batrabill

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/790720/Draft-Policy-on-Waste-Collection-and-Disposal-in-the-Broads-National-Park.pdf

No I don’t. I think you keep suggesting (specifically on Facebook) that I have some professional connection with the BA. I do not. You are barking up a non-existent tree.

Pray tell....

The Repps one always seems to be all over the place but it may be exactly that local variability you are looking for. Historic data must be possible - is there a met office archive. Data is $$$ though these days.

JohnK the Acle gauge I find the “cleanest” data.

We are both posting on a thread called Forum behaviour.......

What I am saying is that JM was “pushing buttons” with his talk of factions. Is it possible that you didn’t see that because you agree with it? You clearly identify the problem as one sided.

A faction?? Ah, we are returning to the old "we" are right, "they" are wrong.... Don't you think that is exactly where the accusations of bullying stem from? And don't you think that led directly to the two latest "leavers"? Wasn't it Vaughan that said if this was just a place to show your holiday snaps it wouldn't be much use?

Yes but we are talking about the swimming equivalent of a marathon. Swimmers who know what they are doing and don’t have a problem.

Wasn’t thinking of disruption - was thinking of safety. I have seen inexperienced hirers being faced by a river full of tacking river cruisers. Doesn’t look safe to me.

That’s what is hard for me to understand. All sorts of things happen with all kinds of risks, but this one has got the full “not safe” treatment. To repeat myself, would the 3RR survive this kind of treatment?

Don’t forget the Paddle Board Event. Im so with you finny. Just a bit of give and take.

Labrador. So sorry to hear of your loss.

Quite surprised to still be here. Onwards and upwards

Ive been towed/saved by Southgates Horning (our home yard at the time) Boulters are good for emergencies.

Very little in safety is completely clear. The test is often words which are entirely open to legal definition like "reasonable". I'm very fond of the quote from the above site I linked to: '...they attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen' It's "dangerous but otherwise harmless" that makes me chuckle. As I said, our judges seem to think we should be allowed to kill ourselves at will.

Usually the responsibility for safety ends up with specific individuals, plus general responsibilities that lie with the organisation in charge, ie training, safety advice. So the person/persons signing the risk assessment will will be personally liable for negligence, and could easily end up in court being personally prosecuted by the HSE if they believe they have failed in some way. Also, the company may be liable for its systems that allowed negligence. That could extend to the owner/administrator of land an event was held on. Water likewise. Note, is quite possible to organise an event where there is a death, and not be prosecuted if all the reasonable measures had been taken, but there still remained a risk. Motor sport is the obvious example where the only way of eliminating risk is to not race. The Council was prosecuted by the HSE over the Whittlingham drowning. They were found not guilty. They had put 'sensible' measures in place. A waiver is of very limited use as a defence of negligence. A waiver helps with making sure that people have understood the safety parameters. In this case any waiver could ask the competitor to undertake to have a float for visibility at all times. If someone was hurt without having one that would help the defence of negligence on the part of the organisers. This is worth reading: http://www.river-swimming.co.uk/occu.htm It seems our judges rather believe we should be allowed to take personal risks and not sue everyone if it goes wrong.

Is this really about paying? Is that it? So what payment would make it OK?

I never voted for him!

This is wrong on two accounts, neither of which you would be aware of. My advice to Mel to leave it at what she had already said actually crossed with her post stating it was her last. So she had already come to the same conclusion as me that endlessly answering each objection on was not a sensible way to go. I think the response was at best "unfriendly". Did she feel 'hounded out'? I dunno, why don't you ask her? So secondly, the "otherwise we would all be addressing our concerns to her and getting answers" is wrong. Just to be clear, I don't know this woman, I contacted her because I thought it would be better to ask her the questions being asked here. Did I feel bad that many people found the response unfriendly? Yes.

Philosophical, I agree, I think from the get-go there has been an assumption that no one else but the very knowledgeable folk here at NBN had even thought about the dangers. But. The organisers will be personally liable if something happens which they should have reasonably prevented. And they will be liable to go to prison if they have not made sensible provisions, and a judge rules that they are liable.

Yes. Let’s just apply the same standards to all fun pursuits

Of course you are a Boat handling genius DG but what about the other guy who isn’t ? I think for the safety of everyone else we should stop all of you hiring. Safety is paramount isn’t it? Do you want people to die? I am, of course, subjecting “hiring” to the same scrutiny swimming is being subjected to here.

This debate had bean skewed by a lot of ‘what if’ ideas that no event could survive. What if people have a heart attack during the marathon? Cancel. What if someone gets hit by a golf ball? Cancel What if someone drowns during our fun swim Cancel

99% ??? So 1% are a danger? You think these are acceptable odds?