Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think this charity deserve prosecution for being so bloody stupid?

298 replies

Fucklechuck · 02/01/2023 21:48

Just seen this in the news and went down a rabbit hole reading the whole story plus comments on their FB.

They took a bunch of young kids on a frozen lake (apparently without parental consent) and tried to justify it as a safety lesson despite clearly having no understanding themselves of the actual dangers. For example they're claiming the entire lake was frozen over with 2ft thick ice - no, it definitely wasn't, not in the south west of the UK, it's just not that cold in this country even in the recent cold snap. That's just impossible.

Their comments on their FB page are shockingly blasé and they've even been liking other people's comments saying that vaccines are a bigger danger to children than this was Hmm

Just can't believe anyone would be so stupid less than a week after the tragedy in Solihull Sad and then to take to social media calling it a knee jerk overreaction to suspend their license until an investigation is complete shows a total lack of regard for the most basic H&S or risk assessment processes. I actually hope their registration to look after children is revoked by whoever has such powers!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
TightFistedWozerk · 05/01/2023 16:42

Good points, Clymene. I have had a rethink.

BoobsOnTheMoon · 05/01/2023 16:48

I get the impression that they just don't understand "risk" very well.

It's all very well saying "nobody got hurt so it was safe and our risk assessment worked" (which is pretty much verbatim what they've said).

But risk doesn't work like that. We all know people who have walked away from head on car crashes, or smoked 50 a day and lived to be 96, or fall off their bike without a helmet but escape serious head injuries etc etc.

That doesn't make those things safe.

Risk =/= destiny.

But that's obviously not something they (and an awful lot of the population tbh) can actually grasp.

ImustLearn2Cook · 05/01/2023 22:13

I just finished reading the full thread. I agree with you @Fucklechuck and the majority of pp.

They put those children at serious risk, are trivialising the actual risk and regarding themselves or the leader of this activity as having a much higher level of expertise than they actually have which is dangerous in and of itself.

He estimates the thickness of the ice by the estimated depth of the lake and the length of time being below 0 degrees. According to experts the thickness of the ice will be determined by many factors including the area of exposed water and sediment etc.

For anyone who is interested
I thought I’d post an article that does have expert information about how to recognise ice that is safe to walk on. And after reading this there is a lot that could be learned from observation from the shoreline and not walking on the ice and not by feel.

www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/amp/news/article/how-thick-does-ice-have-to-get-to-be-safe-to-walk-or-skate-on

Is it safe? How thick does ice need to be to walk or skate on?
Scott Sutherland
Meteorologist/Science Writer
Monday, 21 November 2022 8:37 PM

Pay close attention to the colour of ice before you step out onto it!

We can do a few things to tell the thickness of the ice on any body of water.

We can cut or drill down into the ice to take direct measurements. This is definitely the fastest way and the one that involves the least amount of guessing. There's one problem, though: you actually need to walk out onto the ice to do this. So, you could immediately be putting yourself in danger if the ice isn't thick enough to support your weight.

We can do a lot of physics and mathematics to determine the exact freezing rate of that particular body of water and exactly how long the water has been exposed to below freezing temperatures, and the effects of wind-chill. This process is quite complicated, however. It can easily vary from body of water to body of water, depending on the area of the exposed water surface, the depth of the water, the presence of moving water or currents, and the exact contents of the water, such as sediments, salt, chemicals, etc.

There is one easy way to get a reasonable estimate of the ice thickness, which can be performed safely from the shoreline, without needing to get out a calculator. We can look at the ice colour.

The strongest and safest colour of ice is either blue or black. This is the ice that forms as the surface of the lake or pond directly freezes in cold weather. As a result, it is very dense. This is where the ice thicknesses mentioned by the Canadian Red Cross come in. Blue ice must be at least 15 cm thick to be safe to walk on. If a group of people are venturing out onto it, 20 cm thick is safe. At least 25 cm thick is best for snowmobiling, and it should be even thicker for bigger vehicles — 30 cm or more for cars and light trucks, and 40-50 cm thick for anything larger.

(The actual image didn’t copy on Mumsnet)
Blue-Ice
This is what a frozen lake or pond should look like if you plan on skating on it. The dark blue ice is dense, strong, and the safest ice to venture out onto.

If the ice is opaque white, it can appear safe, but that is not necessarily the case.

White ice or 'snow ice' is white because it forms when a layer of wet snow freezes on top of blue ice that has already formed. Snow layers contain a lot of air, which end up as air bubbles trapped in the ice structure. While it can be reasonably thick, the presence of these air bubbles weakens the ice, so it may not be safe to walk on. It is still the thickness of the blue ice underneath that determines, ultimately, whether it is safe to stand on.

Be extremely cautious about venturing out onto white ice. This is especially true if there have been recent swings between warm and cold weather or if there is moving water under the ice. Also, if there is a layer of fresh snow atop the ice, the snow may be concealing thin ice underneath. Snow on top of ice also acts as insulation, trapping heat that will prevent the blue ice from growing thicker.

