Lucky, Lucky, B@stard

P

pothole pils

Guest
The charge was later split into variations: One of manslaughter through gross negligence - that he deliberately and knowingly lead the recruits into the pool; the other of manslaughter - that he did so mistakenly.

Mr Doubtfire, who led the group through the seven-metre deep Resurgence pool, said he had never before been to the pool which, the court heard, had claimed the lives of other cavers.

He did not give evidence himself in court, but his defence counsel said he had taken a wrong entrance into the cave and unwittingly led the group into danger

So the second manslaughter charge was dropped despite the 2nd quote saying he lead them into danger mistakenly? This is either piss poor journalism, or someting very odd happened.
 
M

mudman

Guest
Wrong entrance? Unwittingly led? Then he must have unwittingly failed to notice all the signs that spell out the danger. And, if he was taking novices into a cave that he knew nothing about...

Actually I'd better stop there, it'd be very easy to go off on a rant and forget little things like libel laws and the fact that he has been aquitted in a court of law.
 

bubba

Administrator
mudman said:
Then he must have unwittingly failed to notice all the signs that spell out the danger.
Are there signs in the cave that say the resurgence is dangerous then?

mudman said:
And, if he was taking novices into a cave that he knew nothing about...
I have to agree - asking for trouble. And you think you'd ask if everyone was happy with going into a deep pool before getting them to follow you.

mudman said:
Actually I'd better stop there, it'd be very easy to go off on a rant and forget little things like libel laws
I think we're perfectly entitled to give our opinions on the case....though I'm not entireley sure from a legal point of view, but having an opinion on a legal case is different to saying "Mr X is a murderer" or something libellous like that.
 
M

mudman

Guest
Loads of signs everywhere, in the entrances and on the approach to the resurgence and at the resurgence pool and more going up due to this case.

Actually I would say that if you are a South Wales caver, then it is unlikely that you don't know at least something of this cave's reputation. There have been a lot of people drowned there. The resurgence pool is a recognised and very well known danger.

Come to think of it. There's a bloody big sign up in the car park that shows a survey of the cave and marks in red all the dangerous bits.

Trouble with this cave is that it's an excellent cave to take groups of novices into. But, there are some very dangerous sections.

I still think he's a lucky bastard, I bet a lot of people thought he was going down for this.
 
T

Titch98

Guest
Mmmmmmmmmm............

Bet the whole thing has done wonders for the marvellous reputation caving has already got........ :shock:

Oh, well.......better start saving for the raise in Insurance premiums........

:LOL:
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
Come off it. The army recruit couldn't swim! It seems that neither the army nor the recruit elected to tell Doubtfire that! According to the report Doubtfire had told the recruits they would be in neck deep water. You would have thought that might have rung alarm bells with a non swimmer!

I don't know the cave, I am not an experienced caver and I do not know what precautions it would be normal to take if deliberately going into the resurgance pool.

What I do know is that caving, like climbing, is an activity with inherent risk. No instructor and guide can insulate you entirely from those risks. Participation even with a guide involves taking responsibilty for you own involvement. This involves little things like notifing the guide of your limitations.

Even if doubtfire made a mistake and took the recruits through the wrong part of the cave, that is not what killed the recruit. The pivotal fact is that the recruite couldn't swim! That is what killed him! A fact that the both the recruite and the army kept to themselves.

The army it seem tryed to pass the buck and claimed that the recruits were 'not mature'. Ha! The dead soldier was 17 in a matter of months at the age of 18 he could have found himself getting shot dead in Sierra Leone. He was mature enough to take responsibility for a leathal weapon in the shape of a car, possilby being in the army, even something more armoured! Doubtless the army considers 17 years old recruits mature enough to handle live, deadly firearms without one to one supervision.

If there is one thing that can be learned from this it is that adventure activities carry inherent risks. The requirement for personal responsibility is ever present, even when kids or qualified instructors are involved. The risk never falls to zero no matter what the qualification or level of itinerary.
 

bubba

Administrator
There's a big difference between "neck deep" water and a swim so I don't think you can blame the recruit for not speaking up if he thought the water was only going to be neck deep.
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
Nonesense. I am 4 foot 2, how deep is neck deep!

If you cannot swim then neck deep does not leave much of a margin for error.

