Pay for your rescue.



A

[email protected]

Guest
A letter that might be of interest:

Dear Sir

Pay for Rescue

Now that Search and Rescue services are to be privatised perhaps it is
an opportune time to consider charging those who indulge in risk
taking recreational activities such as sailing and hill-walking for
the cost of their rescues. I understand that charges of this nature
are customary in a number of European countries but can be covered by
the participants taking out insurance cover.

The old excuse that the taxpayer should underwrite the cost of rescue
because it allowed flight training for our armed services is now well
and truly laid to rest.

I've no doubt the sailing and walking brigades would not welcome such
a charge as the risk of having to pay for rescue might be regarded as
one risk too many.However, it shouldn't be the taxpayer who picks up
the bill for activities where risks are greater than the normal day to
day risks encountered by all


Yours faithfully


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 
[email protected] wrote

> A letter that might be of interest:

Angus. you are a humourless, joyless c**t of the highest order.
Do the cyberworld a favour and plug yourself into the mains.

Chris
 
On 13 May 2006 12:41:15 -0700, "214Fells" <[email protected]> wrote:

|
|[email protected] wrote:
|<snip>
|</snip>
|
|TROLL
|T-R-O-L-L A-L-E-R-T

Well the Beeb is also rightly concerned

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4767961.stm
>>>
'Pay to be rescued' fears voiced

The fleet of Sea King helicopters needs to be replaced
Mountain rescue teams have voiced fears that moves to partly privatise
search and rescue helicopters may lead to casualties having to pay to be
rescued.
RAF and Navy teams currently carry out the rescues for free because they
are regarded as invaluable training.

Scottish rescue teams fear the Ministry of Defence will want to make people
pay once it becomes clear how much it costs to rescue civilians using
helicopters.

But the MoD said it had "no current plans" to impose charges.

It announced last week that the RAF and Navy search and rescue services
would be partly privatised.

How are these private companies going to recover these costs?

Cameron McNeish
Great Outdoors Magazine


Send us your views

The MoD said the Joint Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) project would
go ahead as a Private Finance Initiative.

It wants the replacements for the existing fleet of Sea King search and
rescue helicopters to be provided by a commercial company.

The government said the move would deliver the same high standards as the
current service and provide better value.

But the Scottish National Party warned that replacing the services could
hit standards and lead to job losses.

Scotland's mountain rescue teams have also voiced fears.

Rescue mission

They believe it is only a matter of time before the MoD wants to make
casualties pay for helicopter rescues, as already happens in some other
European countries.

Cameron McNeish, the editor of the Great Outdoors Magazine, said: "If this
is privatised then there will be many recoverable costs.

"How are these private companies going to recover these costs? Will they
charge the MoD every time they go out on a rescue mission?

"Will they also charge the MoD, and will the MoD pay, if they go out to
rescue a mountaineer who gets into difficulties?"
<<<
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
 
Following up to Simon Caldwell

>More scaremongering, based on the assumption that all private
>enterprise is evil, and that the State is competent.

who's going to be competent than 22 Squadron?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to The Reid

>who's going to be competent than 22 Squadron?

add a "more" in somewhere.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Angus - it is apparant from your postings to this group that you don't
take an active part in the activities of this group. Is it reasonable
therefore for you to post to it and not be seen as someone who is
purely acting as an agitator. It is hardly surprising that your posts
receive the aggressive response that they do as you are it seems
choosing topics that are likely to cause offence. Free speach is your
right but to use it to deliberatley annoy people and create argument is
unacceptabe.

Could I ask if you have also written similarly to groups which sail,
fish, dive, enjoy themselves on the beach, etc. who are possibly going
to fall into the position sometime in their activity of having to be
rescued by the coastguard or a lifeboat. Or are you going to tell me
that their activities aren't risky ? The question needs to be asked
as to why if mountaineers have to pay, why shouldn't the diver who gets
in to difficulties, the yachtsman who gets caught out by a sudden
squall, or the child who gets blown out to sea on an inflatable set of
teeth !!

