Self Rescue

[softbankhawks]

On a more serious note. If I was rescuer/groundy I would certainly take my responsibilities more seriously than the guys who are my life-savers. They can climb and they are rescue trained. That is minimum for me as a subby by the way, no trained AR then I walk. But look at skyhuck's avatar, who in the hell is gonna rush up there after he's inverted? So if it was me on the ground with a climbers life in my hands as it were I would have a rescue line installed with hitch or clamps on line and the harness sitting at the bottom of a tree. Simply repeat the process for two weeks and it starts to become natural.

Just do it I say. Stuff the profit because it leads to nowhere in this context.

[Stephen Blair]

 

i would go and get him,but dont be surprised if i speedlined him out the tree though still attached to a limb on his sidestrop. i wouldnt hesitate to do what ever it takes to get a mate out a tree.

[Amelanchier]

Tony, with all due respect, this is utter RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!.

 

Which bit? The "you-get-hurt-we-pay-bit"?

 

If that the purpose of the HSE WHY does it only apply to work??.

 

Because that's where the legislation has its teeth (as pointed out above).

 

Lets carry your argument on, WHY are people allowed to smoke??, be fat??, drive??, take part in dangerous sport??

 

The whole purpose of the HSE is to protect employees and the public.

 

Not everybody is allowed to smoke. Under 18s? People going for NHS operations? The risk is considered too great - legislation/policies take over

 

Not everybody is allowed to drive. Under 17s? No licence / Banned?

 

Why not? To use your reductio ad absurdum method - why not let 15 year old kids smoke whilst driving lorries (for fun not work )? Because aside from moral issues, society picks up the pieces with money from its collective pocket.

 

As for being fat and partaking in dangerous sports - the jury is still out on obesity and thrillseekers are a vanishingly small population so I doubt there would be any gain in enforcing their compliance.

 

There is a social impact from individual life choices. Sometimes we (including myself) forget that. When people say that its only their problem if they get hurt they are forgetting the wider picture IMO.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Amelanchier
typo

[softbankhawks]

i would go and get him,but dont be surprised if i speedlined him out the tree though still attached to a limb on his sidestrop. i wouldnt hesitate to do what ever it takes to get a mate out a tree.

 

sorry shrek, I meant that who COULD do it. you know what I meant anyway huh.

[Stephen Blair]

tickets shmickets:thumbdown:be in charge of your own life. if you are aware of the consequencies, death and a wife with no husband and kids with no daddy. you will work safe. it doesnt matter if you are dead but legally covered because you are dead. i never leave any worker alone, i have held myself back in expanding my business because i worry too much about employees. i dont worry about myself because i am in charge, i dont climb with my eyes shut. i know what i am doing. what if what if. not interested. just eliminate the IF. arogance to sum sense to others.

[skyhuck]

Which bit? The "you-get-hurt-we-pay-bit"?

 

 

 

Because that's where the legislation has its teeth (as pointed out above).

 

 

 

Not everybody is allowed to smoke. Under 18s? People going for NHS operations? The risk is considered too great - legislation/policies take over

 

Not everybody is allowed to drive. Under 17s? No licence / Banned?

 

Why not? To use your reductio ad absurdum method - why not let 15 year old kids smoke whilst driving lorries (for fun not work )? Because aside from moral issues, society picks up the pieces with money from its collective pocket.

 

As for being fat and partaking in dangerous sports - the jury is still out on obesity and thrillseekers are a vanishingly small population so I doubt there would be any gain in enforcing their compliance.

 

There is a social impact from individual life choices. Sometimes we (including myself) forget that. When people say that its only their problem if they get hurt they are forgetting the wider picture IMO.

 

UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Where can't you smoke???????????? WORK!!

 

Kids are like employees, so they are protected by law.

 

The HSE is only about work.

 

I could go out on my roof now without any protection, and NO ONE could stop me, however if I was doing it as a PAID job, I could be

 

 

stopped.

 

The HSE first came about to protect down trodden workers from unscrupulous employees, who would make them work in unsafe conditions, and quite right too!!!

 

My brother and father are both joiners, they share a work shop, much of their equipment does not meet the ridiculous legislation that stops the tool in a fraction of a second ( and shortens the tools life) when they were inspected, they informed the HSE that they both co owned the equipment, so were both owner operators so there was no problem. An EMPLOYEE could not use them.

Edited June 1, 2009 by skyhuck

[Stephen Blair]

sorry shrek, I meant that who COULD do it. you know what I meant anyway huh.

 

i know what you meant mate, but i am that quick by the time old hucky babes bounces off the front of the mog in the winch deathslide i had rigged for him, i would of pinched his lovely sawpod fleece that is so rightfully mine:sneaky2:

[Amelanchier]

Does my arguement make more sense if I use a larger font? Didn't think so...

 

I was referring to society as a whole and how it regulates individuals through various organisations / systems.

 

But don't let me get in the way of your HSE rant - would you like some time alone?

[skyhuck]

tickets shmickets:thumbdown:be in charge of your own life. if you are aware of the consequencies, death and a wife with no husband and kids with no daddy. you will work safe. it doesnt matter if you are dead but legally covered because you are dead. i never leave any worker alone, i have held myself back in expanding my business because i worry too much about employees. i dont worry about myself because i am in charge, i dont climb with my eyes shut. i know what i am doing. what if what if. not interested. just eliminate the IF. arogance to sum sense to others.

 

SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Some of the guys on here must have way bigger balls than me!!!

 

If I like them thought I would EVER get myself into a position where I would need rescuing, I would not get a rescue climber, I would QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Every accident I have read about or heard of I have thought WHY on earth did they do that?????

 

I read of a near miss where the guy was pulling the top out and his anchor point nearly went with it!!! WTF!!!! I just don't work like that!!

Edited June 1, 2009 by skyhuck

[skyhuck]

i would go and get him,but dont be surprised if i speedlined him out the tree though still attached to a limb on his sidestrop. i wouldnt hesitate to do what ever it takes to get a mate out a tree.

 

Thanks Mate!! that brought a tear too my eye!!

 

I would do they same for you!!!