ImustLearn2Cook · 05/01/2023 22:20

I also think that picture of the child and the saw is concerning.

They are clearly close enough that all it would take is for that child to suddenly swing their arm up and to the side for them to be seriously injured.

My dd used a saw like that at the age of 4 or 5 with an adult who knew what they were doing at a country fair. We still have that piece of log she cut. So, I am ok with activities like this if they are led by responsible adults.

Fucklechuck · 07/01/2023 08:12

Oh sweet jesus Shock

Someone commented asking how they knew the ice was 2ft thick.

The response? "Because I know this body of water very well and have spent 7 years going in and around that water and the day before people had been throwing big rocks in and from those rocks you could see the layers of thick ice formed down and around it"

Literally unbelievable that they would be so stupid as to put stuff like that in the public domain as justification.

To think this charity deserve prosecution for being so bloody stupid?
OP posts:
BlandSoup · 07/01/2023 08:30

Regardless of whether it was safe or not, it is highly highly insensitive to the families whose children died on the other lake.

There are other ways to look at ice. Like smashing it with a hammer, trying to saw it or whatever. All could be done from the edge.

SamphirethePogoingStickerist · 07/01/2023 08:40

TightFistedWozerk · 05/01/2023 15:17

I have looked at the other stuff they offer at this place, it looks great, coppercraft, skinning and tanning, connecting people with nature and the landscape, a course on building tinyhouses, a school edible garden project, meaningful activities for adults with carers; I think the ice thing they totally miscalculated and made a massive misstep, so to speak.
I can see why the FC want to throw out the bathwater but it would be a shame to throw out the baby, too (Mixing my metaphors madly, here)

That's the general opinion of the place, except for the usual few who grump about 'kids in my day' etc.

Like many others who have seen it in action from slightly afar I am somewhat gobsmacked at Scott's reaction, especially if the Forestry England statement is precisely what was said, asked for.

FE would have little choice given their wider remit. I don't think people who have been here appreciate just how wild, dense and dangerous many areas of a proper forest actually are, especially one with a centuries old mining history. Not to mention the wild boar 🐗

Letitrainletitrainletitrain · 07/01/2023 08:46

Fucklechuck · 07/01/2023 08:12

Oh sweet jesus Shock

Someone commented asking how they knew the ice was 2ft thick.

The response? "Because I know this body of water very well and have spent 7 years going in and around that water and the day before people had been throwing big rocks in and from those rocks you could see the layers of thick ice formed down and around it"

Literally unbelievable that they would be so stupid as to put stuff like that in the public domain as justification.

Am I misreading that or are they saying that the day before people had thrown rocks in that had gone through the ice and so they could see the layers?

I really hope I'm misleading that because the chances of a random member of the public throwing in a rock that weighs more than say a 7 year old (20-30 kg) is fairly slim, and the chances often throwing a rock that weighed more than the adults who went on the ice is none existent

So what they are actually saying (if I'm reading it right which I hope I'm not) is that the day before something of a similar to, or lower weight than a child went through the ice the day before they went on it

knittingaddict · 07/01/2023 09:00

Fraine · 02/01/2023 23:44

If the parents gave permission then I don’t see an issue.

The lake was shallow and the ice was 2ft deep, and they were with trained staff. This would be normal in Norway.

I think this must win a prize for most ignorant post so far.

I might have escaped your notice but this didn't happen in bloody Norway. It happened in temperate England, where no body of frozen water is safe to walk on.

Honestly the sheer stupidly of some of the posts on here is breathtaking.

Clymene · 07/01/2023 09:07

That's how I read it too @Letitrainletitrainletitrain

I'm not sure it quite conveys the message he meant

Refreshmentsanyone · 07/01/2023 09:13

Realityisreal · 02/01/2023 22:34

When they say waist deep do they mean for a 6ft adult or a 4ft child? If someone fell through they wouldn't necessarily stay upright and land on their feet, they could slide at an angle and end up fully submerged.
The stupidity is really overwhelming and also, them being a charity does not mean we should assume they can't make mistakes.

They didn’t some poster on here said that. They said it was 3ft deep so even if the 2ft ice broke they could just walk out.

I think they have a good point that doing something “dangerous” with adults emphasises the risks and stops kids making stupid decisions in their own.p

HaroldsHoodie · 07/01/2023 09:17

They said that if any child fell through, they could just wade out and walk around to warm up (or some such utterly stupid nonsense).

Talia99 · 07/01/2023 09:33

Refreshmentsanyone · 07/01/2023 09:13

They didn’t some poster on here said that. They said it was 3ft deep so even if the 2ft ice broke they could just walk out.

