Reporting is usually poor. Ask anyone who has been involved in an event in the news.
So I'm trying to get the facts.
Ringing round the hospitals to confirm the injuries is getting me nowhere. None of them will reveal anything. But RAF Valley who provided the rescue helicopters has a web site with their rescues on it. This weekends has not been added yet. I'll update you when they have.

But did the helicopter crews and other rescuers sign up to risk their lives for this event?
And if these people really do believe in 'self reliance but our society is increasingly being the nanny'. Why did they then ask to be rescued?

It's a bit like Wall Street believes in tooth and claw competition; but only till they are in trouble...
The Sock

Actually, I think a lot of the competitors in this years OMM are secretly enjoying all the publicity of the media hyperbole such as 'Lake District 'could have become a morgue'



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3264226/...e-a-morgue.html

You pay your money and you take your chances. The contestants know the rules going into the competition and they should be prepared for what the competition throws at them. Cell phones won't make up for bad judgement which is how one generally avoids getting into trouble in the first place.

The car analogy is excellent. On average 700+ people will die on US roads this week, we all know it will happen to someone else.

Comments in their forums mention "radio points", presumably provided at intervals by the officials to give emergency communications. Here's an account of the stream rescue, from OMM:

For anyone who wants to know, we tried to cross a "stream" (unfortunately can't get the name as my map washed away a little bit...) was about half way across when my feet went from under me. apparently i went somewhere around 200yards downstream, washed up on an island, within a couple of mins of which phil and tim moseyed up from checking out the ford(?) lower down. spotted me, looked for rach, got my dad and sis leggin it down the hill instead having sent rach for help at the nearest radio point and luckily finding a group of walkers (neglected by the media i notice - inexperienced walkers out on the hill at the same time, also requiring MR/emergency services in some cases), one of whom had a phone.
A while later (no idea of time) after having wrapped me up in several layers, a tent, space blanket etc, and constructed 2 tents on our little island we heard the whistle of the mountain rescue team and soon after the roar of the helicopter which whisked us away (and half our kit downstream but nevermind!!).

So it sounds like they used the mobile phone of a passer by, but there was an alternative in place. Also she sounds to have been in fairly good shape and may not have actually needed rescuing. (She's already booked up for next year.) Even ignoring the passers by, there sound to have been a lot of people on the mountain who could help.

Interesting, people will complain about a nanny state but then voluntarily agree to give up the means to summon help for themselves if they run into trouble, who's the nanny there?

I participate in long distance motorcycle rallies involving thousands of miles of riding and the equivalent of geo caching or scavenger hunting, the idea that the organisers of any of the rallies would ban the use of cell phones in an emergency is simply lunacy. "sorry pal, you knew it was dangerous when you signed up, find some other way to get help..."

If the folks who were stupid enough to agree to such a thing mean what they say, they should refuse outside help of any kind, no rescue helos, no well meaning passers by. Finish or die. Anything else is simply hypocrisy.

Doesn't matter what the cell tower coverage is, that's a red herring tossed in by the organisers in a lame excuse to explain some stupid decisions. Banning the means for someone to summon help if needed and then appealing to that person's sense of nobility in being self reliant is really pathetic. I'm not sure who's worse, the self deluded folks who agreed to participate or the self-rightous morons who made the rule.

Simple question, how many people on this forum would knowingly and purposefully, NOT include the means to communicate in their survival kits/plans because they're worried about society turning into a "nanny state"?

John E

As you say JohnE; by the same argument they should have banned whistles and high visibility clothing.
The Sock

That's what pockets are for - to hide your cell phone.