The Selfish, Stupidity of People

[Motorsport Mickey]

The accident is bad enough but to have such offensive words and description used in the title and repeated again later in the post shows no empathy to people who suffer and are burdened by descriptions such as these of it. They deserve to have it reported to a moderator...Oh wait !

Mick Richards

[boxofbits]

I can see Rob’s logic that in isolation the accident was not directly attributable to lockdown.

If someone crashed at 120 mph causing a major incident then a member of the emergency services was badly injured during the rescue operation, that would also be due to breaking the rules but wouldn’t attract such headline attention. Accidents due to negligence, recklessness, drunkenness etc are probably more commonplace than any other and those emergency service personnel in attendance are unfortunately always at risk of injury or even death. 
 

It is nevertheless a tragedy that this rescuer was badly injured.

Kevin

[JohnG]

11 hours ago, RobH said:

I understand what you are saying John but the argument comes more from emotion than from logic.  Yes if no-one climbs hills, no-one needs rescue. However, if there was no lockdown and they had made the same trip it would still have happened.   Breaking lockdown was not the cause, at most it was an aggravating factor.

As I said -  the only way to prevent such accidents is to stop anyone climbing hills. Are you going to advocate that once the lockdown is over? 

Rob, from my percpective, my arguement is entirely logical.

At no point have I claimed that Lockdown was the cause of the incident

Lets look at facts;

Were the climbers on the mountain?  Yes

Under current law, were they there legally?  No, unless you consider;

- Leicester to Patterdale necessary travel

- Joining a person, not from your household and with whom you are not in a'bubble'

both legal and acceptable

You say; "if there was no lockdown and they had made the same trip it would still have happened"

That may well be the case, but, by the same token, IF I had been 10 seconds earlier or later reaching a road junction in Wallingford in 1969, I wouldn't have had a guy run me over, BUT, I wasn't and he did.

You cannot measure life or law by IF.

IF can be a very big word.

The LAW on the day the incident happened, prohibited their being on the mountain, but, they chose to go, knowing that they shouldn't.

Had they not been there, the Mountain Rescue team would not have been called out to them and no one sould have been injured.

As a result, IMHO, the injury to the rescue climber was caused by either the selfishness or ignorant (or both) actions of the 2 camping climbers involved.

The people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves as should anyone who tries to defend their actions.

(Rob, I am NOT suggesting that you are doing any defending)

I agree that, outside the current lockdown conditions, this type of incident still happens, but, when was the last time a rescue climber in the UK suffered life changing injuries, during a rescue?

I can't remember.

 

 

11 hours ago, RogerH said:

I can see both sides to this crazy event. In fact there are many sides to this.

However I feel you should all be praying for the chaps good recovery.

At present  you are looking for somebody to blame for a very unfortunate accident.

 

Roger

 

 

Roger, I'm not looking to blame anyone

Those who broke the law are responsible, plain and simple, I am still just trying to get my head around the mentality of those involved

[TRseks]

It raises the always interesting question where the limit should be on what is allowed and what is regarded as too risky. 
 

The rules and laws are constantly revised to make sure that we are “safe” as that is the favourite expression. The expression safe seems to be the key, regardless if it actually is 100% safe or just 99.99% safe or much less. The fact is that there is a risk to almost everything we do, ref the covid rules which are changed every week to keep us “safe”, I assume what they mean is not safe, but an acceptable risk.

 

Anyway there is and should be a discussion on how far we go on rules and regulations to keep us not safe, but at an acceptable risk, and where the “expression acceptable risk” is different so if if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers so you take the average of that and draw the line.

 

It is widely accepted that there is generally higher acceptance to risk when we do sport, so it is still allowed to jump out of an aeroplane with a parachute or jumping out of a 800 meter cliff also wearing a parachute, and climbing up the same mountain even if it is rather risky even compared to driving 100 mph on a U.K. motorway despite that the latter is illegal. It’s a fact that riding a motorbike is dramatically more dangerous then driving a car, so why not make that illegal too? I know some people that want that.

 

To break the lockdown to go camping is not something I would have done but we have different standards....! I guess they might get fined for it which I have no problem with.