I think they have a good point that doing something “dangerous” with adults emphasises the risks and stops kids making stupid decisions in their own.p

Except they took the children back there that afternoon and they promptly got away from the adult and ran onto the ice.

It appears taking them on the ice (which is crazy in this country anyway) had the exact opposite effect.

user1471447863 · 07/01/2023 11:08

@Fucklechuck wow, he clearly thinks he is untouchable or above everything. After making such a serious error of judgement and getting publicly called out on it you'd have to be seriously thick (or have a god complex) to then go and publicly discredit the whole basis of why you were right & it was safe!

So as expected they had no idea of the thickness of ice (and everyone with half a brain knows it wasn't 2 foot thick) and they cot away with it by luck not good judgement.

"Because I know this body of water very well and have spent 7 years going in and around that water" What relevance does that have to actual thickness of ice on that day? It's not a regular enough occurrence to be able to say that by this point in the winter season ice is at least x" thick.
"and the day before people had been throwing big rocks in and from those rocks you could see the layers of thick ice formed down and around it" sounds like rocks were going through (and by rocks probably big stones rather than boulders). Nor does he say the broken ice was a 2 foot thick layer either, so there mush have been one hell of a freeze that night 🤔

At least he is helping dig his own grave now

user1471447863 · 07/01/2023 11:21

"In fact this is not even a 'risky' activity because there was zero risk of death or lifelong injury"
He is clearly not competent to perform risk assessments. What an absolute idiot

To think this charity deserve prosecution for being so bloody stupid?
marcopront · 07/01/2023 11:26

user1471447863 · 07/01/2023 11:21

"In fact this is not even a 'risky' activity because there was zero risk of death or lifelong injury"
He is clearly not competent to perform risk assessments. What an absolute idiot

Is he unaware that four children died doing the same thing a few days before.

Talia99 · 07/01/2023 11:26

Also ,it’s not ‘dangerous’ in quotes, it’s objectively actually dangerous according to multiple actual experts.

If you go through ice, if you don’t slip under the unbroken ice and drown, the shock of the water can kill and if that doesn’t do it, hypothermia after you are pulled out will. At least one of the children in Solihull was rescued alive from the water - he didn’t die until later in hospital so even the best medical care couldn’t save him. The idea the children would be fine because they could spend 5 minutes walking back to the warm (in that ludicrous risk assessment drafted after this went public) is crazy.

Letitrainletitrainletitrain · 07/01/2023 11:28

marcopront · 07/01/2023 11:26

Is he unaware that four children died doing the same thing a few days before.

He apparently wasnt aware at the time of the activity, but he certainly was at the time of writing that comment and he certainly was when he put that the risk and severity of hypothermia was lower from falling through ice into a lake than from taking a walk in the rain

Fucklechuck · 07/01/2023 12:33

user1471447863 · 07/01/2023 11:21

"In fact this is not even a 'risky' activity because there was zero risk of death or lifelong injury"
He is clearly not competent to perform risk assessments. What an absolute idiot

Well that's just silly. Nothing has "zero risk" - not even going to bed or cutting your own toenails, and especially not taking a group of children onto an iced over flooded opencast mine of uneven depth without doing any proper check of the ice thickness and without doing any kind of risk assessment beforehand Hmm

OP posts:
Forthelast · 07/01/2023 14:42

Refreshmentsanyone · 07/01/2023 09:13

They didn’t some poster on here said that. They said it was 3ft deep so even if the 2ft ice broke they could just walk out.

I think they have a good point that doing something “dangerous” with adults emphasises the risks and stops kids making stupid decisions in their own.p

There are signs around the lake warning that it shelves down quickly and it's been established there is a deeper trench intersecting the lake.

The idea about children and risk taking is an interesting one but these children followed up their permitted walk over the ice with a refusal to listen to the leader (now in sole charge) and a second walk over the ice, in defiance of the new instructions which they knew were being given for their safety. It's really important that we don't get so carried about by the beauty of a new theory that we overlook what actually happened. This experiment, which would never pass an ethics committee but now exists as a teachable moment, demonstrates that some children are probably more likely to go onto frozen lakes if they've been taken on them before, relative to children who have been warned never to go on frozen lakes.

Clymene · 07/01/2023 15:11

If he wants the FC to reinstate their support, he's going a really odd way about it.

marcopront · 07/01/2023 15:19

Clymene · 07/01/2023 15:11

If he wants the FC to reinstate their support, he's going a really odd way about it.

Do you think he models himself on Prince Harry?

CremeEggsForBreakfast · 11/01/2023 16:59

Just had another peruse of the comments section on their post as I was interested in the responses to the comment regarding rocks being the measure of ice thickness. The comment was deleted along with another that I was following where Scott had said that as "nothing happened" it "wasn't even a near miss".

I asked outright if they were deleting comments and lo and behold, that's deleted and commenting has been turned off.

It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying that rather than back down they delete evidence of their negligence.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page