In article , David Pearson
wrote:
In message , Allan Bennett
writes

So, Mr Hawkesworth: now that the EA have admitted that some of their
structures are a danger to river-users (such as racing paddlers - the
guide does not recognise racing or touring paddlers as canoeists!!!) -
with "the inevitable risk of drowning", and acknowledge their liability -
what does the BCU propose to do to ensure the weirs are made safe?

Er ... I hate to expose the logic

Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice. Elbert Hubbard

Is that the ligic to which you refer, possibly?

(and indeed admit that someone other than you two is reading this), but if
it's an EA "admission" and "liability", why do you imagine the BCU can
"make the weirs safe"? Should you not be addressing your question to the
EA?

No. The BCU is the body representing canoeing and canoeists. It is their
job. Or are they happy to see their members being sucked over weirs and
drowned?

Doesn't make much commercial sense, really, does it?

And you have taken out-of-context what I wrote: in fact I didn't even write
"make the weirs safe" at all!

Now, to expose the logic: the BCU no longer have to make the case regarding
the safety of these structures - they should simply refer to this document
and get the EA - or whoever - to ensure they are made safe.

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll

But, I suppose the trade-off policy (apparent to all but the blind and
blinkered) is that the BCU hold fire on the safety bits because of all the
play areas and licenses being provided...

How will that look for canoeing when we hear of the next fatality?





Allan Bennett
Not a fan of Manly's Maxim


--