Having said that if we should tighten every rule to keep everyone safe or “as safe as possible” all the time activities like the TT on Isle of Man would have been illegal many years ago, and so would nearly all motorsport, is that something we want? I can see both sides of this problem, I can also value the freedom to sometimes judge for myself so the balance is a difficult one to judge everywhere for everyone and at all times....!

 

Magnus

Edited February 18, 2021 by TRseks

[brian -r]

10 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

The accident is bad enough but to have such offensive words and description used in the title and repeated again later in the post shows no empathy to people who suffer and are burdened by descriptions such as these of it. They deserve to have it reported to a moderator...Oh wait !

Mick Richards

For as long as I can remember the offending word has been used in this context in everyday conversation . The use that Mick describes never entered my mind and I sincerely hope that members of this forum and indeed the club as a whole would never consider using this word to describe any person with a disability.

Brian

[john.r.davies]

Much of the above argument seems to assume that MR teams in normal times only assist grizzled and fully equipped mountaineers, who for no fault of their own have needed help to get down from some "Hard Very Severe" pitch on a hazardous route up a precipitous crag.     Sad to say, the reverse is true.  By far the most 'rescues' are of people who cannot read a map, cannot tell the time and get benighted, and cannot understand that plimsolls and a T-shirt are inadequate mountain gear.   The rest are people taken ill on the hill, who suffer minor injuries while walking, and assisting the other emergency services with access to remote homes in bad weather.       

I used to buy the annual Report from one of the Cumbria teams, to support them and because it was such an invigorating dose of 'schadenfreude'.     My favourite was a couple who, when a mist came down, rang the MR to say they were lost.      Whereabouts are you, asked the Team, hoping for some indication of where they might be.    "We're next to a wall."   They were eventually talked down by phone.

[RogerH]

54 minutes ago, wjgco said:

Roger, I'm not looking to blame anyone

Those who broke the law are responsible, plain and simple, I am still just trying to get my head around the mentality of those involved

Hi John,

this is where emotion, logic and law become twaddle.

The two campers were responsible only for breaking the law and for that they have been penalized (probably not enough though)

However they are definitely not responsible for the MR chap falling and becoming seriously injured.   The campers may have caused the MR chap to be there but had no control over his situation.  Has the nature of the incident of the accident been clearly stated - how did he come to fall off the mountain.

But the emotions boil when you consider that a pair of scrotes broke the law (probably) and in doing so a man was seriously injured. 

None of this helps Chris recover.

 

Roger

[Motorsport Mickey]

52 minutes ago, brian -r said:

For as long as I can remember the offending word has been used in this context in everyday conversation . The use that Mick describes never entered my mind and I sincerely hope that members of this forum and indeed the club as a whole would never consider using this word to describe any person with a disability.

Brian

Unfortunately Brian as parents of a disabled child I can assure you that they have been  routinely described as such (and worse) by the public and even in the past by members of our NHS. Every time this thread reappears the title slaps disabled people around the face and even though I've reported it (about 12 hours ago) and demanded we take it down so far I've had no contact or reply from our administrators or anybody else in the TR Register other than yourself. Thankyou for your supporting words. 

Apparently if you are Black or an immigrant you are allowed far more sensibilities than a British born parent and children, no doubt the TR Register is proud of it's diversity, the continued life of this thread proves it, maybe the original poster is a fan of Frankie Boyle who believes humour can be found in anything. The embaressment that a forum moderator started the thread (including it's disgusting title) and then repeated in in the post format just rubs salt in the wound and maybe shines a light on why it still allowed to continue, are they hoping it runs out of comments saving any red faces by having to close it ? As used in another post by the very same moderator 

"Lets take an eight year old wheelchair bound cerebal palsy victim, quadraplegic and can only make grunts, would you write something about how he tries to communicate ? " It's a pity the same sensibilties don't apply to all disabilities.

Mick Richards  

[John Morrison]

Thank you for all your comments.

Because a report was raised, concerning a personal post of mine, other mods were asked to adjudicate.

Under the circumstances I don't think twelve hours is too bad a response.

As regards the title, I have changed same to extract a word that inadvertantly might cause offence.

As regards the content of the thread, and staying on the point of the original post, can I confirm my disappointment that any thinking member of our forum, could in any way shape or form, think that is incident was not unavoidable, and is therefore  entirly down to two individuals.

John.

[Motorsport Mickey]

Thank you John, Ohhh...you've still left that offending word in your very first post also...as I pointed out in my complaint.

