[OT] Tragedy at Morecambe Bay -- 18 Chinese Nationals killed by rising tides.
O...@oak-invalid.com
gathering cockle shells as the treacherous rise in the tide caught the
people by surprise. It seems to me we have discussed Morecambe Bay
before about the danger it holds in the tides and quicksands. With
warning signs around the area notifying the "English-speaking" public
of the dangers, perhaps other safety measures need to be in place for
foreigners who may be oblivious to the risks?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQ0TZACQD.html
About Morecambe Bay:
http://www.morecambebay.com/secrets.htm
Oak
arachedeux
news:2ja720pgup3v63k2v...@4ax.com...
> Morecambe Bay claimed the lives of 18 Chinese Nationals who were
> gathering cockle shells as the treacherous rise in the tide caught the
> people by surprise. It seems to me we have discussed Morecambe Bay
> before about the danger it holds in the tides and quicksands. With
> warning signs around the area notifying the "English-speaking" public
> of the dangers, perhaps other safety measures need to be in place for
> foreigners who may be oblivious to the risks?
Well sounds reasonable enough, but given that these folk appear to have been
illegal immigrants with no right to work here I doubt it'll happen.
Of course ALL sea is dangerous and that's true whatever language you speak,
I imagine the tales of five hundred quid an hour overrode safety concerns,
if they were ever considered.
cheers,
arachedeux
news:oip720hct0ui1me1o...@4ax.com...
> a few days previously. There is no doubt these people knew of the
> risks they were taking, but were still intent on making an "honest"
> buck.
Morecambe is also were that father and son died, he was on his mobile to the
coast guard with his son on his shoulders as the tide came in. You don't
really stand a chance against such a tidal depth.
> It does sound like they were illegals, but it doesnt make it any
> less sad.
Agreed. I'm a bit peeved about how some folk disregard the sea though.
> As to "wages" on the news this evening they were saying they
> would likely be earning about Ł50 a day. Certainly not an amount to be
> taking big risks for.
Quite, but I imagine some folk believe the tales of half a grand a day.
Looks like mermaids still exist.
cheers,
O...@oak-invalid.com
<arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:2ja720pgup3v63k2v...@4ax.com...
>> Morecambe Bay claimed the lives of 18 Chinese Nationals who were
>> gathering cockle shells as the treacherous rise in the tide caught the
>> people by surprise. It seems to me we have discussed Morecambe Bay
>> before about the danger it holds in the tides and quicksands. With
>> warning signs around the area notifying the "English-speaking" public
>> of the dangers, perhaps other safety measures need to be in place for
>> foreigners who may be oblivious to the risks?
>
>Well sounds reasonable enough, but given that these folk appear to have been
>illegal immigrants with no right to work here I doubt it'll happen.
Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
could have been avoided somehow.
>Of course ALL sea is dangerous and that's true whatever language you speak,
>I imagine the tales of five hundred quid an hour overrode safety concerns,
>if they were ever considered.
>cheers,
I expect Morecambe is more dangerous than most. The tides where I
live come in and go out very gradually so there is really no danger,
except perhaps, if you fall asleep on the beach and then the only
danger is a rude awakening. :-) We do have one very dangerous area
and that is where the intercoastal waterway rejoins the sea as a river
inlet that has very treacherous currents. Huge signs, in English
again, proclaim the danger, but I cant recall if there are universal
language signs also indicating hazardous currents. Perhaps Morecambe
might have these universal signs? Anybody live near Morecambe or
visit it recently?
Oak
Arthur Figgis
>Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>could have been avoided somehow.
Foregin tourists are probably unlikely to get to the area without
deliberately setting off to be there. Having said that, people do try
to cross the sands without knowning what they are doing.
>I expect Morecambe is more dangerous than most.
Yes, it is.
The tides go out a long way, come in quickly, and there is quicksand
and mud. There are paths in the bay, but they are rather trecherous.
The Ordnance Survey (UK national mapping agency, founded to make maps
for the army to use in case Napoleon tried to invade) maps have
warnings on them:
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=345000&Y=468000&scale=25000&coordsys=gb
We do have one very dangerous area
>and that is where the intercoastal waterway rejoins the sea as a river
>inlet that has very treacherous currents. Huge signs, in English
>again, proclaim the danger, but I cant recall if there are universal
>language signs also indicating hazardous currents. Perhaps Morecambe
>might have these universal signs?
There is a photo of sign here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3466471.stm
And some details of the sands:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3465109.stm
> Anybody live near Morecambe or
>visit it recently?
I went maybe 15 or so years ago. Morecambe itself was a past-its-best
dump.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
O...@oak-invalid.com
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:10 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>>tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>>are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>>could have been avoided somehow.
>
>Foregin tourists are probably unlikely to get to the area without
>deliberately setting off to be there. Having said that, people do try
>to cross the sands without knowning what they are doing.
I wonder how long foreign workers have been collecting cockles there?
I noticed in one article that some gangs were being blamed for
exploiting migrant workers. Certainly one would expect locals to know
of the dangers and if they did not exercise due caution might they not
be charged with criminal, depraved indifference or negligence? I
suspect we will find out soon.
I also noticed in your last link below that a similar incident
occurred recently where 30 such workers were stranded. Shouldnt this
have been ample warning of a potential disaster?
>
>>I expect Morecambe is more dangerous than most.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>The tides go out a long way, come in quickly, and there is quicksand
>and mud. There are paths in the bay, but they are rather trecherous.
>
>The Ordnance Survey (UK national mapping agency, founded to make maps
>for the army to use in case Napoleon tried to invade) maps have
>warnings on them:
>http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=345000&Y=468000&scale=25000&coordsys=gb
>
> We do have one very dangerous area
>>and that is where the intercoastal waterway rejoins the sea as a river
>>inlet that has very treacherous currents. Huge signs, in English
>>again, proclaim the danger, but I cant recall if there are universal
>>language signs also indicating hazardous currents. Perhaps Morecambe
>>might have these universal signs?
>
>There is a photo of sign here:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3466471.stm
>
>And some details of the sands:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3465109.stm
>
>> Anybody live near Morecambe or
>>visit it recently?
>
>I went maybe 15 or so years ago. Morecambe itself was a past-its-best
>dump.
So it is not a resort area or one frequently visited as a natural
preserve or just an area of interest? From one web page I retrieved,
it looked like if was fairly popular. It is easy to judge and
criticize from afar, but I would think something like park rangers or
a siren indicating incoming tides might be one answer. I believe I
read something about licenses and this may be a good idea too at least
for those going seriously into that kind of business.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:10 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Well sounds reasonable enough, but given that these folk appear to have been
>>>illegal immigrants with no right to work here I doubt it'll happen.
>>
>>Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>>tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>>are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>>could have been avoided somehow.
>
>I take it you are suggesting the UK some how failed these (alledgedly
>illegals) by not having chinese signs? Perleeease, it you are, that
>surely is a provocative joke? Why stop at chinese? Im sure
>cosmapolitan US has signs up in Chinese, arabic, swalhelee and
>whatever picks your fancy. In the words of johnny Mac - you cannot be
>serious?
>
>Are you going all Liberal Oak?
Havent you ever seen the international or universal road signs whose
express purpose is to communicate to all nationalities specific
dangers? One article claims the UK makes a good deal of money off
similar migrant workers and it seems to me that exercising due caution
or vigilance for their particular vulnerabilities is only fair and
right. Put yourself in their shoes. If you traveled to a foreign
land and found yourself in an area of some sort of natural danger,
wouldnt you want some clear communication of just what that danger
was?
Oak
arachedeux
news:7s5820l36ugl7qsoj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:56:33 -0000, "arachedeux"
> <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
> >news:2ja720pgup3v63k2v...@4ax.com...
> >> Morecambe Bay claimed the lives of 18 Chinese Nationals who were
> >> gathering cockle shells as the treacherous rise in the tide caught the
> >> people by surprise. It seems to me we have discussed Morecambe Bay
> >> before about the danger it holds in the tides and quicksands. With
> >> warning signs around the area notifying the "English-speaking" public
> >> of the dangers, perhaps other safety measures need to be in place for
> >> foreigners who may be oblivious to the risks?
> >
> >Well sounds reasonable enough, but given that these folk appear to have
been
> >illegal immigrants with no right to work here I doubt it'll happen.
>
> Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
> tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
> are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
> could have been avoided somehow.
Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water dear"...
> >Of course ALL sea is dangerous and that's true whatever language you
speak,
> >I imagine the tales of five hundred quid an hour overrode safety
concerns,
> >if they were ever considered.
> >cheers,
>
> I expect Morecambe is more dangerous than most. The tides where I
> live come in and go out very gradually so there is really no danger,
> except perhaps, if you fall asleep on the beach and then the only
> danger is a rude awakening. :-)
I don't know any where around here that has the tidal depth of Morecombe.
There you could be paddling up to your ankles at low tide in a spot that's
35 foot deep at high tide. The bay is also a funnel so it falls and rises
quickly. I guesstimate it's about three times as fast and deep than most
tides, no fetch to it though.
> We do have one very dangerous area
> and that is where the intercoastal waterway rejoins the sea as a river
> inlet that has very treacherous currents. Huge signs, in English
> again, proclaim the danger, but I cant recall if there are universal
> language signs also indicating hazardous currents. Perhaps Morecambe
> might have these universal signs? Anybody live near Morecambe or
> visit it recently?
If folk need a sign to realise that dangerous things are dangerous there's
little hope for them anyway.
cheers,
Julie
>Havent you ever seen the international or universal road signs whose
>express purpose is to communicate to all nationalities specific
>dangers? One article claims the UK makes a good deal of money off
>similar migrant workers
Which article?
These workers were illegal immigrants from China. They pay gangs
(Triads) to get to the UK by whatever means they can in the hope of
being able to earn money to send to their impoverished families. Once
here, the reality is very different and a large majority are exploited
by gangs to do this sort of work (collecting cockles) among others.
But it's catch 22 - they have to earn whatever money they can to pay
off the Triads.
>and it seems to me that exercising due caution
>or vigilance for their particular vulnerabilities is only fair and
>right.
There are signs warning of the danger. Are you suggesting that
Cantonese signs be put up for the exploited illegal immigrants?
>Put yourself in their shoes. If you traveled to a foreign
>land and found yourself in an area of some sort of natural danger,
>wouldnt you want some clear communication of just what that danger
>was?