In another approach to this question, how are the authorities going to
respond, if the mountaineers have to pay, when they ask the volunteer
Mountain Rescue to help them search for an old man with dementure who
has wandered off into the hills, or the teeneager from a list D school
who has run away again into the hills taking outdoor kit ? These are
both recent scenarios that have been met by a Mountain Rescue team I
know - in one of those scenarios a helicopter ws used - who pays for
it then? Are the authorities going to pay the volunteers for their
time off work in future and where does that money come from?

The point I am making there is that mountaineers, and mountaineering as
a tourist activity, put a lot more back into the community than most
people realise and that to tax the activity in the form of an insurance
levy will have effects that possibly have not been fully explored and
are likely to be negative.

Rob
 
"Simon Caldwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:52:25 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> How are these private companies going to recover these costs?
>
> As now, these operations will form vital training, and so as well as
> performing an important service, they are actually saving money.

Vital training for what? More UK only rescue missions? I can't see the
civilian pilots being sent out to a warzone to pick up shot down pilots or
drop off attacking troops.

Nick
 
Mike Clark wrote:

> Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for overweight underexercised
> unhealthy members of the public who willfully engage in a risky
> lifestyle?

Ditto for smokers!

Jim Ford
 
In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote:

>
> I think it is quite right that people who engage in risky activities
> should pay for their rescues and it is unfair for them to expect the
> taxpayer to pick up the bill.
>

Absolutely I entirely agree with you.

In particular those people who do not take enough exercise and avoid
walking and cycling should be made to pay the full costs of their rescue
and medical care.

The medical science is quite clear, people who regularly exercise, go
walking and cycling, and who avoid becoming obese, live longer on
average and have a considerably lowered chance of an early death from
cardiovascular disease.

Thus when the ambulance shows up to someone with a suspected heart
attack etc, the victim should be made to show proof that they have been
following a lower risk, healthier lifestyle. If they fail to do this
they should be charged the full costs of the ambulance call out and also
all the subsequent treatment.

Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for overweight underexercised
unhealthy members of the public who willfully engage in a risky
lifestyle?

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 
On 16 May 2006 03:05:01 -0700, "Rob G" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Angus - it is apparant from your postings to this group that you don't
>take an active part in the activities of this group. Is it reasonable
>therefore for you to post to it and not be seen as someone who is
>purely acting as an agitator. It is hardly surprising that your posts
>receive the aggressive response that they do as you are it seems
>choosing topics that are likely to cause offence. Free speach is your
>right but to use it to deliberatley annoy people and create argument is
>unacceptabe.

I think it is entirely reasonable for me to put forward suggestions
that I think should be accepted by walkers in this ng. It may annoy
those who want something for nothing but that doesn't detract from the
situation that walkers are getting this service for free when in other
activities such as motor sport and football it is necessary to pay for
policing and ambulance services. All I am advocating is that walkers
should pay for costly helicopter rescues through some form of
liability insurance.

>
>Could I ask if you have also written similarly to groups which sail,
>fish, dive, enjoy themselves on the beach, etc. who are possibly going
>to fall into the position sometime in their activity of having to be
>rescued by the coastguard or a lifeboat. Or are you going to tell me
>that their activities aren't risky ? The question needs to be asked
>as to why if mountaineers have to pay, why shouldn't the diver who gets
>in to difficulties, the yachtsman who gets caught out by a sudden
>squall, or the child who gets blown out to sea on an inflatable set of
>teeth !!

I think all those who indulge in activities with greater than day to
day risks should have insurance. I have said so in a recent letter.
Parents should have cover for their children.

>
>In another approach to this question, how are the authorities going to
>respond, if the mountaineers have to pay, when they ask the volunteer
>Mountain Rescue to help them search for an old man with dementure who
>has wandered off into the hills, or the teeneager from a list D school
>who has run away again into the hills taking outdoor kit ? These are
>both recent scenarios that have been met by a Mountain Rescue team I
>know - in one of those scenarios a helicopter ws used - who pays for
>it then? Are the authorities going to pay the volunteers for their
>time off work in future and where does that money come from?