Mick Richards

[Motorsport Mickey]

2 hours ago, wjgco said:

Rob, from my percpective, my arguement is entirely logical.

At no point have I claimed that Lockdown was the cause of the incident

Lets look at facts;

Were the climbers on the mountain?  Yes

Under current law, were they there legally?  No, unless you consider;

- Leicester to Patterdale necessary travel

- Joining a person, not from your household and with whom you are not in a'bubble'

both legal and acceptable

You say; "if there was no lockdown and they had made the same trip it would still have happened"

That may well be the case, but, by the same token, IF I had been 10 seconds earlier or later reaching a road junction in Wallingford in 1969, I wouldn't have had a guy run me over, BUT, I wasn't and he did.

You cannot measure life or law by IF.

IF can be a very big word.

The LAW on the day the incident happened, prohibited their being on the mountain, but, they chose to go, knowing that they shouldn't.

Had they not been there, the Mountain Rescue team would not have been called out to them and no one sould have been injured.

As a result, IMHO, the injury to the rescue climber was caused by either the selfishness or ignorant (or both) actions of the 2 camping climbers involved.

The people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves as should anyone who tries to defend their actions.

(Rob, I am NOT suggesting that you are doing any defending)

I agree that, outside the current lockdown conditions, this type of incident still happens, but, when was the last time a rescue climber in the UK suffered life changing injuries, during a rescue?

I can't remember.

 

 

 

Roger, I'm not looking to blame anyone

Those who broke the law are responsible, plain and simple, I am still just trying to get my head around the mentality of those involved

" No, unless you consider; - Leicester to Patterdale necessary travel "

Well apparently the law does consider it as necessary travel...because there is no law limiting the length of journey to obtain your required excercise, 2 miles...fine, 15 miles...that's ok, 120 miles ...make sure you have enough fuel and enjoy your excercise when you get there...ad infinitum. They did not break the  journey length law and it's dangerous for the public to keep posting they did, that's how "mission creep " works and draconian laws gets approved, everybody thinks it's in place already.

For what it's worth, I think that wandering around mountains in these circumstances is very foolish and although the mountain rescus teams are often out anyway training they have enough work to do with other emergencies.

Mick Richards 

[stillp]

Well Mick, the guidance if not the law states that you may drive somewhere to exercise but you should stay in your local area. If only people had followed the guidance we wouldn't have needed the laws.

Pete

[RobH]

2 hours ago, wjgco said:

That may well be the case, but, by the same token, IF I had been 10 seconds earlier or later reaching a road junction in Wallingford in 1969, I wouldn't have had a guy run me over, BUT, I wasn't and he did.

You cannot measure life or law by IF.

IF can be a very big word.

 

(Apologies for dragging-on this discussion further.  As you say I am not trying to justify the actions of these two but I have concerns because of the principle of the points raised.)  

Sorry John wgco - but you are 'hoist by your own petard' in the quote above. Your whole argument and that of many others seems to be IF they had not broken lockdown and gone out, the incident would not have occurred. 

To my mind breaking lockdown had no bearing on the matter and neither has the illegality or otherwise of the act. They could have done so and gone on a bike ride instead and this particular accident would not have ensued. The circumstances only occurred because they went up the hill and had a medical problem. To follow the argument of many here to a logical conclusion it must follow that they consider anyone going up a hill, at any time, to be 'stupid and selfish' because they may need rescue, which puts responders at risk.  

That is not an opinion with which I am comfortable as it is a blanket judgement. As John D points out, there are many who venture out totally unprepared for the conditions. They are certainly stupid (though I doubt that 'selfish' applies as that would assume they know it is foolish). The same does not hold in my opinion, for anyone with the right gear and preparation. They are neither stupid nor selfish but if they get into trouble they are certainly unlucky. 

I am also uncomfortable with the contention that anyone who holds a contrary opinion to the OP is not a  'thinking' person. That is pure emotion speaking. My feeling is that life must be a balance of risk versus freedom, and that at present public opinion is too far biassed towards safety-at-any-cost.

I echo Rodgers sentiment that we must hope Chris makes a speedy and as full a recovery as possible.  I have nothing but admiration for people who voluntarily put themselves at risk to help others in the way he did. 