These people traveled to a foreign land by paying criminals, believing
that the streets of London/England were paved with gold, and their
passage to that land was extremely hazardous - hiding in a cargo
ship/lorry.....then once in this country they work for a pittance
because if they didn't pay off the criminal gangs they'd be killed, or
their family back in China would be killed.
So, now *you* put yourself in their shoes and tell everyone how best
they could be protected from the tides of Morcambe Bay.
Julie
Julie
<arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know any where around here that has the tidal depth of Morecombe.
>There you could be paddling up to your ankles at low tide in a spot that's
>35 foot deep at high tide. The bay is also a funnel so it falls and rises
>quickly. I guesstimate it's about three times as fast and deep than most
>tides, no fetch to it though.
I heard on the news that the tide in Morcambe Bay comes in faster than
a man can run.
Julie
Arthur Figgis
>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:40:12 +0000, Arthur Figgis
><postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:10 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>>
>>>Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>>>tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>>>are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>>>could have been avoided somehow.
>>
>>Foregin tourists are probably unlikely to get to the area without
>>deliberately setting off to be there. Having said that, people do try
>>to cross the sands without knowning what they are doing.
>
>I wonder how long foreign workers have been collecting cockles there?
The would have gone there specifically to collect the cockles, not
just wandered in.
>I noticed in one article that some gangs were being blamed for
>exploiting migrant workers. Certainly one would expect locals to know
>of the dangers and if they did not exercise due caution might they not
>be charged with criminal, depraved indifference or negligence?
If the workers really were in a legal grey area, the employers might
not have been too concerned about health and safety law. It wouldn't
be the first time.
I
>suspect we will find out soon.
>
>I also noticed in your last link below that a similar incident
>occurred recently where 30 such workers were stranded. Shouldnt this
>have been ample warning of a potential disaster?
Yep. I would have thought anyone who knows about the cockles should
know about how dangerous the area is. Whether they care is a different
matter.
>>I went maybe 15 or so years ago. Morecambe itself was a past-its-best
>>dump.
>
>So it is not a resort area or one frequently visited as a natural
>preserve or just an area of interest?
Well, Morecambe is a resort. Few towns publicise themselves with "come
here for the run down hotels, graffiti and litter". Of course it might
have changed since I last went, and hopefully it has.
From one web page I retrieved,
>it looked like if was fairly popular. It is easy to judge and
>criticize from afar, but I would think something like park rangers or
>a siren indicating incoming tides might be one answer. I believe I
>read something about licenses and this may be a good idea too at least
>for those going seriously into that kind of business.
Guides can be hired. Knowing the tide is coming is one thing, but
knowing the best way off the sands is quite another.
I there were restrictions, people would complain that the nanny state
was trying to restrict ancient freedoms. Suppose the US federal
government wanted to heavily restrict firearms licences for safety
purposes... <gd&r>
O...@oak-invalid.com
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:30:52 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:40:12 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>><postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:39:10 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>>>>tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>>>>are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>>>>could have been avoided somehow.
>>>
>>>Foregin tourists are probably unlikely to get to the area without
>>>deliberately setting off to be there. Having said that, people do try
>>>to cross the sands without knowning what they are doing.
>>
>>I wonder how long foreign workers have been collecting cockles there?
>
>The would have gone there specifically to collect the cockles, not
>just wandered in.
My point is that if migrant workers had been coming there for an
extended period of time, the potential problem might have been known
to a few and not some unexpected accident no one could anticipate.
>
>>I noticed in one article that some gangs were being blamed for
>>exploiting migrant workers. Certainly one would expect locals to know
>>of the dangers and if they did not exercise due caution might they not
>>be charged with criminal, depraved indifference or negligence?
>
>If the workers really were in a legal grey area, the employers might
>not have been too concerned about health and safety law. It wouldn't
>be the first time.
Yes and that is the point. Given such disregard for the safety of the
workers, the employers might be criminally liable and so might the
State.
>
> I
>>suspect we will find out soon.
>>
>>I also noticed in your last link below that a similar incident
>>occurred recently where 30 such workers were stranded. Shouldnt this
>>have been ample warning of a potential disaster?
>
>Yep. I would have thought anyone who knows about the cockles should
>know about how dangerous the area is. Whether they care is a different
>matter.
This might be a fair point if I am reading you right. I understand
your point about the employers knowing the dangers, but are you saying
that a migrant worker who had been there before, and ostensibly
witnessed the tides, would automatically know it is a dangerous place?
I can see that possibly for the tidal action, but what about the
quicksand? This begs the question of whether the quicksand had
anything to do with the 18 or 19 deaths -- I dont recall reading that
it did.
>
>>>I went maybe 15 or so years ago. Morecambe itself was a past-its-best
>>>dump.
>>
>>So it is not a resort area or one frequently visited as a natural
>>preserve or just an area of interest?
>
>Well, Morecambe is a resort. Few towns publicise themselves with "come
>here for the run down hotels, graffiti and litter". Of course it might
>have changed since I last went, and hopefully it has.
So on your last visit it was a pretty trashy place huh? I am not sure
how this figures into the tragedy.
>
> From one web page I retrieved,
>>it looked like if was fairly popular. It is easy to judge and
>>criticize from afar, but I would think something like park rangers or
>>a siren indicating incoming tides might be one answer. I believe I
>>read something about licenses and this may be a good idea too at least
>>for those going seriously into that kind of business.
>
>Guides can be hired. Knowing the tide is coming is one thing, but
>knowing the best way off the sands is quite another.
But if the migrants or their employers never hired the guides, they
wouldnt be a factor would they?
>
>I there were restrictions, people would complain that the nanny state
>was trying to restrict ancient freedoms.
Where do you draw the line between being a nanny state and adequately
protecting the citizenry? Is the line crossed when UK citizens are
involved and not crossed when tragedy happens to others? I dont get
this nanny state bit.
>Suppose the US federal
>government wanted to heavily restrict firearms licences for safety
>purposes... <gd&r>
Since when are firearms a natural resource? -- apples and oranges
methinks.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
<arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:7s5820l36ugl7qsoj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:56:33 -0000, "arachedeux"
>> <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2ja720pgup3v63k2v...@4ax.com...
>> >> Morecambe Bay claimed the lives of 18 Chinese Nationals who were
>> >> gathering cockle shells as the treacherous rise in the tide caught the
>> >> people by surprise. It seems to me we have discussed Morecambe Bay
>> >> before about the danger it holds in the tides and quicksands. With
>> >> warning signs around the area notifying the "English-speaking" public
>> >> of the dangers, perhaps other safety measures need to be in place for
>> >> foreigners who may be oblivious to the risks?
>> >
>> >Well sounds reasonable enough, but given that these folk appear to have
>been
>> >illegal immigrants with no right to work here I doubt it'll happen.
>>
>> Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>> tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>> are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>> could have been avoided somehow.
>
>Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water dear"...
I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
"Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
This begs the question, i.e. that a dangerous place would be known to
be dangerous -- how? Is Morecambe, at low tide, obviously dangerous?
Are there skeletons around your quicksand pits? Does the tide bring
in scores of drowned bodies to make it obvious that it is dangerous?
I mean if I saw bodies floating in the tidal waters and headstones
lining the highway in remembrance of those lost to the quicksands,
then I might feel I had some warning, but a mudflat at low tide does
not immediately cry out as a danger to me and I have been to several.
Here is an example from Zion National park in southern Utah. There is
a place where the shallow river winds through very steep canyon walls
on each side. The place is called the Narrows for the small, shallow
river and the unscalable canyon walls. Does this place look
dangerous? Not a bit. It is quite beautiful and the water is only a
foot or so deep. The danger lies unseen miles away in the form of a
thunderstorm and resultant flash flooding that will send a tremendous
torrent of water down the Narrows and trap anyone who has ventured
into the canyon for any distance. I dont consider the warnings issued
about th dangers to be nannyish at all; it is a proper way to protect
an unsuspecting public.
Pictures of the Narrows and stories of flashflood deaths:
http://www.climb-utah.com/Zion/flash_zion.htm
Oak
Arthur Figgis
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:20:12 +0000, Arthur Figgis
><postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>My point is that if migrant workers had been coming there for an
>extended period of time, the potential problem might have been known
>to a few and not some unexpected accident no one could anticipate.
If some of the media claims are true, the authorities would have more
interest in the immigration aspects than health and safety.
>>If the workers really were in a legal grey area, the employers might
>>not have been too concerned about health and safety law. It wouldn't
>>be the first time.
>
>Yes and that is the point. Given such disregard for the safety of the
>workers, the employers might be criminally liable and so might the
>State.
I'm not sure how the state (meaning the UK?) could be responsible.
King Cnut famously demonstrated to his fawning followers that even a
king of England couldn't control the tides.
>>Yep. I would have thought anyone who knows about the cockles should
>>know about how dangerous the area is. Whether they care is a different
>>matter.
>
>This might be a fair point if I am reading you right. I understand
>your point about the employers knowing the dangers, but are you saying
>that a migrant worker who had been there before, and ostensibly
>witnessed the tides, would automatically know it is a dangerous place?
No, but they might know the dangers to themselves/their families if
they didn't go wherever their dodgy employers sent them, so would have
to agree, however dangerous things seemed.
>I can see that possibly for the tidal action, but what about the
>quicksand? This begs the question of whether the quicksand had
>anything to do with the 18 or 19 deaths -- I dont recall reading that
>it did.
Me neither, it is just another example of the dangers. Simply running
straight for dry land isn't a good idea if you get caught by the tide.
>>Guides can be hired. Knowing the tide is coming is one thing, but
>>knowing the best way off the sands is quite another.
>
>But if the migrants or their employers never hired the guides, they
>wouldnt be a factor would they?
No. But sensible people without worries about the Chinese mafia
(allegedly, they might not really be involved, of course) might
consider it.
>>I there were restrictions, people would complain that the nanny state
>>was trying to restrict ancient freedoms.
>
>Where do you draw the line between being a nanny state and adequately
>protecting the citizenry? Is the line crossed when UK citizens are
>involved and not crossed when tragedy happens to others? I dont get
>this nanny state bit.
As far as I know safety requirements treat all people as equal in the
UK.
Drawing the line is precisely the problem. Should we have "Warning -
do not jump off this cliff" signs at Dover? "Do not try to swim in the
River Humber". How many signs would be needed? There is also the issue
of whether people would take any notice of a sign.