Ding-a-ling-a-ling.

The recruite had been bunking off remedial swimming lessons! That is where the negligence lies. He was going to drown sooner or later with that attitudue.

There are only so far that the gaurentee of an instructor goes. After that you cannot protect people from their own stupidity.

If you go caving you should know that it is dangerous. Hopefully the recruits were informed of this fact and made their own judgement. The dead recruits judgement was incorrect.

The army also made a massive blunder in not identifying the recruits failure to attend the swimming lessons and then not informed doubtfire of this limitation. The arguement that Doubtfire should have provided a higher standard of care because the recruit was under 18 does hold water in my book either for the reasons I have already stated.

Society should be under no illusions. There are penalties to adventure activities. If they cannot face those penalties then they should not be invovled at all.

There is only so much that can be done to pro
 

bubba

Administrator
SpaceHopper said:
Nonesense. I am 4 foot 2, how deep is neck deep!
I'm assuming that if the guide was *talking* to them, he could *see* how tall they were. If one of them had been your height, he might have said something completely different.

SpaceHopper said:
If you go caving you should know that it is dangerous.
It has a potential for danger, but I doubt that most caving is as dangerous as the drive to get to the cave. If I went on a caving course as a novice, I wouldn't expect to be put into a situation where I might die.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the abilty to swim. The Porth Yr Ogof resurgence pool is an extremely dangerous place even if you are a strong swimmer, so they shouldn't have been there regardless of anybodys swimming ability.

SpaceHopper said:
Hopefully the recruits were informed of this fact and made their own judgement. The dead recruits judgement was incorrect.
Well you don't know that do you? Somehow I doubt that an army recruit has much say in what part of the training they are involved in. They are most likely told exactly what they are doing and where they are going.

SpaceHopper said:
The army also made a massive blunder in not identifying the recruits failure to attend the swimming lessons and then not informed doubtfire of this limitation.
Yes, I agree.

SpaceHopper said:
Society should be under no illusions. There are penalties to adventure activities. If they cannot face those penalties then they should not be invovled at all.
That's all very well if you choose to do a certain activity and have the chance to research and balance up the risks. As I've said above, I doubt the armed forces works like that.
 

bubba

Administrator
Teenage recruit Darren Thurwell, 18, told today how panic spread through the small group as it unexpectedly hit deep water while wading single file through a narrow underground tunnel.

As a good swimmer, he was among the last to enter the flooded passage which led to the Resurgence Pool. Mr Sharman had been following directly behind Doubtfire.

Mr Thurwell told the court: "I could see a lot of splashing around and panicking. People were above and below the water level.

"I did not know what to expect and I did not know what was wrong. I was quite bemused.

"As I went in, the water was waist high. There was a ledge and I had seen people fall off that so I started swimming. The water was very cold."

He said that all the recruits had been issued with caving equipment which included hard hats with lamps on top. But it was still too dark to recognise anyone.

Mr Thurwell said: "I could see the people in front of me were having difficulty.

"Someone's helmet was about five inches below the water and I grabbed his arm and tried to pull him up.

"I found it very difficult trying to swim and hold on.

"Then someone bumped into me and knocked my grip off the arm.

"I could not see at the time who it was below the surface. I later learned it was Kevin."

He told the jury that it was difficult to swim wearing his caving equipment but he continued through the tunnel out into the Resurgence Pool.

He said that when he emerged Doubtfire was sitting on a rock on the other side of the pool.

Mr Thurwell said: "I spoke to him and told him that there were people under.

"Mr Doubtfire looked out of breath, as if he did not really expect the experience of swimming through the tunnel."

He said that Doubtfire told him to leave the cave and get help at the complex's car park.

He returned with another instructor who had not taken part in the excursion and saw that Doubtfire had stripped off his equipment.

"He was just shouting 'where the **** is he?'," Mr Thurwell told the court.


Make of that what you will, but it certainly sounds like a shambles to me.
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
I'm assuming that if the guide was *talking* to them, he could *see* how tall they were. If one of them had been your height, he might have said something completely different.

I cannot speak for others but if I could not swim and somebody told me we were going through neck deep water I think I would feel inclined to clarify a few points about the error of approximation. I would do this because I know that I cannot breath nor run underwater.