[Motorsport Mickey]

13 minutes ago, stillp said:

Well Mick, the guidance if not the law states that you may drive somewhere to exercise but you should stay in your local area. If only people had followed the guidance we wouldn't have needed the laws.

Pete

But that's not how the UK works Pete, you can do anything in this country...unless there is a law that forbids it, that's how the UK works. If we don't want people travelling to exercise then make a law against it...then it can be actioned against by the police. Seasy.

Relying on the public to use common sense is a mugs game, it's not all that common.

Mick Richards

[stillp]

3 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

you can do anything in this country...unless there is a law that forbids it

That's how police states come about.

Common sense is indeed uncommon, but we should be able to rely on the majority of people having the basic decency to do what is expected of them.

Pete

[Bleednipple]

3 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

But that's not how the UK works Pete, you can do anything in this country...unless there is a law that forbids it, that's how the UK works. If we don't want people travelling to exercise then make a law against it...then it can be actioned against by the police. Seasy.

Relying on the public to use common sense is a mugs game, it's not all that common.

Mick Richards

Actually the law (ie the latest version of the coronavirus regs, as applied to England) is quite explicit: that you may not leave or be outside home without reasonable excuse. The law then goes on to list, non-exhaustively, certain reasons which will be taken as such, including going out to exercise. So far, so simples...

However, while Parliament makes the laws, the courts ultimately have to interpret them. Because most breaches of coronavirus have been dealt with by way of police fixed penalties, very few cases have so far been challenged in the courts as far as I know.

But when they are, a court will have to decide, taking into account all the circumstances, whether 'reasonable excuse' existed in that case. Note that the Crown would only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was away from home. Not too difficult, probably. I'd envisage that the burden of proof would then switch to the defendant to prove (on a balance of probabilities) that they had reasonable excuse for being out. They'd have to be able to show what they were doing (or intended to do) while out and about, and why that was reasonable.

I could well suppose that a court might decide that a short journey to the woods for a healthy walk was reasonable. How the court would view a much longer trip, say to the Lake District, is so far untested as far as I'm aware.

In a hypothetical case of someone heading for the (distant) hills, I could imagine that the Crown might challenge whether it was reasonably necessary to go to the Lakes to take exercise (and might also point out that the latest version of the regs I think dropped the explicit reason of 'visiting a public open place for the purposes of open air recreation', but DYOR).

But the court would have to decide, taking into account all the circumstances, whether the excuse offered was or was not reasonable. Inevitably that involves judgement and the court (in practice at present this means a bench of two magistrates, because a coronavirus regs charge can't be tried in front of a jury in the Crown Court) might decide, in our hypothetical case, that the driving of 100 miles for the purposes of taking exercise was not something the 'man/woman on the Clapham omnibus' would say was reasonable, and they would accordingly convict. Or they might think it was reasonable, and acquit. 

So while the regulations are silent on the question of distance to an exercise venue, the courts would still be entitled to consider the distance travelled as one factor in reaching a verdict. It will be interesting to see what case precedent emerges.

Nigel 

 

 

[john.r.davies]

Careful!  When the converstion trends towards police states in any context, Godwin's Law looms!

I would say that it is BECAUSE of the people who do not have the nause to equip themselves properly for the hills that Mountain Rescue persists, and that their existence allows the rest of us to enjoy them.     If it was only experienced climbers who freeze on a stance, they would not have a enough business to keep going.     So the twisted ankles and those who find it map-reading hard keep them going, but more they keep the ability of the rest of us to get out there in the wilderness.   If they could not exist, then only 'licenced' climbers would be allowed to wander the fells, properly certified, equipped to a statutory list and of course insured.     Long live the Mountain Rescue, and the Lifeboats, another wholly voluntary energency service, that rescue the hard of thinking, but also allows those who can take care the freedom to explore.   I say this as someone scared of heights, who has never sailed more than 500 yards from land!