Around 8-10 people are killed on the roads every day, but as long as
the resulting traffic jams aren't too long this is tolerated as a side
effect of our society.
O...@oak-invalid.com
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:54:05 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:20:12 +0000, Arthur Figgis
>><postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>
>>My point is that if migrant workers had been coming there for an
>>extended period of time, the potential problem might have been known
>>to a few and not some unexpected accident no one could anticipate.
>
>If some of the media claims are true, the authorities would have more
>interest in the immigration aspects than health and safety.
I am not sure what you mean here about "interest in the immigration
aspects" displacing health and safety.
>
>>>If the workers really were in a legal grey area, the employers might
>>>not have been too concerned about health and safety law. It wouldn't
>>>be the first time.
>>
>>Yes and that is the point. Given such disregard for the safety of the
>>workers, the employers might be criminally liable and so might the
>>State.
>
>I'm not sure how the state (meaning the UK?) could be responsible.
>King Cnut famously demonstrated to his fawning followers that even a
>king of England couldn't control the tides.
Yes State = UK in this instance. If the land at Morecambe is public
land, hence owned by the State, then the State may have some
obligation to protect the public, in a reasonable way, from unseen
dangers. I suspect we see highway signs indicating "Deer Crossings",
"Falling Rocks" and what have you for just these reasons.
>
>>>Yep. I would have thought anyone who knows about the cockles should
>>>know about how dangerous the area is. Whether they care is a different
>>>matter.
>>
>>This might be a fair point if I am reading you right. I understand
>>your point about the employers knowing the dangers, but are you saying
>>that a migrant worker who had been there before, and ostensibly
>>witnessed the tides, would automatically know it is a dangerous place?
>
>No, but they might know the dangers to themselves/their families if
>they didn't go wherever their dodgy employers sent them, so would have
>to agree, however dangerous things seemed.
>
>>I can see that possibly for the tidal action, but what about the
>>quicksand? This begs the question of whether the quicksand had
>>anything to do with the 18 or 19 deaths -- I dont recall reading that
>>it did.
>
>Me neither, it is just another example of the dangers. Simply running
>straight for dry land isn't a good idea if you get caught by the tide.
I dont think I would venture out on those mudflats unless I had
stretched bungee cords tied to me and anchored to the shore. :-)
>
>>>Guides can be hired. Knowing the tide is coming is one thing, but
>>>knowing the best way off the sands is quite another.
>>
>>But if the migrants or their employers never hired the guides, they
>>wouldnt be a factor would they?
>
>No. But sensible people without worries about the Chinese mafia
>(allegedly, they might not really be involved, of course) might
>consider it.
Chinese mafia huh? I thought the gangs were local ones -- British
mafia? So what you are alleging is that the gangs forced these
migrants to do the work in areas all parties knew were dangerous? I
had assumed the workers were oblivious to the dangers and not forced
to work in knowingly unsafe conditions.
>
>>>I there were restrictions, people would complain that the nanny state
>>>was trying to restrict ancient freedoms.
>>
>>Where do you draw the line between being a nanny state and adequately
>>protecting the citizenry? Is the line crossed when UK citizens are
>>involved and not crossed when tragedy happens to others? I dont get
>>this nanny state bit.
>
>As far as I know safety requirements treat all people as equal in the
>UK.
Provided they read English?
>
>Drawing the line is precisely the problem. Should we have "Warning -
>do not jump off this cliff" signs at Dover? "Do not try to swim in the
>River Humber". How many signs would be needed? There is also the issue
>of whether people would take any notice of a sign.
First off, some natural dangers are obvious as a universal life
experience, e.g. jumping off high cliffs. Likewise, swimming in a
river with an obvious fast current would adequately warn most with
common sense. However, if most of the world's mudflats do not have
the speedy, deep and treacherous currents found at Morecambe, then
life experience does one no good in the case of such a unique natural
danger.
If people take no heed of a sign, then the responsibility rests on
their shoulders -- provided they can read the sign. Again, the signs
do not have to be printed in every language and a universal sign of
danger might suffice.
>
>Around 8-10 people are killed on the roads every day, but as long as
>the resulting traffic jams aren't too long this is tolerated as a side
>effect of our society.
Yes, but people know the risks of driving and accept that risk in an
informed way. IMO, this is not the unforseen risks present at
Morecambe.
Oak
arachedeux
news:chk920p5ifpg92nud...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:04:01 -0000, "arachedeux"
> <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
> >> tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
> >> are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
> >> could have been avoided somehow.
> >
> >Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water
dear"...
>
> I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
> is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
> signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
> "Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
> differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
> is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
> your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
> Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
Thanks for the offer, but if I was going anywhere I'd find out about the
dangers rather than want a National Park blighted by a forest of signs.
That's how folk get into trouble though isn't it? Before I go out on unknown
water I check charts, have a word with the local coastguard and local water
users. Then I watch it for a bit and then if it feel comfortable off I go.
Maybe it has something to do with having grown up on the coast, but I also
wouldn't be reckless on mountains, etc.
> Here is an example from Zion National park in southern Utah. There is
> a place where the shallow river winds through very steep canyon walls
> on each side. The place is called the Narrows for the small, shallow
> river and the unscalable canyon walls. Does this place look
> dangerous? Not a bit. It is quite beautiful and the water is only a
> foot or so deep. The danger lies unseen miles away in the form of a
> thunderstorm and resultant flash flooding that will send a tremendous
> torrent of water down the Narrows and trap anyone who has ventured
> into the canyon for any distance. I dont consider the warnings issued
> about th dangers to be nannyish at all; it is a proper way to protect
> an unsuspecting public.
I have no problem with warnings or other public information I'm just not
keen on more signs. Every year they put one up on the main sands, it warns
of an "uneven surface", hardly surprising on a beach.
cheers,
arachedeux
news:ntl820tkdt0p35tq8...@4ax.com...
Blimey that's fast. There's a shallow bay near here that's very nearly flat
and that moves fast, but a brisk walk would out pace it.
cheers,
basho007
news:c00psc$11mbnf$1...@ID-218265.news.uni-berlin.de:
>> would likely be earning about £50 a day. Certainly not an amount to
>> be taking big risks for.
>
> Quite, but I imagine some folk believe the tales of half a grand a
> day. Looks like mermaids still exist.
> cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
>
off-topic, but in the Times index from sometime in the 1830's there is a
reference to a story about a merman being brought in by fisherman and being
put on display in the town hall - Plymouth, as I recall. Have the full
cite somewhere!
O...@oak-invalid.com
<arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:chk920p5ifpg92nud...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:04:01 -0000, "arachedeux"
>> <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Couldnt it just as easily have been Chinese tourists or any foreign
>> >> tourists with no ability to read English? I grant you that foreigners
>> >> are not dying in the tides regularly, but it seems that this tragedy
>> >> could have been avoided somehow.
>> >
>> >Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water
>dear"...
>>
>> I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
>> is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
>> signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
>> "Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
>> differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
>> is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
>> your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
>> Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
>
>Thanks for the offer, but if I was going anywhere I'd find out about the
>dangers rather than want a National Park blighted by a forest of signs.
That is a good and responsible precaution, but I am not sure the
migrant workers had your resources. BTW, Yellowstone is not blighted
by a forest of signs, but there are warnings where the dangers are not
obvious. One such place in Yellowstone is Haden Valley. There are
lots of safe trails in Yellowstone, but Haden Valley is not one of
them for it is where the grizzly bears live. Grizzlies are wont to
attack hikers if they merely sense their presence, so hikers are
grateful for being given this warning. I once came across a moose in
Yellowstone which about gave me a heart attack -- didnt realize those
things were so huge! Had I run into a grizzly, well, I would have
jumped out of my socks, mind you, that wouldnt have saved me.
>
<snip>
>
>That's how folk get into trouble though isn't it? Before I go out on unknown
>water I check charts, have a word with the local coastguard and local water
>users. Then I watch it for a bit and then if it feel comfortable off I go.
>Maybe it has something to do with having grown up on the coast, but I also
>wouldn't be reckless on mountains, etc.
If one were to arrive at Morecambe at low tide and look around and
stamp on the mud, would they find a reason to be cautious? Probably
not. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and so I know what you
are talking about in terms of using caution. But much of my caution
is reasonable having some experience with the coastal area. Coming to
Morecambe with no foreknowledge of its dangers might make me think it
is the same as the mudflats or tidal basins I am used to.
Anyway, I get your points and there is no reason to beat this subject
to death.
>
>> Here is an example from Zion National park in southern Utah. There is
>> a place where the shallow river winds through very steep canyon walls
>> on each side. The place is called the Narrows for the small, shallow
>> river and the unscalable canyon walls. Does this place look
>> dangerous? Not a bit. It is quite beautiful and the water is only a
>> foot or so deep. The danger lies unseen miles away in the form of a
>> thunderstorm and resultant flash flooding that will send a tremendous
>> torrent of water down the Narrows and trap anyone who has ventured
>> into the canyon for any distance. I dont consider the warnings issued
>> about th dangers to be nannyish at all; it is a proper way to protect
>> an unsuspecting public.
>
>I have no problem with warnings or other public information I'm just not
>keen on more signs. Every year they put one up on the main sands, it warns
>of an "uneven surface", hardly surprising on a beach.
>cheers,
Yes I would agree that signs indicating the obvious are an eyesore. I
dont find that the case here though too often -- except for perhaps
the Dont Litter signs which dont work on the litter criminals anyway.
Oak
basho007
> "guv" <gu...@msn.com> wrote in message
they've been in the news before in the past year. it was noted there were
probably illegals amongst them. some people given incentives to turn a
blind eye? they must have been living somewhere, paying rent.
paradoxically, perhaps if they had all been arrested earlier, they would
still be alive.
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:04:01 -0000, "arachedeux"
><arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water dear"...
>
>I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
>is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
>signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
>"Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
>differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
>is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
>your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
>Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
I'm not clear what you're discussing. There *are* warning signs around
Morecambe Bay.
>This begs the question, i.e. that a dangerous place would be known to
>be dangerous -- how? Is Morecambe, at low tide, obviously dangerous?
>Are there skeletons around your quicksand pits? Does the tide bring
>in scores of drowned bodies to make it obvious that it is dangerous?
