Sharm - would you?

[WinstonWolf]

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

[Welshbeef]

WinstonWolf said:

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

But currently if you like it or not you cannot go there by instruction of our Govt due to the fact they view our security cannot be guaranteed.

So I'm assuming you wouldn't fly to another airport then catch a taxi or train to Sham just to be able to get there?


Take your point re IRA - note I didn't travel to Ireland at all during all those years only after the Good Friday peace deal (actually some years after that).

[WinstonWolf]

You didn't need to go to Ireland when I was growing up, explosions on the UK mainland were a regular occurrence. Perhaps that's another reason why it bothers me less than it bothers you.

[Blown2CV]

WinstonWolf said:

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

over and over with this non-sensical bravado. You seem to seriously think that just because dangers exist in the world, we shouldn't even attempt to avoid any kind of risk. You don't seem to have any concept that risk is variable. When the kids say "YOLO!" at least it can be blamed on the ignorance of youth. It doesn't seem you have that excuse. Even if it was as dangerous in london in the 70s, or on a bus, or "dahn tahn" on a friday night or all the other things you've come out with (which they are not) you seem to be ignoring the idea that you're volunteering for additional risk.

[popeyewhite]

Blown2CV said:

you seem to be ignoring the idea that you're volunteering for additional risk.

Yes, you've made this point several times, and it's been addressed. Several times.

[popeyewhite]

Welshbeef said:

You go to these places sadly we are the targets of these terrorists - you might/very likely to be totally safe but just imagine you were in Tunisia this summer wife and kids down on the beach and you'd forgotten the snorkels of blow up ball /whatever so trundle back to the room and then that terrorist stack happened. And let's assume through chance they were thankfully unhurt - but no doubt would be terrified /traumatised I'm highly confident you'd never go near the place ever again even if it was the most wonderful place in the world.

On this point you might well be correct. However I don't know as I don't have a family. Just the good lady and myself. She's actually more glib about the threat of terrorism than I am and believes the risk of us being involved in an attack when on holiday is infinitesimally small, and the risk/reward equation falls heavily on the side of the holiday. Unlike yourself neither of us allow our imaginations to get the better of us. A quick Google reveals the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million (though this figure may have changed now), drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), dying in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000).

[smithyithy]

popeyewhite said:

A quick Google reveals the chances of you being attacked by a terrorist are roughly 1 in 20 million (though this figure may have changed now), drowning in a bathtub (1 in 800,000), dying in a car crash (1 in 19,000), dying in a building fire (1 in 99,000), or being struck by lightning (1 in 5,500,000).

I'm sorry but these stats are IMO pointless.

Eg. dying in a car crash 1 in 19,000. What if I drive at 120mph on my daily motorway commute? probably increases to 1 in 1000.

Attacked by terrorist 1 in 20m? Perhaps if I only holiday in the Lake District - but if I book a fortnight in Damascus that might drop to 1 in 500.

Sure, chances always exist but your own actions and choices increase or decrease those accordingly, I think that's what people are getting at.

It may have been dangerous in the 70's with the IRA etc. but that risk was omnipresent. By voluntarily travelling to somewhere currently on the hotlist, then you're increasing the risk to yourself. Of course it's completely up to the person to decide how much increased risk they're willing to take - like you said 'risk vs reward'.

But one can't simply claim 'there will always be risk so just get on with it', because people can actively reduce the level of risk to themselves.

[WinstonWolf]

Blown2CV said:

WinstonWolf said:

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

over and over with this non-sensical bravado. You seem to seriously think that just because dangers exist in the world, we shouldn't even attempt to avoid any kind of risk. You don't seem to have any concept that risk is variable. When the kids say "YOLO!" at least it can be blamed on the ignorance of youth. It doesn't seem you have that excuse. Even if it was as dangerous in london in the 70s, or on a bus, or "dahn tahn" on a friday night or all the other things you've come out with (which they are not) you seem to be ignoring the idea that you're volunteering for additional risk.

So, let's say a coward such as yourself goes to London and you get blown up on a bus, you're going to feel a bit stupid then, aren't you. Except you won't because you'll still be dead.

You're obviously not capable of understanding the law of unintended consequences. Sharm's been hit, security will be ramped up, do you seriously think they'll try the same thing again? The next target will be somewhere that's currently asleep feeling smug...

[Welshbeef]

WinstonWolf said:

So, let's say a coward such as yourself goes to London and you get blown up on a bus, you're going to feel a bit stupid then, aren't you. Except you won't because you'll still be dead.

You're obviously not capable of understanding the law of unintended consequences. Sharm's been hit, security will be ramped up, do you seriously think they'll try the same thing again? The next target will be somewhere that's currently asleep feeling smug...