It has a potential for danger, but I doubt that most caving is as dangerous as the drive to get to the cave. If I went on a caving course as a novice, I wouldn't expect to be put into a situation where I might die.

Does the caveing council have some kind of participation statement? I don't know but I thing you will find it says something along the lines of blah blah dangerous, risk of injury, blah blah , take responsibility for your self.

Remember that under civil duty of care instructors don't have to gaurentee that those in their care will be safe. Only to behave 'reasonably' The fact that an accident occurs does not ipso facto establish that somebody was negligent. Why? Because there are some hazards that no instructor can protect you from, there are other hazards that the instuctor will use his skill and judegement to minimise the risk, then there are other hazards that you can make yourself much more subject by being an idiot.

The risk will never fall to zero. you could be subject to anyone of the above causes.

Does that automatically make the instructor negligent? Oh coarse not.

Do not confuse the statistical likely hood of injury with the reletive safety of an activitly. Just because accidents are debatably less common than for other everyday activiites it does not follow that you are immune to several hundred tonnes of rock squashing you.

Underground chambers present hazards that will never be classed as safe by society, in much the same way as society would not let you stand benealth an unsafe building as a rule.

So in everyday terms Caving is not safe. It is dangerous. You accept that fact when you go caving.

Taking a wrong turn in a cave is not uncommon. Mistakes in hazard environments can be harsh. None the less you choose to subject yourself to that hazardous environment.

Similarly if you choose to subject yourself to anothers judgement(i.e guide you) you also choose to subject yourself to their mis judgements too. That is were personal responsibibity comes in.

You are never garenteed safety. Even the AALA advices the use of risk acknowledgement statements with children! Risk is part of the game!

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the abilty to swim. The Porth Yr Ogof resurgence pool is an extremely dangerous place even if you are a strong swimmer, so they shouldn't have been there regardless of anybodys swimming ability.

despite the shinnanigins ten of his mates swam the pool. Maybe they were all olympic swimmers

Well you don't know that do you? Somehow I doubt that an army recruit has much say in what part of the training they are involved in. They are most likely told exactly what they are doing and where they are going.

An army recruit chooses to subject themselves to that regime. They probably even sign a contract that says as much. Not with standing that fact, it is obvious to anyone of normal mind that caving involves risk.


That's all very well if you choose to do a certain activity and have the chance to research and balance up the risks. As I've said above, I doubt the armed forces works like that.

Yes quite and that where my point about hypocracy of the investigating army officer comes in. Soldiers agree to shoulder much more risk than the rest of us. Many are killed on normal exercises. What the army tried to do here was pass the buck. It made excuses related to the recruites being below the age of 18!
 

bubba

Administrator
SpaceHopper said:
Does the caveing council have some kind of participation statement? I don't know but I thing you will find it says something along the lines of blah blah dangerous, risk of injury, blah blah , take responsibility for your self.
I doubt the recruits had access to any such statement, if it exists.

SpaceHopper said:
there are other hazards that the instuctor will use his skill and judegement to minimise the risk
Such as taking novices through a pool where ten people have drowned since 1972?

SpaceHopper said:
Does that automatically make the instructor negligent? Oh coarse not.
Read the first hand account posted above - does that sound to you like a well run trip?

SpaceHopper said:
Do not confuse the statistical likely hood of injury with the reletive safety of an activitly.
Eh? I think you'll find the two pretty much go hand in hand.

SpaceHopper said:
Underground chambers present hazards that will never be classed as safe by society
What "society" classes the hazards as is irrelevant. Society's perception of the risks are completely different to the actual risks.

SpaceHopper said:
Taking a wrong turn in a cave is not uncommon. Mistakes in hazard environments can be harsh. None the less you choose to subject yourself to that hazardous environment.
An guide should know the cave he or she is guiding well enough not to get lost.

SpaceHopper said:
Similarly if you choose to subject yourself to anothers judgement(i.e guide you) you also choose to subject yourself to their mis judgements too. That is were personal responsibibity comes in.
The keyword there is "chose" - how much choice does an army recruit have in the matter?