>I mean if I saw bodies floating in the tidal waters and headstones
>lining the highway in remembrance of those lost to the quicksands,
>then I might feel I had some warning, but a mudflat at low tide does
>not immediately cry out as a danger to me and I have been to several.
Do you not realise that the people who drowned were 2.5 miles out from
the shore? They had driven out there in a van across the estuary.
Anyone who drives miles past the high tide point onto tidal flats
shouldn't need to be told that they're going to be in trouble when the
tide comes back in - which will happen twice a day!
What makes the area dangerous is that there are two rivers flowing into
the sea across those flats. Their course varies as the sand shifts, and
as the tide comes in the river channels fill first trapping anyone who
has wandered between them - at low tide they're passable.
It was also dark when this happened.
--
John F Hall
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <chk920p5ifpg92nud...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:04:01 -0000, "arachedeux"
>><arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water dear"...
>>
>>I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
>>is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
>>signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
>>"Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
>>differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
>>is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
>>your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
>>Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
>
>I'm not clear what you're discussing. There *are* warning signs around
>Morecambe Bay.
The question is, are these signs understandable by foreigners? Are
there universal signs indicating the danger that would be understood
by all -- such as the common, symbols in road signs we see for things
like "Yield", "One Way Traffic", "Falling Rocks", etc.
>
>>This begs the question, i.e. that a dangerous place would be known to
>>be dangerous -- how? Is Morecambe, at low tide, obviously dangerous?
>>Are there skeletons around your quicksand pits? Does the tide bring
>>in scores of drowned bodies to make it obvious that it is dangerous?
>>I mean if I saw bodies floating in the tidal waters and headstones
>>lining the highway in remembrance of those lost to the quicksands,
>>then I might feel I had some warning, but a mudflat at low tide does
>>not immediately cry out as a danger to me and I have been to several.
>
>Do you not realise that the people who drowned were 2.5 miles out from
>the shore? They had driven out there in a van across the estuary.
>Anyone who drives miles past the high tide point onto tidal flats
>shouldn't need to be told that they're going to be in trouble when the
>tide comes back in - which will happen twice a day!
That is new information to me. The question has been were the workers
forced to work in a dangerous environment and who is culpable? Were
they actually aware of the danger that had put themselves in?
>
>What makes the area dangerous is that there are two rivers flowing into
>the sea across those flats. Their course varies as the sand shifts, and
>as the tide comes in the river channels fill first trapping anyone who
>has wandered between them - at low tide they're passable.
>
>It was also dark when this happened.
Thanks for the extra information.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:08:52 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water dear"...
>>>>
>>>>I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
>>>>is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
>>>>signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
>>>>"Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
>>>>differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
>>>>is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
>>>>your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
>>>>Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
>>>
>>>I'm not clear what you're discussing. There *are* warning signs around
>>>Morecambe Bay.
>>
>>The question is, are these signs understandable by foreigners? Are
>>there universal signs indicating the danger that would be understood
>>by all -- such as the common, symbols in road signs we see for things
>>like "Yield", "One Way Traffic", "Falling Rocks", etc.
>
>I have no idea what the warning signs say - or if there was a picture
>to denote it. (Got no idea how you would represent this pictorially
>anyway).
How's about something like this? --> V
^^^^^^
Kinda tough to do on a computer, but I think you may catch my drift.
>What it appears you are fishing for here is for us to display
>signs with all foreign langauges on earth (and perhaps Klingon and
>Vulcan?) to warn of the dangers? Totally impractical if that is what
>you are saying.
It is not. Unless, of course, you have some free time Les. :-)
>
>In the example you give above - "Yield" would mean nothing to these
>people either (nor to most people in the UK as it would be "give
>way"), but common sense would prevail. looking at a road layout, it
>would likely to be at a road junction and as such an understanding be
>gained.
You do have "universal road signs" in the UK dont you? Do you know
what I am talking about? Danger is often symbolized by a sign of
something that is circled with a diagonal line drawn through it.
>
>>>>This begs the question, i.e. that a dangerous place would be known to
>>>>be dangerous -- how? Is Morecambe, at low tide, obviously dangerous?
>>>>Are there skeletons around your quicksand pits? Does the tide bring
>>>>in scores of drowned bodies to make it obvious that it is dangerous?
>>>>I mean if I saw bodies floating in the tidal waters and headstones
>>>>lining the highway in remembrance of those lost to the quicksands,
>>>>then I might feel I had some warning, but a mudflat at low tide does
>>>>not immediately cry out as a danger to me and I have been to several.
>>>
>>>Do you not realise that the people who drowned were 2.5 miles out from
>>>the shore? They had driven out there in a van across the estuary.
>>>Anyone who drives miles past the high tide point onto tidal flats
>>>shouldn't need to be told that they're going to be in trouble when the
>>>tide comes back in - which will happen twice a day!
>>
>>That is new information to me. The question has been were the workers
>>forced to work in a dangerous environment and who is culpable? Were
>>they actually aware of the danger that had put themselves in?
>
>Seeing as a similar incident happened not so long ago with these
>migrants being rescued, one would assume they were aware of the
>conditions. They were in effect "self employed" since their "harvest"
>was collected to sell.
This is the whole question. If these were the same migrants that had
been rescued then it seems to me that they had ample warning. If it
was not the same group, then they may have been caught by surprise and
in this case someone else may be culpable.
>
>>>What makes the area dangerous is that there are two rivers flowing into
>>>the sea across those flats. Their course varies as the sand shifts, and
>>>as the tide comes in the river channels fill first trapping anyone who
>>>has wandered between them - at low tide they're passable.
>>>
>>>It was also dark when this happened.
>
>We had a similar type incident a few months back, where migrant
>workers decided they would cross a railway line for a short cut
>instead of using a recognised crossing. (They were fruit pickers from
>Eastern Europe). All were killed. Perhaps we should display waring
>signs in all languages every 50 metres along the track in case they
>werent aware of the danger thay had put themselves in?
No. Railway lines are common throughout the world, so it is
reasonable to expect that folks would know the inherent dangers. That
is not the case, IMO, with the very unusual and dangerous tides at
Morecambe.
Oak
Arthur Figgis
>
>Yes State = UK in this instance. If the land at Morecambe is public
>land, hence owned by the State, then the State may have some
>obligation to protect the public, in a reasonable way, from unseen
>dangers. I suspect we see highway signs indicating "Deer Crossings",
>"Falling Rocks" and what have you for just these reasons.
I think the foreshore generally belongs to the Crown, and away from
harbours, firing ranges, etc there is usually access along it (though
not always access /to/ the foreshore!).
<snip>
>First off, some natural dangers are obvious as a universal life
>experience, e.g. jumping off high cliffs. Likewise, swimming in a
>river with an obvious fast current would adequately warn most with
>common sense. However, if most of the world's mudflats do not have
>the speedy, deep and treacherous currents found at Morecambe, then
>life experience does one no good in the case of such a unique natural
>danger.
I think we'll just have to differ on this. Perhaps it is because my
home town is on a major estuary, so I wouldn't go out without some
idea of what I was doing (or being forced to!). Someone from Mongolia
might know less about the coast!
arachedeux
news:Xns94889A64D...@195.8.68.217...
> "arachedeux" <arach...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >
> > Quite, but I imagine some folk believe the tales of half a grand a
> > day. Looks like mermaids still exist.
> > cheers,
> >
> >
>
> off-topic, but in the Times index from sometime in the 1830's there is a
> reference to a story about a merman being brought in by fisherman and
being
> put on display in the town hall - Plymouth, as I recall. Have the full
> cite somewhere!
That wasn't Ethel Merman was it?
cheers,
arachedeux
news:c0404t$gin$1...@avondale.demon.co.uk...
> In article <chk920p5ifpg92nud...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:04:01 -0000, "arachedeux"
> ><arach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Too much like a nanny state to consider, "Don't go near the water
dear"...
> >
> >I dont buy that argument, and as you illustrate below, Morecambe Bay
> >is not your usual "water." It might be a nanny state if you all had
> >signs up saying things like: "Dont throw rocks at the bears", or
> >"Please dont jump off the cliffs." Warning about huge tidal
> >differences does not sound like this nanny state bit to me. If this
> >is indeed toonanny for you, then I have a nice picnic spot for you and
> >your family at Yellowstone National Park, just let me remove the "Old
> >Faithful" sign before you spread out your picnic blankets. :-)
>
> I'm not clear what you're discussing. There *are* warning signs around
> Morecambe Bay.
We're discussing whether there should be signs for every language. Oak
thinks maybe, I think not.
cheers,
O...@oak-invalid.com
<Groan>
:-)
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
<snip>
>Seeing as this happened at night - would they have taken the time to
>read the signs in the first place? Do you think it is a common
>activity to drive out so far at sea and not realise there is a
>definate danger? Forget the tidal part in question on this just for a
>moment before answering that question.
1. Night or day, if you cannot read the language, then a sign is
irrelevant unless it pictorially presents the danger.
2. To my knowledge, I have never visited a shoreline, mudflat or
tidal basin where one could drive out 2.5 miles on land that at high
tide would be under 35 feet of water. At the beach near me here and
those in my experience in Calif, the tide came in only about 25 yards.
It came in gradually so that even if one were 2.5 miles out, once it
started there would be ample time to leave -- provided there was a car
as is the case in this incident.
3. We are speculating about the events of that day and what people
knew and did not know. I suspect as the enquiry advances, we will
know more.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
To clarify, I advocate the "universal", non-verbal, signs/symbols
indicating danger. IMO, you need them, at Morecambe, for driving on
the shoreline, for the rapid and deep tides and for your quicksands.
Again, if you were in a foreign country where you did not speak the
language, would you not want some kind of warning in a similar
circumstance? That is my position.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:11:49 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>>We're discussing whether there should be signs for every language. Oak
>>>thinks maybe, I think not.
>>>cheers,
>>>
>>To clarify, I advocate the "universal", non-verbal, signs/symbols
>>indicating danger. IMO, you need them, at Morecambe, for driving on
>>the shoreline, for the rapid and deep tides and for your quicksands.
>>Again, if you were in a foreign country where you did not speak the
>>language, would you not want some kind of warning in a similar
>>circumstance? That is my position.
>
>Agreed, except do you not think driving out from the coastline is a
>pretty stupid thing to do? Put it another way. Could you see yourself
>driving out from the coastline in this way for some cockles?
