M
mudman
Guest
Well, there's a result I wouldn't have guessed at....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3543741.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3543741.stm
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
Are there signs in the cave that say the resurgence is dangerous then?mudman said:Then he must have unwittingly failed to notice all the signs that spell out the danger.
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:And, if he was taking novices into a cave that he knew nothing about...
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.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'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:Nonesense. I am 4 foot 2, how deep is neck deep!
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.SpaceHopper said:If you go caving you should know that it is dangerous.
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:Hopefully the recruits were informed of this fact and made their own judgement. The dead recruits judgement was incorrect.
Yes, I agree.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I doubt the recruits had access to any such statement, if it exists.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.
Such as taking novices through a pool where ten people have drowned since 1972?SpaceHopper said:there are other hazards that the instuctor will use his skill and judegement to minimise the risk
Read the first hand account posted above - does that sound to you like a well run trip?SpaceHopper said:Does that automatically make the instructor negligent? Oh coarse not.
Eh? I think you'll find the two pretty much go hand in hand.SpaceHopper said:Do not confuse the statistical likely hood of injury with the reletive safety of an activitly.
What "society" classes the hazards as is irrelevant. Society's perception of the risks are completely different to the actual risks.SpaceHopper said:Underground chambers present hazards that will never be classed as safe by society
An guide should know the cave he or she is guiding well enough not to get lost.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.
The keyword there is "chose" - how much choice does an army recruit have in the matter?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.
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.SpaceHopper said:despite the shinnanigins ten of his mates swam the pool. Maybe they were all olympic swimmers
I disagree with that rather sweeping statement.SpaceHopper said:There is no such thing as a good witness.
To illustrate the ineptitude of the leader.SpaceHopper said:so I don't see your point in posting that.
How is leading people into a pool that is known as extremely dangerous a trivial mistake?SpaceHopper said:Rather that it clearly illustrates that trivial mistakes have dire consequences underground.
Not very - judging by the post above there are signs everywhere warning you of the risks.SpaceHopper said:The question is how easy was the mistake to make and did it lead undesputibly to the soldier death?
The instructor should have been aware of this and been even more careful.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.
Wasn't that an equipment failure - completely different in my opinion.SpaceHopper said:Compare the case with this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3496591.stm
I agree with all of that...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.
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.
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.
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?