The Lemon Fool

Hmmm... AIUI any fule is free to pilot their death trap of a boat out to sea. There are endless anecdotes of narrowboats crossing the channel or the Wash, loons setting out to sea in a bathtub, and idiots being rescued from five miles out from their rubber duck bought from a seafront novelty shop.

No this ark is obviously not seaworthy being mounted in a steel tray/pontoon suitable only for harbours and inland waterways, but by what law has it been restrained from setting out to sea?

One for the legal board, I'd say...

Mike4 wrote:Hmmm... AIUI any fule is free to pilot their death trap of a boat out to sea. There are endless anecdotes of narrowboats crossing the channel or the Wash, loons setting out to sea in a bathtub, and idiots being rescued from five miles out from their rubber duck bought from a seafront novelty shop.

No this ark is obviously not seaworthy being mounted in a steel tray/pontoon suitable only for harbours and inland waterways, but by what law has it been restrained from setting out to sea?

One for the legal board, I'd say...

The link to https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/noahs-ark-i ... nt-8021138 in the BBC article says (among other things) that the Maritime & Coastguard Agency does not consider it seaworthy, and that:

The detention report, seen by this newspaper, suggests the Ark arrived with legally-required load line certificates missing, no tonnage information, and a range of other concerns such as overdue services for fire equipment, life jackets and life crafts.

Its owners, who had planned to leave by March 31, said the Ark has always been categorised as a “non-certified floating object” not required to comply with international regulation. ...
...
Under UK maritime laws, it is mandatory for ships longer than 24m to have certificates specifying the ‘load line’ - a marking indicating the hull of a ship and legal loading limit for different water types and temperatures.

So if you want to attempt suicide by narrowboat, bathtub or rubber duck, it seems that you should take care to ensure that it's less than 24 metres in length!

Gengulphus

I think these objects should not be allowed to set out because if as seems likely something goes wrong, they will presumably expect to be rescued. Why should the RNLI or the Coastguard have to be put to the trouble and expense if it can be avoided?

S I am not sure about Health & Safety but it could be called 'Against the Public Interest' I think.

Dod

Well if the Flood Myth is to be believed I think Mr Noah and his contemporaries and animals had much bigger concerns to worry about than the health and safety legislation of the day. On balance, I'd say he made the right call.

moorfield wrote:Well if the Flood Myth is to be believed …

Aren’t you rather prejudging potential believers?

Whether any law was broken or not, one feels that surely to God there should have been one!

It all very well for us to insist on having "freedom" to do silly things, but one does also have to consider those who will be expected to rescue idiots at sea, many of whom risk their lives voluntarily.

I admit it's a difficult slippery slope, and I would guess most of us would be happy to leave it to the judgement of our much maligned authorities to make a judgement call. They won't always get it right in the public's view, but I think they may have done so here.


Arb.

There was no health and safety in Noah's time. The Ark was built to God's design, though, so there would not have been any problems. Health and Safety would never have allowed the woodworms on board.

Julian F. G. W.

jfgw wrote:There was no health and safety in Noah's time. The Ark was built to God's design, though, so there would not have been any problems. Health and Safety would never have allowed the woodworms on board.

Julian F. G. W.

OK
- so why were the unicorns not allowed on?

- sd

servodude wrote:

jfgw wrote:There was no health and safety in Noah's time. The Ark was built to God's design, though, so there would not have been any problems. Health and Safety would never have allowed the woodworms on board.

Julian F. G. W.

OK
- so why were the unicorns not allowed on?

- sd

It was them nasty pointy spikes, obvs....

Hope that helps.

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:

jfgw wrote:There was no health and safety in Noah's time. The Ark was built to God's design, though, so there would not have been any problems. Health and Safety would never have allowed the woodworms on board.

Julian F. G. W.

OK
- so why were the unicorns not allowed on?

- sd

It was them nasty pointy spikes, obvs....

Hope that helps.

So you could have elephants but not rhinoponies?
Doesn't seem fair

servodude wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:
OK
- so why were the unicorns not allowed on?

It was them nasty pointy spikes, obvs....

Hope that helps.

So you could have elephants but not rhinoponies?
Doesn't seem fair

Last time I looked at elephants in their natural state, most of them had two nasty pointy spikes at the front. So I think a more sophisticated explanation for the exclusion of the unicorns is needed...

Edit: Perhaps it was the odd nasty pointy spikes. Narwhals had those as well, but of course they had no need to get on board...

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:

servodude wrote:

Mike4 wrote:It was them nasty pointy spikes, obvs....

Hope that helps.

So you could have elephants but not rhinoponies?
Doesn't seem fair

Last time I looked at elephants in their natural state, most of them had two nasty pointy spikes at the front. So I think a more sophisticated explanation for the exclusion of the unicorns is needed...

Edit: Perhaps it was the odd nasty pointy spikes. Narwhals had those as well, but of course they had no need to get on board...

Gengulphus

I think you might be on to something!

A singular odd bias could also explain the lack of cyclopes ?

-sd

H&S went mad and OTT years ago
It is now an industry
here's one example
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/now ... 93736.html
We are bringing up a generation of wimps

pje16 wrote:H&S went mad and OTT years ago
It is now an industry
here's one example
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/now ... 93736.html
We are bringing up a generation of wimps

Could this be the reason?

"More than two in five (42%) said there was a fear of being sued if something went wrong in a game."

XFool wrote:"More than two in five (42%) said there was a fear of being sued if something went wrong in a game."

Sadly you are probaly right
Oh Puhleeeze
The "sue culture" that we have adopted from The USA
These days (well the past decade or so) if there is ANY type of mishap today NOTHING is ever your fault
There MUST be somelse to blame somewhere and my wallet is interested
Oh FFS - MAN UP

pje16 wrote:

XFool wrote:"More than two in five (42%) said there was a fear of being sued if something went wrong in a game."

Sadly you are probaly right
Oh Puhleeeze
The "sue culture" that we have adopted from The USA
These days (well the past decade or so) if there is ANY type of mishap today NOTHING is ever your fault
There MUST be somelse to blame somewhere and my wallet is interested
Oh FFS - MAN UP

Seems to me that's a typical media scare story, rather than a true reflection of society. Have you actually heard of a teacher or school being sued because a child was injured playing conkers?

What if they'd reported the survey as "Surprisingly, more than 80% of schools said they hadn't banned the playing of conkers, and more than 90% haven't banned leap frog." Puts a different angle on it, doesn't it?

Scott.

..."Man bites dog"?

Bunch of namby pamby mollycoddled wimps we're cultivating these days. And no wonder, I suppose, now that the birth rate's dropped so low? Back in the good old days, when school playgrounds did things properly, a regular cull of the participants was seen as God's benign contribution to the essential task of reducing the damn numbers.

https://clickamericana.com/toys-and-gam ... w-survived . Most of numbers 13 to 26 were present in my 1950s childhood, with the added thrill of an asphalt ground surface that would afford you no mercy if you fell. Number 17 could take your leg off, and occasionally did. I imagine that number 23 could always be repurposed for public executions.

It's a good job that history is written by the survivors.

BJ

Some look familiar, or in my day as a kid (60s) there were variations of
21 looks like fun
and I can just imagine getting stuck in No.30