First, just where was this "coastline"? Does the tide actually recede
2.5 miles from the beach? Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5
miles onto the mudflats inshore? It is hard for me to comment on this
experience, because I have never seen an ocean recede anywhere near
2.5 miles from the beach -- not even close. My guess is that they
drove 2.5 miles onto the tidal basin, not out to sea, but I could be
wrong and would be happy to be corrected by some factual source.
>
>The sea (just like the railways) is a dangerous place. Sign, or no
>sign, I doubt very much in the instance we speak, it would have made
>the slightest difference in their pusuits.
Perhaps we will find out the exact circumstances of this disaster.
Oak
Chris Hills
invalid.com writes
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:19:04 +0000, guv <gu...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:11:49 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>>
>>>>We're discussing whether there should be signs for every language. Oak
>>>>thinks maybe, I think not.
>>>>cheers,
>>>>
>>>To clarify, I advocate the "universal", non-verbal, signs/symbols
>>>indicating danger. IMO, you need them, at Morecambe, for driving on
>>>the shoreline, for the rapid and deep tides and for your quicksands.
>>>Again, if you were in a foreign country where you did not speak the
>>>language, would you not want some kind of warning in a similar
>>>circumstance? That is my position.
>>
>>Agreed, except do you not think driving out from the coastline is a
>>pretty stupid thing to do? Put it another way. Could you see yourself
>>driving out from the coastline in this way for some cockles?
>
>First, just where was this "coastline"? Does the tide actually recede
>2.5 miles from the beach? Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5
>miles onto the mudflats inshore? It is hard for me to comment on this
>experience, because I have never seen an ocean recede anywhere near
>2.5 miles from the beach -- not even close. My guess is that they
>drove 2.5 miles onto the tidal basin, not out to sea, but I could be
>wrong and would be happy to be corrected by some factual source.
Map of area
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=336500&y=469500&z=3&sv=morecambe
&st=3&tl=Morecambe+Bay,+Cumbria+[Water+Feature]&searchp=newsearch.srf&ma
pp=newmap.srf
It's not a tidal basin but 4 river estuaries. The side open to the ssea
is about 10 miles wide.
I think they were on Hest Bank on the east side.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
Yes I just read about the Hest (Heast) Bank area and have it on a map.
It is a good deal inland from the sea proper. Apparently this is an
area popular for bird watching and there appears to be a good bit of
land in that area that extends out into Morecambe Bay (Lancaster
Bay?).
Oak
arachedeux
news:f99d209vk81r7oohc...@4ax.com...SNiP
> Again, if you were in a foreign country where you did not speak the
> language, would you not want some kind of warning in a similar
> circumstance?
No, I think it panders pointlessly to the ignorant.
cheers,
John F Hall
>>In the example you give above - "Yield" would mean nothing to these
>>people either (nor to most people in the UK as it would be "give
>>way"), but common sense would prevail. looking at a road layout, it
>>would likely to be at a road junction and as such an understanding be
>>gained.
>
>You do have "universal road signs" in the UK dont you? Do you know
>what I am talking about? Danger is often symbolized by a sign of
>something that is circled with a diagonal line drawn through it.
Yes, but they have to be learnt - there is no inherent meaning to signs.
In fact I remember when (about 50 years ago) all the road signs in the
UK were changed to bring them into line with European standards and to
make them easier for foreign drivers to understand. Nowadays they just
have the picture, but the early ones had the meaning written in English
on a plaque below the main sign :-).
Incidentally a circular sign with a diagonal bar means "don't" - don't
do whatever the picture shows: no right/left turn, no u-turn, etc.
Circular signs in general are compulsory: speed limits, no entry,
weight limits, height/width limits, etc.
The general sign for danger is a triangle - and the picture illustrates
the danger: bend, roundabout, steep hill, hump-back bridge, road
narrows, etc.
The "Give way" ("Yield") sign is an inverted triangle, with "Give way"
written across it.
--
John F Hall
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>3. We are speculating about the events of that day and what people
>knew and did not know. I suspect as the enquiry advances, we will
>know more.
The Sunday paper had quite a lot of detail:
They went out onto the flats at 3pm, at 5pm the tide started to come in,
at 7pm the water was getting up to their knees. As it got deeper they
went to a sandbank but couldn't get further. By 9pm, when they were
spotted the water was up to their waists. Dusk would be 5.30 to 6pm.
The article also said that the tide comes across the flats at 10 mph,
and can rise 30 feet in 10 minutes (presumably because of the estuary
causing funneling).
It also comments that the local fisherman who walk on the flats mark
their route in so that they can walk out the same way - and do it before
the tide comes in. There are deep gully which make random walking
dangerous.
--
John F Hall
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>First, just where was this "coastline"?
Morecambe Bay (northwest England).
>Does the tide actually recede 2.5 miles from the beach?
More.
>Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5 miles onto the mudflats
>inshore?
No.
>It is hard for me to comment on this experience, because I have never
>seen an ocean recede anywhere near 2.5 miles from the beach -- not even
>close.
It's *flat*. What do you think happens to the water when the tide goes
in and out? Why do you think the tide comes in at 10 mph?
--
John F Hall
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <i69d20hmhso7n96r1...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>3. We are speculating about the events of that day and what people
>>knew and did not know. I suspect as the enquiry advances, we will
>>know more.
>
>The Sunday paper had quite a lot of detail:
>
>They went out onto the flats at 3pm, at 5pm the tide started to come in,
>at 7pm the water was getting up to their knees. As it got deeper they
>went to a sandbank but couldn't get further. By 9pm, when they were
>spotted the water was up to their waists. Dusk would be 5.30 to 6pm.
If it were me, at 4:59:59 you would see me in a runner's stance like
at the Olympics for the 100 meter dash. At 5:00:00, I would be
sprinting for that damn truck and at 5:00:05, you would see one
helluva mud rooster tail spitting upwards from the rear wheels. The
hell with the wait-till-its-up-to-your-waist bit. :-) 'Course I cant
tell if they were in a panic prior to the waist high water; I sure
would have been.
>
>The article also said that the tide comes across the flats at 10 mph,
>and can rise 30 feet in 10 minutes (presumably because of the estuary
>causing funneling).
Well it sure was a lot slower than that where these poor folks were on
that tragic day -- still, it cost them their lives.
>
>It also comments that the local fisherman who walk on the flats mark
>their route in so that they can walk out the same way - and do it before
>the tide comes in. There are deep gully which make random walking
>dangerous.
Makes me wonder if anyone saw these folks prior to the tide coming in
and tried to warn them. Surely, the local fisherman would have seen
the danger immediately. I can remember one time at a familiar beach
in Calif that had rather steep, rocky cliffs, spying a couple of
French tourists lay their towels right at the base of the cliff. I
knew the rocks fell off that cliff on a regular basis and some were
much bigger than bricks. So I went over to warn the couple of this
unseen danger and after awhile, I got them to move their stuff to a
safe distance.
Oak-in-nanny
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <bt8c20119q5g03jkp...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:38:06 +0000, guv <gu...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>>In the example you give above - "Yield" would mean nothing to these
>>>people either (nor to most people in the UK as it would be "give
>>>way"), but common sense would prevail. looking at a road layout, it
>>>would likely to be at a road junction and as such an understanding be
>>>gained.
>>
>>You do have "universal road signs" in the UK dont you? Do you know
>>what I am talking about? Danger is often symbolized by a sign of
>>something that is circled with a diagonal line drawn through it.
>
>Yes, but they have to be learnt - there is no inherent meaning to signs.
>In fact I remember when (about 50 years ago) all the road signs in the
>UK were changed to bring them into line with European standards and to
>make them easier for foreign drivers to understand. Nowadays they just
>have the picture, but the early ones had the meaning written in English
>on a plaque below the main sign :-).
Finally found some road hazard signs for Asia (China) that are quite
similar to ours and whose meaning is pretty obvious.
http://www.worldtravellers.net/roadtravel/china/china.html
>
>Incidentally a circular sign with a diagonal bar means "don't" - don't
>do whatever the picture shows: no right/left turn, no u-turn, etc.
>Circular signs in general are compulsory: speed limits, no entry,
>weight limits, height/width limits, etc.
>
>The general sign for danger is a triangle - and the picture illustrates
>the danger: bend, roundabout, steep hill, hump-back bridge, road
>narrows, etc.
Yes, same here. There are some triangular signs on the link above.
>
>The "Give way" ("Yield") sign is an inverted triangle, with "Give way"
>written across it.
Yep. We got em in red:
http://www.askapastor.org/yield.gif
Yeller:
http://www.osan_hs.pac.odedodea.edu/school/yield.jpg
and multipurpose diamond shape:
http://www.auburn.edu/administration/public_safety/images/yield.jpg
Oak<can read sign language>
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <sncd201dfqedd0oml...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>First, just where was this "coastline"?
>
>Morecambe Bay (northwest England).
That's a big place.
>
>>Does the tide actually recede 2.5 miles from the beach?
>
>More.
>
>>Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5 miles onto the mudflats
>>inshore?
>
>No.
So let me get this straight. If I stood at Yeoman's Wharf or Heysham,
at low tide, I could walk 2.5 miles directly out to sea and not come
to any water?
>
>>It is hard for me to comment on this experience, because I have never
>>seen an ocean recede anywhere near 2.5 miles from the beach -- not even
>>close.
>
>It's *flat*. What do you think happens to the water when the tide goes
>in and out? Why do you think the tide comes in at 10 mph?
It's flat here too. The tide doesnt go out very far here at all --
certainly no 2.5 miles! The High and Low Tides for Charleston Harbor
this last Friday were (in feet), Highs: 5.7 and 4.8; and the Lows
were 0.4 and 0.0. And the tide doesnt come in at any 10 mph either.
Your tides at Morecambe are very different and that is why they are
famous/dangerous. Dont try to act like they are exactly like the
tides found anywhere else.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <sncd201dfqedd0oml...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>First, just where was this "coastline"?
>
>Morecambe Bay (northwest England).
>
>>Does the tide actually recede 2.5 miles from the beach?
>
>More.
>
>>Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5 miles onto the mudflats
>>inshore?
>
>No.
>
<snip>
Well here are the High and Low tides for Heysham and none of the Lows
show an absence of water. So much for your claim that the tide
recedes 2.5 miles or more from the beach.
