throw the book at me and either - i'd better make sure nothing goes wrong, or i'd better make sure that im definitely on the right side of the regulations.
 
Biggles Wader said:
Which we all know doesn't work, especially for preventing one off crimes or those like manslaughter which don't have "intent". I don't know what the answer is but we certainly don't have one presently.
Click to expand...

I know someone who manages an Airfield and he loses sleep over corporate manslaughter and busts a gut to make sure he covers all the bases.

So I'd say it does work, we're all safer because people who take risks with our lives go to prison.

It's far from perfect but even so....
 
Biggles Wader said:
Which we all know doesn't work, especially for preventing one off crimes or those like manslaughter which don't have "intent". I don't know what the answer is but we certainly don't have one presently.
Click to expand...
She may not have intended anyone to die but at least some of the decisions she made were conscious choices. That's not to say that prison is a great solution, but actually for people who aren't habitual offenders it probably is the ultimate sanction.
 
benjenbav said:
Late to this thread; apologies if this has been covered already. But I think this week’s proceedings were a sentencing hearing, Lloyd having pleaded guilty to gross negligence manslaughter.

I think the UK is fortunate in the quality and experience of its judiciary, who carry out a fairly thankless task; whatever the sentence here, it won’t bring back the poor souls so tragically lost.

So what do you do to punish the guilty party, discourage others from doing the same and protect society?
Click to expand...
I am genuinely a softy liberal, and one of the points of incarceration is to force the perpetrator to rehabilitate themselves by accepting what they've done and learning to be a better person (we'll ignore the practical chances of that in the current prison environment).

In this instance, with a defendant who really should have known better, who showed very little remorse, who tried to pin the whole blame on her deceased colleague who she had more or less bullied into the trip, and who lied repeatedly both before and after the tragedy, including misrepresenting her qualifications for personal gain... I still think ten years might not be enough. But I do hope it is.
 
ylop said:
people who aren't habitual offenders
Click to expand...
Who are these people?
Many are habitual offenders but don't get caught, you seem to suggest everything is legal until of course it isn't.
People that " get away with it " are habitual offenders.
 
Mark-1 said:
I know someone who manages an Airfield and he loses sleep over corporate manslaughter and busts a gut to make sure he covers all the bases.

So I'd say it does work, we're all safer because people who take risks with our lives go to prison.

It's far from perfect but even so....
Click to expand...
Your example possibly points at a partial solution------Our case appears to have very little regulation while running anything aeronautical must be fairly highly regulated. Personally I dislike regulation but I can see that taking paying customers on potentially hazardous river trips might be a candidate for stricter controls.
 
taking paying customers on potentially hazardous river trips might be a candidate for stricter controls.



Marchioness
 
Biggles Wader said:
Your example possibly points at a partial solution------Our case appears to have very little regulation while running anything aeronautical must be fairly highly regulated. Personally I dislike regulation but I can see that taking paying customers on potentially hazardous river trips might be a candidate for stricter controls.
Click to expand...
Had they been talking under 18s it would have been more tightly regulated, but that means they would do more paperwork and perhaps have an annual inspection not that there would be any day-to-day oversight in between.

I can’t decide if they should extend the AALB remit to cover adults, or if that would create an unnecessary cost and burden on suppliers who are currently doing a good job whilst chancers dodge the rules until disaster brings them into the limelight.
 
billskip said:
Who are these people?
Many are habitual offenders but don't get caught, you seem to suggest everything is legal until of course it isn't.
People that " get away with it " are habitual offenders.
Click to expand...
I probably can’t answer this without getting myself shore leave and the thread shut. However if you assume “offender” = convicted my post might make more sense.
 
billskip said:
Who are you?
What difference would your decision make?
Click to expand...
I’m me. I’m entitled to an opinion the same as everyone else. Have you never had a conversation with someone who used a form of inward reflection to question whether one idea that makes sense is on balance actually good one before? Clearly it’s a decision for government - but people are discussing if something merits greater regulation I think it’s legitimate to present both sides of the argument don’t you?
 
I think the main value of bringing a case like this is to bring the attention of as many people as possible to the central point of risk assessment, which is that really bad stuff - the very worst-case scenario - does sometimes actually happen, and that when it does, there are all kinds of lasting, life-changing consequences.
 
ylop said:
if something merits greater regulation I think it’s legitimate to present both sides of the argument don’t you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely
ylop said:
I’m entitled to an opinion the same as everyone else.
Click to expand...
Absolutely
ylop said:
Have you never had a conversation with someone who used a form of inward reflection to question whether one idea that makes sense is on balance actually good one before?
Click to expand...
Many times, it was a significant part of my work, but it's normal discussion, I read your posts as writing a lot and really saying nothing.
 
Another way to look at the sentencing in this, specific, case is the attention it is getting in the news and elsewhere might generate questions from future clients towards other "instructors" who maybe skirting the fringes of regulations and good practice.
 
MisterBaxter said:
I think the main value of bringing a case like this is to bring the attention of as many people as possible to the central point of risk assessment, which is that really bad stuff - the very worst-case scenario - does sometimes actually happen, and that when it does, there are all kinds of lasting, life-changing consequences.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately people soon forget, and the dodgy operators won't read this stuff anyway.
 
penberth3 said:
Unfortunately people soon forget, and the dodgy operators won't read this stuff anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes - you can lead a horse to water etc. Nonetheless, I think a lot of people involved in organising watersports will have read about this, and hopefully at least some of them will be thinking more seriously about risk management, even if only to cover their own backs.
 
Drifting the thread only slightly, has there been a finding in the case of the mountain gide and two clients who died in a fall on Aonach Eagach ridge in Glencoe in August 2023, or is it still under consideration?
It seemed to me it might raise similar issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top