At risk of stirring something up here, but...
<Driven some of those. Now I know what he was in.>
I've sailed a bosun too. Thought itwas ok'ish, heavy and strong. This chaps boat survived without him looking after it. Not much wrong with it then.
<Still makes you think there should be some sort of regulating body>
Like a police state or military dictatorship? :-)
<to stop these people putting other peoples lives on the line when they have to rescue them >
Not true. AFAIK all rescue personnel in the services volunteer to do the job. If they are not rescuing real people they are constantly out on exercises practicing with dummy people. This man didn't put the rescuers lives any more at risk than they do themselves every day.
<and also whoever has to pick up the costs. IE all the poor blokes working 9 till 5 everyday in the UK.>
No more cost to the taxpayer than at any other time. Helicopters and planes still fly, naval ships still steam across oceans whether they are on a real rescue mission or not.
<At the end of the day it is probably possible in the future that someone is <going to end up crossing the Atlantic in a steel bath tub with two oars, <naked and only with cream crackers and 2 litres of water to survive on. >
And what's wrong with that? It would be a feat of endurance to rival any.
At 14 foot long, it's not the smallest boat to have crossed the Atlantic successfully. 11 or 12ft. holds the record I think. A long time ago a French chap canoed across the Atlantic without taking any food or water. He wasn't a nutter (well....?) but a scientist out to prove a theory. He did.
<what sort of a worthwhile record is that !>
It's worthwhile to the person who did it. I'm sure the 'record' is incidental to the adventure. Testing oneself, finding one's limits, pushing the 'envelope' of human endurance. These have always been laudible reasons for such feats of physical and mental endeavour.
<Just cause isn' t really good enough nowadays.>
Why not?
This poor guy had real bad luck, it seems, being chased by so many big storms. Perhaps his big error was to set off too late in the season? In other years he may well have got away with it.
Maybe the man was a little foolhardy. But that term is often used by people who don't understand the venture, or capabilities of the craft or man. That the boat survived shows there was not that much wrong with it. Perhaps he mis-estimated the physical and mental effects of such a voyage. Whatever I might think, I'll defend his right to try.
Nothing personal in this. I'm just trying to counter the growing 'nanny culture' and stifling 'health and safety' culture that's pervading and strangling the adventurous spirit of people in this country.
There. Rant over. :-) Bye.
White Noise