John

PS   If you haven't, please support the Chris Lewis appeal!   https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/Chris-Lewis-Support-Fund-LDSAMRA-Patterdale-MRT?experiments=b2c_040_frp_trust_proposition_bar&successType=StaticDonateButtonClick&utm_medium=socpledgemobile&utm_content=Chris-Lewis-Support-Fund-LDSAMRA-Patterdale-MRT%3Fexperiments%3Db2c_040_frp_trust_proposition_bar&utm_campaign=post-pledge-mobile&utm_term=Y7NWpXGYR&fbclid=IwAR2XvQ2gKQAGXLOL2OUjTbLhy0lAO7r_ZO97Q6TTxBl3TTa8ncDSb613gZE

 

[john.r.davies]

Nigel,

Your hypothetical argument on a court case may ignore the comfortable situation that many of us, myself included, are in.    I am fortunate to live in a house bigger than I need, with a garden that looks out onto fields.      Compare that with a twelfth floor city dweller (I have no idea if this applies in this case, but we are into hypotheticals), of who  there must be very many more than fortunate us.      The desire to GET OUT must be enormous, and to do so from the city difficult without a significant journey.     If the intention has been to visit the Lakes, and camp at a less perilous height, then they could argue that their journey was only twice as far as they would have had to travel for a decent walk, and their stay, self-isolated in camp, in the Lakes risked infecting no one.    And of course, there is the precedent of the Cummings journey to fall back on!

John

[JohnG]

2 hours ago, RobH said:

(Apologies for dragging-on this discussion further.  As you say I am not trying to justify the actions of these two but I have concerns because of the principle of the points raised.)  

Sorry John wgco - but you are 'hoist by your own petard' in the quote above. Your whole argument and that of many others seems to be IF they had not broken lockdown and gone out, the incident would not have occurred. 

To my mind breaking lockdown had no bearing on the matter and neither has the illegality or otherwise of the act. They could have done so and gone on a bike ride instead and this particular accident would not have ensued. The circumstances only occurred because they went up the hill and had a medical problem. To follow the argument of many here to a logical conclusion it must follow that they consider anyone going up a hill, at any time, to be 'stupid and selfish' because they may need rescue, which puts responders at risk.  

That is not an opinion with which I am comfortable as it is a blanket judgement. As John D points out, there are many who venture out totally unprepared for the conditions. They are certainly stupid (though I doubt that 'selfish' applies as that would assume they know it is foolish). The same does not hold in my opinion, for anyone with the right gear and preparation. They are neither stupid nor selfish but if they get into trouble they are certainly unlucky. 

I am also uncomfortable with the contention that anyone who holds a contrary opinion to the OP is not a  'thinking' person. That is pure emotion speaking. My feeling is that life must be a balance of risk versus freedom, and that at present public opinion is too far biassed towards safety-at-any-cost.

I echo Rodgers sentiment that we must hope Chris makes a speedy and as full a recovery as possible.  I have nothing but admiration for people who voluntarily put themselves at risk to help others in the way he did. 

 

Like you Rob, I'm wary of dragging this out, so, my final post on the subject . . . .

We need to look at this in 2 parts;

The law

The act.

 

The law

The law says that they should not have been there

Yes, yes, people can nitpick and say that Leicester to Patterdale for exercise is acceptable, because the law doesn't clearly state a distance limit, but, we must, as adults use some common sense, if we don't, we are lost in the miasma of politics.

Simply, they should not have been there and this is where, selfish etc etc comes in.

 

The act

Going up a hill in itself was not the illegal bit, it is not the issue.

Their presence, at odds with the law, is the issue.

 

I'll get my coat.

[Bleednipple]

1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

Nigel,

Your hypothetical argument on a court case may ignore the comfortable situation that many of us, myself included, are in.    I am fortunate to live in a house bigger than I need, with a garden that looks out onto fields.      Compare that with a twelfth floor city dweller (I have no idea if this applies in this case, but we are into hypotheticals), of who  there must be very many more than fortunate us.      The desire to GET OUT must be enormous, and to do so from the city difficult without a significant journey.     If the intention has been to visit the Lakes, and camp at a less perilous height, then they could argue that their journey was only twice as far as they would have had to travel for a decent walk, and their stay, self-isolated in camp, in the Lakes risked infecting no one.    And of course, there is the precedent of the Cummings journey to fall back on!

John

John, I'm in a similar comfortable position to yours and certainly have zero to complain about. I can only imagine how tough it is for some people who must be going stir crazy, eg stuck in an upstairs flat with children as you say. I wasn't trying to debate whether or not it was right or wrong (or if wrong, to what extent) for someone to go on a trip to a National Park. I try my best to keep in mind the adage "don't criticise a fellow until you've walked a mile in his moccasins".