SpaceHopper said:
despite the shinnanigins ten of his mates swam the pool. Maybe they were all olympic swimmers
Very funny. Perhaps you should crack that joke to the parents of the dead soldier? Read the account above, it sounds like the party leader was tired out by the crossing himself, and presumably he was an experienced caver who'd done the trip before. If he hadn't done the trip before, I don't think he should have been there in the first place.
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
There is no such thing as a good witness. Especially when the witness has seen his mate die and despite good efforts failed to save him from his fate.
I would not ever expect that whatever happened in the pool was a pretty sight so I don't see your point in posting that.
Rather that it clearly illustrates that trivial mistakes have dire consequences underground.
The question is how easy was the mistake to make and did it lead undesputibly to the soldier death? I would say that if the recruite could swim he would on the balance of probability still be alive. What you need for a criminal conviction e.g. Manslaughter is not on the balance of probabitly but rather based on unquestionable evidence.
It is not possible to say that the recruti would have died if he could swim.
QED

I think what I object to about this prosecution is the fact society thinks it can undertake adventure activities in the same way that it can a fair ground ride.

The two are not the same thing. With Caving especially you are not along for the ride, you are a participant, not a passenger. You must engage the nessecary level of person responsbility and not expect to be wet nursed along.

Remember that another pivotal fact in this case is that the recruit was under 18. Do you think that makes any difference to the required acts or ommisions of the instructor. Had the recruit been over 18 then no case would have been brought because the recruit would be deamed responsible for his own actions.

Compare the case with this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3496591.stm

Something went badly wrong with this jump but no prosecution was bought.
Which would you say was the most reasonable mistake to make? taking wrong turn in a dark underground passage or whatever mistake led to the bungee death.
 
M

mudman

Guest
I personally will keep to myself whether or not I believe he was negligent or not.
I will say that just because your guided activity is potentially dangerous, that you should accept the dangers and maybe the possibility of accident is a specious arguement. Because caving is an inherently dangerous activity, you should expect your guide to have taken all reasonable steps to prevent any accident to the point where any accident is just that. One caused by factors outside the control of the guide and due to forces of nature that could not be predicted.
I do think that if you call yourself a guide and elect to take a group of novices (without any other instructor) through a cave system that though short, you are so unfamiliar with that you can enter through the wrong entrance. That if you ignore all signs both in the car park at the cave entrances, inside the cave and on the approach to the resurgence, that to enter the pool is likely to cause a fatal accident. That the cave in question has such a well known danger that you'd be hard put to find a regional caver that did not know of the it and would warn you against it. That you didn't appraise yourself of all your groups abilities and then proceed to take them through deep water (even if neck deep). Then if one of your group drowns and you end up in court on charges of whatever seriousness and you are cleared. Then, you are one lucky, lucky bastard.
 

bubba

Administrator
SpaceHopper said:
There is no such thing as a good witness.
I disagree with that rather sweeping statement.

SpaceHopper said:
so I don't see your point in posting that.
To illustrate the ineptitude of the leader.

SpaceHopper said:
Rather that it clearly illustrates that trivial mistakes have dire consequences underground.
How is leading people into a pool that is known as extremely dangerous a trivial mistake?

SpaceHopper said:
The question is how easy was the mistake to make and did it lead undesputibly to the soldier death?
Not very - judging by the post above there are signs everywhere warning you of the risks.


SpaceHopper said:
Remember that another pivotal fact in this case is that the recruit was under 18. Do you think that makes any difference to the required acts or ommisions of the instructor. Had the recruit been over 18 then no case would have been brought because the recruit would be deamed responsible for his own actions.
The instructor should have been aware of this and been even more careful.

SpaceHopper said:
Compare the case with this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3496591.stm
Wasn't that an equipment failure - completely different in my opinion.
 