"Mon 9th Feb 2004
01:00 9.28m 07:25 1.40m
13:14 9.54m 20:00 1.25m
Tue 10th Feb 2004
01:36 9.25m 08:00 1.44m
13:50 9.48m 20:35 1.34m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
02:14 9.09m 08:37 1.60m
14:28 9.30m 21:11 1.57m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
02:55 8.82m 09:16 1.86m
15:12 8.99m 21:51 1.90m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
03:41 8.44m 10:03 2.22m
16:03 8.54m 22:42 2.32m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
04:38 8.01m 11:04 2.61m
17:06 8.03m 23:51 2.72m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
05:51 7.67m 12:23 2.87m
18:30 7.68m "
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/?port=0050
Oak
Arthur Figgis
>Well here are the High and Low tides for Heysham and none of the Lows
>show an absence of water. So much for your claim that the tide
>recedes 2.5 miles or more from the beach.
Heysham is a port, so one might expect it to have reasonable access to
some water. I don't think you are understanding the scale of the place
- it is a very large bay.
Also, remember these people probably weren't in a position to argue
with their employers about finer points of safety. Their housing
sounds pretty awful, to start with.
If you want to find some other examples of extreme tides, try looking
up the Bristol Channel, which has one of the (the second?) highest
ranges in the world. I think somewhere in Canada has a bigger one.
O...@oak-invalid.com
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:46:53 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>Well here are the High and Low tides for Heysham and none of the Lows
>>show an absence of water. So much for your claim that the tide
>>recedes 2.5 miles or more from the beach.
>
>Heysham is a port, so one might expect it to have reasonable access to
>some water. I don't think you are understanding the scale of the place
>- it is a very large bay.
Yes you are right. I was trying to make some sense out of a comment
guv made. It sounded from his report, that these folks started at the
beach and went directly out to sea 2.5 miles. I dont think that is
the case. I think they started at Hest Bank and drove laterally out
onto the mud flats. So it is not that they followed the tide right
out to sea. Looking at the map of the area around Hest Bank more
closely, I can see an estuary that runs out into the harbor/bay. I
have no way of knowing what level of water flow occurs in this
estuary, but I would bet that at low tide it flows relatively freely
into the bay. However, at high tide the flow would be impeded and the
water from the estuary would contribute to the overall level of the
mudflats. So the rising tides might block this flow down river out of
sight of those at Hest and contribute to the estuary overflowing its
banks and combining with the high tide to increase the water level in
the region perhaps more rapidly than the tides would by themselves.
>
>Also, remember these people probably weren't in a position to argue
>with their employers about finer points of safety. Their housing
>sounds pretty awful, to start with.
Yes this is what I gather. I am unclear if their employers were
Chinese or local people and this makes a difference possibly
concerning negligence or depraved indifference to the dangers these
folks faced. I also wonder about the culpability of the community
concerning the posting of warnings that would be understandable to
non-English speaking tourists/workers, especially if it was apparent
that foreign workers were increasingly farming the bay.
>
>If you want to find some other examples of extreme tides, try looking
>up the Bristol Channel, which has one of the (the second?) highest
>ranges in the world. I think somewhere in Canada has a bigger one.
It was my recollection that Nova Scotia has the highest tides in the
world and a Google check seems to confirm this in the area of Nova
Scotia's Bay of Fundy.
http://www.valleyweb.com/fundytides/
Get a load of this:
"The highest tides on Earth occur in the Minas Basin, the eastern
extremity of the Bay of Fundy, where the average tide range is 12
metres and can reach 16 metres when the various factors affecting the
tides are in phase (although the highest tides occur typically a day
or two after the astronomical influences reach their peak)."
"The highest tides on planet Earth occur near Wolfville, in Nova
Scotia's Minas Basin. The water level at high tide can be as much as
16 metres (45 feet) higher than at low tide!"
"At mid-tide, the flow in Minas Channel north of Blomidon equals the
combined flow of all the rivers and streams on Earth!
Nova Scotia bends when the tide comes in!! As 14 billion tonnnes (14
cubic kilometres) of sea water flow into Minas Basin twice daily, the
Nova Scotia countryside actually tilts slightly under the immense
load!"
"Text Written by Dr. Roy Bishop"
Take a look at the picture of Cape Split.
___
Unofficial:
The cockleshell gatherers at Minas Basin are the fastest runners in
the world and have set numerous high jump records as well. They have
a keen sense of hearing and appear to be hydrophobic as well.
:-)
Oak <Boy of Fundy>
____
Arthur Figgis
>
>Yes this is what I gather. I am unclear if their employers were
>Chinese or local people and this makes a difference possibly
>concerning negligence or depraved indifference to the dangers these
>folks faced.
I don't think we have "depraved indifference" here (it sounds like it
ought to be fun).
The suggestions are that the employers were ethnic Chinese, presumably
based in the UK.
>I also wonder about the culpability of the community
>concerning the posting of warnings that would be understandable to
>non-English speaking tourists/workers, especially if it was apparent
>that foreign workers were increasingly farming the bay.
None whatsoever as far as I can see. Should we hold the population of
Scotland responsible for everyone who falls off a mountain, or the
farmers of North Yorkshire responsible for everyone who goes out on
the moors without sensible clothing and a map?
Our health & safety laws apparently say something about people having
some responsibility for themselves and others at while at work - I
must admit I've not actually read them, but we are told this at work.
I'm not sure if someone employing black market labour at a quid a day
and forty to a house (allegedly) would be too worried about a
signpost, whether it was in English, pictograms or Ogham.
...
>It was my recollection that Nova Scotia has the highest tides in the
>world and a Google check seems to confirm this in the area of Nova
>Scotia's Bay of Fundy.
That's the name. I couldn't be bothered to check.
Chris Hills
invalid.com writes
>On 8 Feb 2004 23:10:44 GMT, j...@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <sncd201dfqedd0oml...@4ax.com>,
>> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>First, just where was this "coastline"?
>>
>>Morecambe Bay (northwest England).
>>
>>>Does the tide actually recede 2.5 miles from the beach?
>>
>>More.
>>
>>>Or, are we talking about driving out 2.5 miles onto the mudflats
>>>inshore?
>>
>>No.
>>
><snip>
>
>Well here are the High and Low tides for Heysham and none of the Lows
>show an absence of water. So much for your claim that the tide
>recedes 2.5 miles or more from the beach.
Actually it is more than that in many places along the bay.
O...@oak-invalid.com
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:16:14 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>>>Well here are the High and Low tides for Heysham and none of the Lows
>>>>show an absence of water. So much for your claim that the tide
>>>>recedes 2.5 miles or more from the beach.
>>>
>>>Heysham is a port, so one might expect it to have reasonable access to
>>>some water. I don't think you are understanding the scale of the place
>>>- it is a very large bay.
>>
>>Yes you are right. I was trying to make some sense out of a comment
>>guv made. It sounded from his report, that these folks started at the
>>beach and went directly out to sea 2.5 miles.
>
>Not guilty your honour. I merely used the already quoted distance. I
>assumed thats what it meant also.
Fair enough. We are trying to make sense of this all from preliminary
facts and there is still much to be learned. Therefore, I will reduce
your bail to one cockleshell. Of course this must be a fresh
cockleshell and harvested at high tide -- the high tide at night mind
you. :-)
>
>>I dont think that is
>>the case. I think they started at Hest Bank and drove laterally out
>>onto the mud flats. So it is not that they followed the tide right
>>out to sea. Looking at the map of the area around Hest Bank more
>>closely, I can see an estuary that runs out into the harbor/bay. I
>>have no way of knowing what level of water flow occurs in this
>>estuary, but I would bet that at low tide it flows relatively freely
>>into the bay. However, at high tide the flow would be impeded and the
>>water from the estuary would contribute to the overall level of the
>>mudflats. So the rising tides might block this flow down river out of
>>sight of those at Hest and contribute to the estuary overflowing its
>>banks and combining with the high tide to increase the water level in
>>the region perhaps more rapidly than the tides would by themselves.
>>>
>>>Also, remember these people probably weren't in a position to argue
>>>with their employers about finer points of safety. Their housing
>>>sounds pretty awful, to start with.
>>
>>Yes this is what I gather. I am unclear if their employers were
>>Chinese or local people and this makes a difference possibly
>>concerning negligence or depraved indifference to the dangers these
>>folks faced. I also wonder about the culpability of the community
>>concerning the posting of warnings that would be understandable to
>>non-English speaking tourists/workers, especially if it was apparent
>>that foreign workers were increasingly farming the bay.
>
>Well, the police are trying to round up these "employers", who as
>already mentioned appear to be some sort or Triad gang. (Involved in
>illegally importing their "workers" as well. They lived in squalid
>conditions hidden away. Whilst no firm announcement has been made, its
>clear that they have been unable to identify many of those that
>drowned. From that I would think it safe to assume (along with the
>Chinese connection) thats its likley they were all illegals living
>under the fear of deportation if they refused. No signs would have
>helped them if that was the case - they would have done it anyway -
>even knowing the dangers, which Im sure they would have been aware of
>after the previous encounter.
Some of what you report I have heard -- the bit about living in
squalid conditions. If the rest is true re forced labor in dangerous
situations, then this could potentially be a very important case for
it could set some punishments that would set an example for those who
would exploit others up to and including the risk of death.
Alternatively, there may already be laws on the books about such
actions and punishment in this case, if warranted, would reinforce
that idea.
>
>
>
>>>If you want to find some other examples of extreme tides, try looking
>>>up the Bristol Channel, which has one of the (the second?) highest
>>>ranges in the world. I think somewhere in Canada has a bigger one.
>>
>>It was my recollection that Nova Scotia has the highest tides in the
>>world and a Google check seems to confirm this in the area of Nova
>>Scotia's Bay of Fundy.
>>
>>http://www.valleyweb.com/fundytides/
>>
>>Get a load of this:
>>
>>"The highest tides on Earth occur in the Minas Basin, the eastern
>>extremity of the Bay of Fundy, where the average tide range is 12
>>metres and can reach 16 metres when the various factors affecting the
>>tides are in phase (although the highest tides occur typically a day
>>or two after the astronomical influences reach their peak)."
>>
>>"The highest tides on planet Earth occur near Wolfville, in Nova
>>Scotia's Minas Basin. The water level at high tide can be as much as
>>16 metres (45 feet) higher than at low tide!"