There's been a lot of debate since last March about both the morality and the law of the covid restrictions, as applied to ourselves, strangers and public figures. I suspect a lot of people (not necessarily on this forum ) are still confused by the differences between law and government guidance. Incidents like the tragic injury to the MRT member have resurfaced a lot of debate. If any good at all can come from that I guess it might have made us ponder a little about the balance between personal responsibilities and freedoms and about the extent to which feel entitled to criticise others whose precise circumstances we are ignorant of.

I was just aiming to chip in my own perspectives on the criminal law side of the debate. Particularly to highlight that laws have to be interpreted case by case in the courts and we shouldn't presume too much about how a court will interpret the wording of a law. And also that the term "reasonable excuse" doesn't begin or end with the inclusion, or lack of, a definition of distance from home in the regulations as enacted.

Stay safe everyone, on the roads or the hills, wherever your conscience takes you!

Nigel

[Misfit]

The laws states you need to stay home, except to go to work or exercise or essential shopping.

Now a hypothetical question, someone who has a life limited illness that has been managed, he is venerable and  has isolated when told.  That person is relatively sensible has his groceries delivered,  on occasions to get out organises a click and collect just to see something different.  That person hasn’t had physical contact with his immediate family or friends. 

He has had reduced contact with those that manage his condition and subsequently finds that his condition has worsened, considerably. Now he is able to travel 30 miles to get a COVID test, and to get treatment, where he can sit in a hospital for 10 hours once a week before travelling home. 

But gets a letter saying as you are vulnerable we are extending your lockdown beyond February 15 to March 31st stay at home.  Should that person save the NHS abide by that instruction, remain in doors and perhaps watch life slowly and boringly go by.  Or say you know what, I will be sensible avoid people but get out see the countryside, drive that persons car and when stopped pay £200, £400 £800 twice that if with spouse with a smile.

Should the Government be able to impose that on an individual? Would that person be irresponsible, foolish, if he ignores that instruction, what do you think?

Edited February 18, 2021 by Misfit

[ntc]

Are you aware that most of the supermarkets doing home delivery send out food that most is about on it’s date limit I know that as fact alas. The best way is to use local supplier and that is good for all 

[Bleednipple]

Okay, to Misfit's poser...

1.   Firstly, the fact that Mr X has been travelling 30 miles for healthcare is completely irrelevant to the questions at hand.

2.   The government has enacted public health measures in an emergency, on an indiscriminate 'universal' basis as a means to achieve high effect on limiting disease spread. Inevitably that is not equitable to every individual or group, everyone has suffered differently from the lockdown restrictions. Could govt have enacted more positive-discriminatory measures (eg people who've been 'sensible' can now be granted extra freedoms)? Highly desirable in principle but I would say no, that's just not practical.* I think the majority of the public have supported that approach.

3.    Should Mr X break the law? If we accept the rule of law in a democracy, no. Would he be foolish to disobey and break the law, well only he can decide that.

* Similarly, the govt says you must have your (modern!) car MOT'd every year, regardless of whether you are a mechanical numpty or have an advanced degree in automotive engineering and regularly inspect and service your car to a high standard. Okay perhaps not a perfect parallel because having to get your car MOT'd isn't the same infringement of liberty as having to stay at home for months. But it's an example of 'blanket' regulation that's generally accepted.

Nigel

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bleednipple

[RogerH]

Hi Neil,

that is interesting. I shop at Sainsbury and they have dozens of pickers taking the items off the shellf.,

They do not look at the dates and If I git ther before them I would have picked that item and it would have atypical date for that item on that shelf.

However when you receive the goods you may feel that the dates could be longer - but that doesn;t mean they were there to be picked.

 

Roger

 

[ntc]

31 minutes ago, RogerH said:

Hi Neil,

that is interesting. I shop at Sainsbury and they have dozens of pickers taking the items off the shellf.,

They do not look at the dates and If I git ther before them I would have picked that item and it would have atypical date for that item on that shelf.

However when you receive the goods you may feel that the dates could be longer - but that doesn;t mean they were there to be picked.

 

Roger

 

Hi Roger 

What you see on the shop floor is not the same when it comes to despatch and I have tried all mayor supermarkets they indeed offered free delivery after I complained luckily I live in a rural area with fresh food available and it is worth the small price to pay