bubba

Administrator
mudman said:
I will say that just because your guided activity is potentially dangerous, that you should accept the dangers and maybe the possibility of accident is a specious arguement. Because caving is an inherently dangerous activity, you should expect your guide to have taken all reasonable steps to prevent any accident to the point where any accident is just that. One caused by factors outside the control of the guide and due to forces of nature that could not be predicted.
I do think that if you call yourself a guide and elect to take a group of novices (without any other instructor) through a cave system that though short, you are so unfamiliar with that you can enter through the wrong entrance. That if you ignore all signs both in the car park at the cave entrances, inside the cave and on the approach to the resurgence, that to enter the pool is likely to cause a fatal accident. That the cave in question has such a well known danger that you'd be hard put to find a regional caver that did not know of the it and would warn you against it. That you didn't appraise yourself of all your groups abilities and then proceed to take them through deep water (even if neck deep). Then if one of your group drowns and you end up in court on charges of whatever seriousness and you are cleared. Then, you are one lucky, lucky bastard.
I agree with all of that...
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
Very funny. Perhaps you should crack that joke to the parents of the dead soldier? Read the account above, it sounds like the party leader was tired out by the crossing himself, and presumably he was an experienced caver who'd done the trip before. If he hadn't done the trip before, I don't think he should have been there in the first place.

It wasn't a joke it was an absurd suggestion to emphasize a point. That all the swimmer survived. The non swimmer drowned.

SpaceHopper wrote:
Do not confuse the statistical likely hood of injury with the reletive safety of an activitly.

Eh? I think you'll find the two pretty much go hand in hand.

I think you will find they do not. If you took a building site inspector to many underground caverns or the bottom of many cliff faces the inspector would have a dizzy fit. If a building site had loose blocks, moving mud, variable water flow rates in enclosed passages no employees would be allowed near those hazards. They would be deemed unsafe.
The inspector will not say... hmmm but I must take the statisical record into account? A loose poised flake is a hazard whether it is on an unsafe building or underground. On a building site such hazards would clearly be deemed unsafe by society, by the state and by the workers. In a caving environment cavers choose to subject themselves to such risks. Now the fact that there are few cavers and also that cavers are prudent in repect of risks means that accident rates are very low. That does not make loose flakes underground any 'safer' than loose bricks on a condemned building.

Caving is dangerous. You cannot deny it.
Here is the NCA's participation statement
One of the attractions of caving, potholing and the exploration of abandoned mines is its adventurous nature. The accident rate in caving is thankfully low but from time to time serious and fatal accidents do occur. It is therefore important that participants in these activities are aware of, and accept, the element of risk and take responsibility for their own actions.

SpaceHopper wrote:
there are other hazards that the instuctor will use his skill and judegement to minimise the risk

Such as taking novices through a pool where ten people have drowned since 1972?

I've said I am not familiar with the cave in question. I have taken small children on mountains where probably 20 people have died since 1972. So what! Of coarse there are risks that one reason why people do such things.



Society should stop expecting such garentees for these activities. And you should stop trying to give the impression that these activites can ever be safe. Fall in line behind the NCA statement and stop reading the daily mail.

Bubba overall you seem to be implying that a guide or instructor can garentee safety. What I am saying is that is just not possible.

For sure a guide could behave negligently and deserve to be punished or pay compensation. Conversly just because an accident happens it does not follow that the guide was negligent.

Based on the reports in the press, and nothing else, I think that it is not possible to say with any certainty that the recruit would be dead if he could swim. that is the crux of the court case.
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
Mudman
I am not suggesting that I would have behaved in the same way as Doubtfire or that his leadership was perfect.

What I will maintain is this. The recruit drowned, He could not swim!
 
S

SpaceHopper

Guest
Mudman

Your synopsis of the responsibilties of the ground is shortsighted. It allows no room for a guide and client to both willingly accept the risk of a particular activity. Consider the analouge with a mountain guide. Your requirements would deem pretty much all alpine summits off limits.

You are forgetting that mistakes can be made whilst under environment induced duress. Dropped vital equipment, inadequet anchors due to inavailibility for instance.
Mistakes under such condiitons are common place and human. None the less both client and guide choose to put themselves in an environment where such conditions are likely to occur.

i.e. Risks are posed by the very humanness of the guide and client. Mistakes that are trivial in everyday life, a trip or slip for instance. However in the mountain environemnt such human mistakes have non trivial effects.

If Guides and cave guides must fulfill your criteria I'm afraid that they will not be in position to prepare and technically train their clients for real situations because they would not be able to train their client in the real life situations which the client will encounter.

I agree that your synopsis is relevent to activities with children who are not in a possition to make informed decisions about risk.

However I do not consider that the army recruits to be of similar status as children. Doubtless in almost all other situations the Army expect adult like responsibilty from them.
 
Top