>>
>>"At mid-tide, the flow in Minas Channel north of Blomidon equals the
>>combined flow of all the rivers and streams on Earth!
>>
>>Nova Scotia bends when the tide comes in!! As 14 billion tonnnes (14
>>cubic kilometres) of sea water flow into Minas Basin twice daily, the
>>Nova Scotia countryside actually tilts slightly under the immense
>>load!"
>
>Not sure what "tilts" actually implies here?
I guess it means slants toward the bay under the tremendous weight of
the tide. You might want to try an experiment here to see if "we" can
get closer to the meaning of "tilts." Why dont you go out and
purchase one of those large portable, plastic swimming pools and set
it up in your living room to see if your house tilts once it is full?
Please report your findings back here. :-)
http://www.arthurspools.com/pools/beauty_pool.jpg
Oak<Open the front door, he's gonna dive!!>
O...@oak-invalid.com
<postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:16:14 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes this is what I gather. I am unclear if their employers were
>>Chinese or local people and this makes a difference possibly
>>concerning negligence or depraved indifference to the dangers these
>>folks faced.
>
>I don't think we have "depraved indifference" here (it sounds like it
>ought to be fun).
Of course I am not familiar with your laws, but here is our definition
of depraved indifference to human life murder:
"The count is Murder in the Second Degree. Under our law, a person is
guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances
evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly
engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another
person,and thereby causes the death of that person [or a of third
person].
A person acts RECKLESSLY with respect to another person's death when
that person: engages in conduct which creates a substantial,
unjustifiable and grave risk that another person's death will occur,
and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk,
and when that risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation...
Conduct evincing a depraved indifference to human life is much more
serious and blameworthy than conduct which is merely reckless. It is
conduct which, beyond being reckless, is so wanton, so deficient in
moral sense and concern, so devoid of regard for the life or lives of
others, as to equal in blameworthiness intentional conduct which
produces the same result. It must be imminently dangerous and present
a very high risk of death to others.
In determining whether a person's conduct evinced a depraved
indifference to human life, a jury would have to decide whether the
circumstances surrounding his or her reckless conduct, when
objectively viewed, made it so uncaring, so callous, so dangerous and
so inhuman, as to demonstrate an attitude of total and utter disregard
for the life of the person or persons endangered...."
Or,
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22definition%22+%22depraved+indifference%22
This sure sounds like depraved indifference to human life to me on the
face of it. We will have to see what evidence turns up.
Oak<just depraved>
O...@oak-invalid.com
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:46:04 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>>>Well, the police are trying to round up these "employers", who as
>>>already mentioned appear to be some sort or Triad gang. (Involved in
>>>illegally importing their "workers" as well. They lived in squalid
>>>conditions hidden away. Whilst no firm announcement has been made, its
>>>clear that they have been unable to identify many of those that
>>>drowned. From that I would think it safe to assume (along with the
>>>Chinese connection) thats its likley they were all illegals living
>>>under the fear of deportation if they refused. No signs would have
>>>helped them if that was the case - they would have done it anyway -
>>>even knowing the dangers, which Im sure they would have been aware of
>>>after the previous encounter.
>>
>>Some of what you report I have heard -- the bit about living in
>>squalid conditions. If the rest is true re forced labor in dangerous
>>situations, then this could potentially be a very important case for
>>it could set some punishments that would set an example for those who
>>would exploit others up to and including the risk of death.
>>Alternatively, there may already be laws on the books about such
>>actions and punishment in this case, if warranted, would reinforce
>>that idea.
>
>From the report on TV tonight, it sounds like they were not all
>Chinese "employers", though they are not giving much away. It
>suggested that they were also "sub contracted"!
Interesting. Keep me informed on new details if it is convenient for
you.
>
>
>>>Not sure what "tilts" actually implies here?
>>
>>I guess it means slants toward the bay under the tremendous weight of
>>the tide. You might want to try an experiment here to see if "we" can
>>get closer to the meaning of "tilts." Why dont you go out and
>>purchase one of those large portable, plastic swimming pools and set
>>it up in your living room to see if your house tilts once it is full?
>>Please report your findings back here. :-)
>
>Probably a bit like Disney in peak season with all those tubbies
>waddling around;-)
Yep Florida slants down towards Miami at peak season. It also
explains why Cuba is so damned close to us -- it gets sucked in too.
:-)
Oak<rejects theory of continental drift for continental obesity>
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>So let me get this straight. If I stood at Yeoman's Wharf or Heysham,
>at low tide, I could walk 2.5 miles directly out to sea and not come
>to any water?
You appear to be misinterpreting the maps. The blue coloured areas are
those that are permanently wet, the sandy coloured areas those that are
dry at low tide and wet at high tide, and the white areas those that are
permanently dry.
So if you were standing at the point marked "Yeoman's Wharf" at low tide
you would be looking at the sea. But six hours later you would be
standing about 30 feet or so below the surface - or you had better have
run the 7 miles north to the high water line (near Humphrey Head Point).
The coast is nearer to the east, but not accessible because of the
river.
At Heysham the tidal area is comparatively narrow - less than a mile.
It also has a river and a harbour - the figures you quoted in another
article refer to that.
At Hest Bank you would be looking at the water at high tide and seeing
it about 3 miles away at low tide.
>>It's *flat*. What do you think happens to the water when the tide goes
>>in and out? Why do you think the tide comes in at 10 mph?
>
>It's flat here too. The tide doesnt go out very far here at all --
>certainly no 2.5 miles! The High and Low Tides for Charleston Harbor
>this last Friday were (in feet), Highs: 5.7 and 4.8; and the Lows
>were 0.4 and 0.0. And the tide doesnt come in at any 10 mph either.
It rises and falls 5 feet and you call it a tide? :-)
Presumably your "flat" bit isn't within that range. Imagine a 10 mile
square area that was about 2.5 feet below your high tide level, 2.5
miles above your low water mark.
>Your tides at Morecambe are very different and that is why they are
>famous/dangerous. Dont try to act like they are exactly like the
>tides found anywhere else.
I don't recall anyone saying they're "like anywhere else" - the whole
point of the discussion is that it's particularly dangerous. But
anywhere round Britain the tide rises and falls 30 to 40 feet. How far
it recedes depends on how the beach shelves. There are steep beachs
where it goes in and out about 50 feet, there are shallow beaches
(excluding Morecambe Bay) where it goes out more than a mile (and of
course there are cliffs where it just goes up and down) - the more
typical beaches probably go in and out about a quarter mile.
--
John F Hall
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <em8e20dh2vridj5jc...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>So let me get this straight. If I stood at Yeoman's Wharf or Heysham,
>>at low tide, I could walk 2.5 miles directly out to sea and not come
>>to any water?
>
>You appear to be misinterpreting the maps. The blue coloured areas are
>those that are permanently wet, the sandy coloured areas those that are
>dry at low tide and wet at high tide, and the white areas those that are
>permanently dry.
I looked specifically for the color key, but found none on the maps I
was looking at.
>
>So if you were standing at the point marked "Yeoman's Wharf" at low tide
>you would be looking at the sea. But six hours later you would be
>standing about 30 feet or so below the surface - or you had better have
>run the 7 miles north to the high water line (near Humphrey Head Point).
>The coast is nearer to the east, but not accessible because of the
>river.
That makes sense. What do you know, if anything, about the flow of
these rivers? I guessed that at high tide their flow contributes to
the excessive tidal rise.
>
>At Heysham the tidal area is comparatively narrow - less than a mile.
>It also has a river and a harbour - the figures you quoted in another
>article refer to that.
>
>At Hest Bank you would be looking at the water at high tide and seeing
>it about 3 miles away at low tide.
>
>>>It's *flat*. What do you think happens to the water when the tide goes
>>>in and out? Why do you think the tide comes in at 10 mph?
>>
>>It's flat here too. The tide doesnt go out very far here at all --
>>certainly no 2.5 miles! The High and Low Tides for Charleston Harbor
>>this last Friday were (in feet), Highs: 5.7 and 4.8; and the Lows
>>were 0.4 and 0.0. And the tide doesnt come in at any 10 mph either.
>
>It rises and falls 5 feet and you call it a tide? :-)
That is a typical tide in my experience for areas on the west and east
coasts.
>
>Presumably your "flat" bit isn't within that range. Imagine a 10 mile
>square area that was about 2.5 feet below your high tide level, 2.5
>miles above your low water mark.
>
>>Your tides at Morecambe are very different and that is why they are
>>famous/dangerous. Dont try to act like they are exactly like the
>>tides found anywhere else.
>
>I don't recall anyone saying they're "like anywhere else" - the whole
>point of the discussion is that it's particularly dangerous. But
>anywhere round Britain the tide rises and falls 30 to 40 feet.
This doesnt seem to be the case unless I selected an extremely skewed
sample. See Charts at end of this post.
>How far
>it recedes depends on how the beach shelves. There are steep beachs
>where it goes in and out about 50 feet, there are shallow beaches
>(excluding Morecambe Bay) where it goes out more than a mile (and of
>course there are cliffs where it just goes up and down) - the more
>typical beaches probably go in and out about a quarter mile.
I have seen some very low tides here where you can walk out quite a
ways, but the water is still present, although considerably shallow.
I think the original point of confusion in this bit was the notion
that these cockleshell harvesters were following the tide out to right
where it ended and thus doing something very risky. I dont think that
was the case, but I could be wrong. I think they ventured out on the
mudflats near Hest and were surprised by the rapid onset and depth of
the high tide. Part of my hypothesis is that once the high tide
starts to build, it shuts off the flow from the rivers which then
overflow their banks and contribute to the flooding. If you look at
the article about the Bay of Fundy, I think you will see that there
are several tidal influences and not all of them pertain to a flat
tidal bed.
__________________________________________________
[UK tides]
I selected various areas around Britain including areas from the
south, east, north and west, excluding Hest which I posted yesterday.
None of these areas show a 30 foot increase at high tide and most seem
to be in the vicinity of 15 feet or so.