I'm not suggesting that volunteers should be paid as they cost the
taxpayer very little. The use of helicopters is where the expense
lies and it is an expense that the taxpayer should not pick up.

>
>The point I am making there is that mountaineers, and mountaineering as
>a tourist activity, put a lot more back into the community than most
>people realise and that to tax the activity in the form of an insurance
>levy will have effects that possibly have not been fully explored and
>are likely to be negative.

Rescues are charged for in other European countries so why not here?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 
On Tue, 16 May 2006 12:16:59 +0100, Mike Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it is quite right that people who engage in risky activities
>> should pay for their rescues and it is unfair for them to expect the
>> taxpayer to pick up the bill.
>>
>
>Absolutely I entirely agree with you.

Good.

>
>In particular those people who do not take enough exercise and avoid
>walking and cycling should be made to pay the full costs of their rescue
>and medical care.

These people don't require helicopter rescue. I'm not advocating that
walkers should be charged for ambulances or medical care.


>
>The medical science is quite clear, people who regularly exercise, go
>walking and cycling, and who avoid becoming obese, live longer on
>average and have a considerably lowered chance of an early death from
>cardiovascular disease.

It could be argued that if they live longer they cost the state more
in pensions.

>
>Thus when the ambulance shows up to someone with a suspected heart
>attack etc, the victim should be made to show proof that they have been
>following a lower risk, healthier lifestyle. If they fail to do this
>they should be charged the full costs of the ambulance call out and also
>all the subsequent treatment.
>

See above.

>Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for overweight underexercised
>unhealthy members of the public who willfully engage in a risky
>lifestyle?

Because ambulances and healthcare are free to all and you're unlikely
to have to rescue one of these people from the top of a mountain by
helicopter at £3500 a time.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 
> Because ambulances and healthcare are free to all

Free *at the point of use*, as is the helicopter rescue service. They are
all paid for through general taxation.
 
Following up to [email protected]

>These people don't require helicopter rescue. I'm not advocating that
>walkers should be charged for ambulances or medical care.

why should helicopter rescue be different from other forms of
rescue?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:16:22 GMT, Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:

>> Because ambulances and healthcare are free to all
>
>Free *at the point of use*, as is the helicopter rescue service. They are
>all paid for through general taxation.

But not for other high risk sports and activities as I have already
pointed out.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 
On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:27:30 +0100, The Reid
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to [email protected]
>
>>These people don't require helicopter rescue. I'm not advocating that
>>walkers should be charged for ambulances or medical care.
>
>why should helicopter rescue be different from other forms of
>rescue?

For the reasons I have already given.

Other high risk sports and activities pay for their's.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
 
>>Free *at the point of use*, as is the helicopter rescue service. They
>>are all paid for through general taxation.
>
> But not for other high risk sports and activities as I have already
> pointed out.

Which UK sports and activities have to pay for the ambulance to take them
to hospital?

How does hill walking compare to these high risk sports and activities?
I'm presuming you use some sort of per hour risk?
 
Following up to [email protected]

>>why should helicopter rescue be different from other forms of
>>rescue?
>
>For the reasons I have already given.

you haven't given any other than:-
"Because ambulances and healthcare are free to all and you're
unlikely to have to rescue one of these people from the top of a
mountain by helicopter at £3500 a time."

Do you really think ambulances and healthcare are "free"? How
much do you think the NHS costs compared to RAF Search and
Rescue?

>Other high risk sports and activities pay for their's.

Do they?
Where did you get the idea hill walking was a high risk activity?

Look, you're supposed to be a troll, at least try and get some
coherent arguments together.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
The message <[email protected]>
from Mike Clark <[email protected]> contains these words:

> Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for overweight underexercised
> unhealthy members of the public who willfully engage in a risky
> lifestyle?

Which probably is a pretty fair description of bloody angus who will no
doubt come up with specious reasons why he shouldn't have to pay for his
emergency treatment.

--
Roger Chapman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back