Quicksand Fans

Ok I realize that a while ago I posted this article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/5136430.stm

However this second article gives a little different point of view of what went on. Think this one is a little more interesting in ways...

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/H ... hoo-ha.htm

jagfiles wrote:Ok I realize that a while ago I posted this article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/5136430.stm

However this second article gives a little different point of view of what went on. Think this one is a little more interesting in ways...

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/H ... hoo-ha.htm

Yes; we experienced DS-fans knew it was a non-story from the start.

Actually, I was at Brean myself a week or so before this incident. It's muddy at low tide, but it would take a great effort to sink deeper than your ankles. Tricky for vehicles, though. Back in 2006 there was a car half-submerged in the mud. It had clearly been there a while, getting wedged a little deeper with each incoming tide.

$10,000? I would've saved them for free....

jagfiles wrote:However this second article gives a little different point of view of what went on. Think this one is a little more interesting in ways...

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/H ... hoo-ha.htm

For me it was obvious from the very beginning. Since the cost ($10,000) was announced, I seriously suppose somebody wanted to cover some serious embezzlement of funds.

Also, they are tripping over themselves to prove that they justify the funds invested in their rescue service - all those hovrecrafts, helicopters, and other things. The truth is that, they do need it if somebody is in real danger, but it happens too rarely. They got their hovercraft after a little girl died of hypothermia on the mudflats. Now they need to prove that it was really necessary. But most of those articles actually quite questionable. All their stuff is really necessary to save, say, one person in several years. And they try to prove that they save many persons every year. But in fact it is false.

Besides those netball players I remember an article where they insisted that they rescued a couple from deadly mud. By reading the article, however, it became clear that they found a girl and a guy walking somewhere "where a dangerous mud was nearby". So, they warned the couple and took them on board of the hovercraft. I'd call it a pleasure trip on a hovercraft. They called it a rescue. There were photos there. The "rescued from the deadly mud" young people were wearing absolutely clean, shining, white sneakers.

If I was a taxpayer in their region, I would ask questions, seriously!

I live near a small town in Arizona that had a surprising number of fires for a town its size. It turns out some of the volunteer firefighters were setting fires in order to provide work (and paychecks) for themselves. Two of these idiots got caught setting more fires while out on bail for being arrested for setting the earlier fires . Most of the firefighters got jail time and probation. These two got some serious time in the state prison.

That same fire department built a new fire station a few years ago that's the largest in the county, even though the department is the second smallest. Maybe it was paid for by a grant based on the number of fires they had.

Another fire department in the county purchased a ladder truck some years ago. People were wondering what they were going to do with it, given the area the department serves has few multi-story buildings. It turns out that truck, and its foam abilities, has come in very useful on several occasions, including vehicle accidents with fuel spills. The department paid $450,000 for the truck, but it turns out a new one of its type sells for $600,000. The department actually got a good deal on it.

My point is I agree with those on this thread who say we need to keep an eye on how our tax dollars are being spent, even when it comes to public safety. Most of those involved in public safety deeply care about the people they serve. Unfortunately, there are always the exceptions.

Big Bad John

Billie Bonce wrote:For me it was obvious from the very beginning. Since the cost ($10,000) was announced, I seriously suppose somebody wanted to cover some serious embezzlement of funds.

The article says it was an RAF helicopter, which means a large jet turbine military aircraft. Operational costs for a bird like that probably run between $3,000-$4,000 an HOUR.
The next time a bunch of dumbasses get stuck, drive out in the hovercraft with a credit card reader and demand payment up front.

Over Easter Sunday a couple teenagers (18-19) got lost for several days in the woods and the rescue cost was over $100,000.00. At first it looked like they didn't have to pay the cost but something came up with one teenager where it looked like he faced a couple of charges including having to pay for the search.
Never really thought of the cost though of what it cost to call ems for a quicksand/mud rescue. Who pays?
Like I heard about a 19 year old with his girl friend once cut across someones property and got stuck for about an hour in some quicksand before being rescued. They cut across the property despite NO TRESSPASSING signs and QUICKSAND warning signs. (maybe they have to pay for the rescue if there's signs posted)
In the case of the Netball players sounds like someone pressed the panic button prematurely.

jagfiles wrote:Over Easter Sunday a couple teenagers (18-19) got lost for several days in the woods and the rescue cost was over $100,000.00. At first it looked like they didn't have to pay the cost but something came up with one teenager where it looked like he faced a couple of charges including having to pay for the search.

Those particular morons weren't lost. They went off into the woods to get high off meth and wandered off. Should've left the asshats for the vultures.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/02/te ... nd-during/

If those teens were getting high then they should pay for the "rescue."

I live in a part of the world where nobody (except for those few whom I don't take into consideration) has such amounts of money, nobody can pay, nobody actually pays, but, to be honest, the rescuers also may not respond.

The worst case that I remember happened two or three years ago on Azov Sea. Two young women were floating on a mattress and too late they noticed that the wind pushes the mattress right into the sea. One was a good swimmer and she decided to swim to the shore (it was one or two kilometers already), the second couldn't swim so good and she pleaded to not leave her alone. The idea to swim seemed good, but the truth was terrible. The woman reached the shore totally exhausted, went to the rescuers, and they refused to go to the sea - they had not enough fuel and there was a storm warning. The poor woman tried to arrange the rescue for three days, to no avail. After three days, the unfortunate woman on the floating mattress was totally accidentally spotted and rescued by fishermen. It was in 70 km from the place where she started her "travel". She was more or less okay, except for some serious sunburns.