Postsmouth
Tue 10th Feb 2004
01:45 4.58m 07:04 0.92m
13:52 4.56m 19:22 0.76m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
02:26 4.56m 07:42 1.00m
14:34 4.47m 20:02 0.88m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
03:08 4.49m 08:23 1.14m
15:20 4.33m 20:44 1.06m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
03:56 4.38m 09:12 1.33m
16:14 4.15m 21:39 1.33m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
04:52 4.22m 10:17 1.54m
17:20 3.98m 22:52 1.60m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
06:01 4.06m 11:42 1.67m
18:44 3.88m
Mon 16th Feb 2004
00:19 1.73m 07:26 3.99m
13:05 1.62m 20:17 3.96m
_______________
Immingham
Tue 10th Feb 2004
02:40 0.98m 08:28 6.84m
14:40 1.37m 20:33 7.19m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
03:15 1.10m 09:05 6.69m
15:15 1.53m 21:09 7.05m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
03:49 1.30m 09:44 6.47m
15:51 1.75m 21:50 6.82m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
04:26 1.59m 10:29 6.19m
16:34 2.02m 22:41 6.50m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
05:14 1.94m 11:27 5.91m
17:31 2.32m 23:49 6.13m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
06:23 2.28m 12:44 5.73m
18:54 2.50m
Mon 16th Feb 2004
01:21 5.92m 07:53 2.43m
14:14 5.80m 20:31 2.37m
_____________________
KINLOCHBERVIE
Tue 10th Feb 2004
03:37 1.00m 09:39 4.87m
16:11 0.81m 22:10 4.51m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
04:15 1.12m 10:18 4.73m
16:49 0.97m 22:55 4.34m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
04:56 1.31m 11:03 4.51m
17:34 1.21m 23:47 4.15m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
05:45 1.57m 11:58 4.25m
18:27 1.51m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
00:50 3.96m 06:49 1.84m
13:11 3.99m 19:39 1.78m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
02:11 3.87m 08:14 2.00m
14:47 3.86m 21:12 1.90m
Mon 16th Feb 2004
03:36 3.95m 09:54 1.91m
16:19 3.96m 22:36 1.79m
_______________
MILLPORT
Tue 10th Feb 2004
02:59 3.10m 08:14 0.58m
14:54 3.57m 20:30 0.42m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
03:33 3.09m 08:54 0.62m
15:32 3.55m 21:12 0.46m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
04:08 3.06m 09:37 0.70m
16:11 3.48m 22:00 0.55m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
04:48 3.01m 10:29 0.81m
16:57 3.36m 22:57 0.70m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
05:34 2.93m 11:37 0.94m
17:52 3.18m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
00:08 0.87m 06:37 2.84m
12:57 0.99m 19:05 3.02m
Mon 16th Feb 2004
01:28 0.99m 08:10 2.81m
14:17 0.92m 20:38 2.94m
___________________
NEWLYN
Tue 10th Feb 2004
01:29 0.89m 07:08 5.47m
13:53 0.89m 19:28 5.20m
Wed 11th Feb 2004
02:06 0.98m 07:46 5.36m
14:30 1.03m 20:07 5.06m
Thu 12th Feb 2004
02:44 1.16m 08:26 5.18m
15:11 1.25m 20:49 4.87m
Fri 13th Feb 2004
03:27 1.39m 09:12 4.94m
15:58 1.51m 21:43 4.65m
Sat 14th Feb 2004
04:22 1.65m 10:11 4.66m
17:00 1.76m 22:52 4.46m
Sun 15th Feb 2004
05:37 1.85m 11:30 4.43m
18:20 1.90m
Mon 16th Feb 2004
00:22 4.42m 07:05 1.85m
13:07 4.41m 19:50 1.81m
___________________
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/?port=0001
Oak
Arthur Figgis
>Of course I am not familiar with your laws, but here is our definition
>of depraved indifference to human life murder:
>
>"The count is Murder in the Second Degree. Under our law, a person is
We don't have degrees of murder in England & Wales (I've no idea about
Scotland).
There is negligence here, and also corporate manslaughter, which has
proved difficult to prosecute people for and has perhaps made
arse-covering more important than problem solving in some areas.
O...@oak-invalid.com
Well I hope you at least appreciate the concept of murder related to a
depraved indifference to human life as such acts without question
occur in the UK and one would think that they would be prosecuted.
Perhaps the thing to do in this instance would be to crosspost this
topic to the UK-Legal group to get a professional/informed opinion.
Oak
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10 Feb 2004 00:48:01 GMT, j...@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall)
>wrote:
>>You appear to be misinterpreting the maps. The blue coloured areas are
>>those that are permanently wet, the sandy coloured areas those that are
>>dry at low tide and wet at high tide, and the white areas those that are
>>permanently dry.
>
>I looked specifically for the color key, but found none on the maps I
>was looking at.
They're just the conventional colours - blue for sea and sand for beach,
i.e. the area between the high and low water marks, though the latter
includes mud and pebbles as well as literal sand, (more detailed maps
might distinguish those).
>That makes sense. What do you know, if anything, about the flow of
>these rivers? I guessed that at high tide their flow contributes to
>the excessive tidal rise.
Those particular rivers - not much. However that is a bay not just a
tidal estuary. The sea water would completely dominate, though at low
tide, the sea water would withdraw and leave the river water to fill the
channels.
I have holidayed in river estuaries and they're quite distinctive.
Although the water is salt the boundary with the sea is surpringly
visible. There is often a distinct surf line and in one place I stayed
there was a distinct colour change in the water (probably caused by
suspended particles in the river water which were dispersed as soon as
it hit the true sea). River estuaries are rarely over a mile wide
though there are exceptions such as the Thames and the Severn (depending
on where they as defined as ending).
Of course as it's winter the rivers would be in spate.
>>It rises and falls 5 feet and you call it a tide? :-)
>
>That is a typical tide in my experience for areas on the west and east
>coasts.
It hardly seems worth mentioning :-).
>>But anywhere round Britain the tide rises and falls 30 to 40 feet.
>
>This doesnt seem to be the case unless I selected an extremely skewed
>sample. See Charts at end of this post.
Actually I wondered after I wrote it how typical it was. There
certainly are 40 foot tides but you would need the right conditions,
probably 20-30 are more typical of those I was thinking of - but I was
brought up in Cardiff in the Bristol Channel, which has been remarked to
have strong tides. The tides vary according to whether the sun and noon
are aligned ("spring tides") or not ("neap tides"). They also depend on
the Atlantic weather. Those you quote seem low so I assume we are in a
"neap" period and the Atlantic is calm.
--
John F Hall
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>Well I hope you at least appreciate the concept of murder related to a
>depraved indifference to human life as such acts without question
>occur in the UK and one would think that they would be prosecuted.
Not a lawyer's view, but my understanding is that killings are divided
here into murder where there is "malice aforethought" or manslaughter
where it was reckless or negligent (and should have been avoided) - but
the "malice" only needs an intention to harm, not necessarily to kill.
Below that is accidental death, not considered blameworthy, and
justifiable homicide where the victim was being a serious threat. There
can be manslaughter "due to diminished responsibility", where the killer
was in an abnormal mental state (and so incapable of having "malice").
There is also the specific offence of "causing death by dangerous
driving", though the more serious cases may still be prosecuted as
manslaughter.
I feel that "depraved indifference" could fall into murder or
manslaughter depending on whether there was any intention to harm - and
I also feel that a foreseeable result that a deliberate reckless act
would cause harm would count as sufficient "intent".
--
John F Hall
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <s2hg20df1j3k66b5k...@4ax.com>,
> <O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>>On 10 Feb 2004 00:48:01 GMT, j...@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall)
>>wrote:
>
<snip>
>I have holidayed in river estuaries and they're quite distinctive.
>Although the water is salt the boundary with the sea is surpringly
>visible. There is often a distinct surf line and in one place I stayed
>there was a distinct colour change in the water (probably caused by
>suspended particles in the river water which were dispersed as soon as
>it hit the true sea). River estuaries are rarely over a mile wide
>though there are exceptions such as the Thames and the Severn (depending
>on where they as defined as ending).
I have taken courses in biology and zoology where we took field trips
to the salt marshes and mudflats of SF Bay and Monterey Bay. On some
of the salt marshes near Palo Alto, they have raised wooden walks
about 3-4 feet above the marsh and they are a good means of
investigating the area without damaging the environment. I would hate
to imagine the size of similar walks on Morecambe Bay. :-)
>
>Of course as it's winter the rivers would be in spate.
>
>>>It rises and falls 5 feet and you call it a tide? :-)
>>
>>That is a typical tide in my experience for areas on the west and east
>>coasts.
>
>It hardly seems worth mentioning :-).
Tell that to our tidal crabs and anemones. :-)
>
>>>But anywhere round Britain the tide rises and falls 30 to 40 feet.
>>
>>This doesnt seem to be the case unless I selected an extremely skewed
>>sample. See Charts at end of this post.
>
>Actually I wondered after I wrote it how typical it was. There
>certainly are 40 foot tides but you would need the right conditions,
>probably 20-30 are more typical of those I was thinking of - but I was
>brought up in Cardiff in the Bristol Channel, which has been remarked to
>have strong tides. The tides vary according to whether the sun and noon
>are aligned ("spring tides") or not ("neap tides"). They also depend on
>the Atlantic weather. Those you quote seem low so I assume we are in a
>"neap" period and the Atlantic is calm.
Yes certain conditions over here will cause our tides to grow large,
we call these conditions, hurricanes. :-)
I have been trying to find topographic maps of Morecambe Bay, but
without any luck. I would be interested in finding out a bit more
about Britain's geological history and particularly what your
continental shelf is like.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <cbci2096964lto899...@4ax.com>,
I would think it would fall under your manslaughter since "depraved
indifference" suggests an absence of intention or malice. I remember
reading a radical comic book, Freddy the Freeloader I think, where
they had these episodes of cockroaches dressed up as soldiers.
Typically, a lower ranking cockroach soldier would rush up to one of
the generals and report a massacre where hundreds of cockroaches were
killed. The invariable reply was, That's okay, we got millions more.
:-) Such an attitude, if applied to migrant workers, might constitute
the depraved indifference I am talking about.
Oak
John F Hall
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote:
>I have been trying to find topographic maps of Morecambe Bay, but
>without any luck. I would be interested in finding out a bit more
>about Britain's geological history and particularly what your
>continental shelf is like.
The continental shelf ends quite a long way away - the other side of
Ireland :-).
--
John F Hall
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>In article <1m7j20lfsg7nj751g...@4ax.com>,
LOL I should of thoughta that myself.
Oak