Just like in Tunisia you mean? What was it 2 or 3 times people were gunned down near museums then a year later the massacre on the beach and Hotels.


Would you say to your daughter why not go to x location /encourage her to go and then imagine if the worst did happen. I'm assuming you would jump off a bridge

[popeyewhite]

smithyithy said:

I'm sorry but these stats are IMO pointless.

Well, what a surprise. They're the statistics. Go and argue with someone else about them if you must. I'm quite sure the data was collected from differing range of scenarios/actions. That's how statistics work.

smithyithy said:

Sure, chances always exist but your own actions and choices increase or decrease those accordingly, I think that's what people are getting at.

It's taken you this long to realise?

smithyithy said:

By voluntarily travelling to somewhere currently on the hotlist, then you're increasing the risk to yourself.

How terrifying. I guess I also increase the risk to myself just by the act of flying to somewhere but I shan't bother quoting the statistics as you'll say they're pointless as I volunteered to fly, lol.

Now then, I'll be crossing the road later to get to Tesco. But do I really have to? Lots of traffic...and it's raining. What's the risk/reward? Well, I've got some tins in the kitchen and could probably survive for a few weeks without going out... .

[WinstonWolf]

Welshbeef said:

WinstonWolf said:

So, let's say a coward such as yourself goes to London and you get blown up on a bus, you're going to feel a bit stupid then, aren't you. Except you won't because you'll still be dead.

You're obviously not capable of understanding the law of unintended consequences. Sharm's been hit, security will be ramped up, do you seriously think they'll try the same thing again? The next target will be somewhere that's currently asleep feeling smug...

Just like in Tunisia you mean? What was it 2 or 3 times people were gunned down near museums then a year later the massacre on the beach and Hotels.


Would you say to your daughter why not go to x location /encourage her to go and then imagine if the worst did happen. I'm assuming you would jump off a bridge

Haven't you got some wrong advice to give people about car purchases?

[smithyithy]

Could you not reply without being so condescending?

popeyewhite said:

smithyithy said:

I'm sorry but these stats are IMO pointless.

Well, what a surprise. They're the statistics. Go and argue with someone else about them if you must. I'm quite sure the data was collected from differing range of scenarios/actions. That's how statistics work.

They probably were, but without sources how can we know? The 'chances of being attacked by a terrorist' one is obviously one that will vary wildly at the moment, and all I'm saying is that one can directly alter this by their actions. I'm happy holidaying around western and eastern Europe, I feels safe enough doing so. I personally wouldn't holiday, at the moment, somewhere like Egypt, Tunisia etc. as that would increase the risk beyond a level I'd be comfortable with. That's why the statistics aren't entirely useful, because they're not set in stone.

smithyithy said:

Sure, chances always exist but your own actions and choices increase or decrease those accordingly, I think that's what people are getting at.

It's taken you this long to realise?

How long? At what point did I say 'I've just finally discovered this!'?

smithyithy said:

By voluntarily travelling to somewhere currently on the hotlist, then you're increasing the risk to yourself.

How terrifying. I guess I also increase the risk to myself just by the act of flying to somewhere but I shan't bother quoting the statistics as you'll say they're pointless as I volunteered to fly, lol.

Now then, I'll be crossing the road later to get to Tesco. But do I really have to? Lots of traffic...and it's raining. What's the risk/reward? Well, I've got some tins in the kitchen and could probably survive for a few weeks without going out... .

Again, needless patronising - is there any need?

[popeyewhite]

smithyithy said:

Could you not reply without being so condescending?

No.

The risk/reward seemed to fall in favour of taking the piss.

(nice double negative of yours BTW)

[smithyithy]

popeyewhite said:

No.

The risk/reward seemed to fall in favour of taking the piss.

(nice double negative of yours BTW)

Couldn't you not have replied this time without not be so condescending?

(Quad negative?!)

[popeyewhite]

smithyithy said:

Couldn't you not have replied this time without not be so condescending?

(Quad negative?!)

No. This is the internet and I want to make myself look smart and aloof. I realise however that sometimes I just look a dick. Risk/reward.

[MarshPhantom]

WinstonWolf said:

Welshbeef said:

WinstonWolf said:

So, let's say a coward such as yourself goes to London and you get blown up on a bus, you're going to feel a bit stupid then, aren't you. Except you won't because you'll still be dead.

You're obviously not capable of understanding the law of unintended consequences. Sharm's been hit, security will be ramped up, do you seriously think they'll try the same thing again? The next target will be somewhere that's currently asleep feeling smug...

Just like in Tunisia you mean? What was it 2 or 3 times people were gunned down near museums then a year later the massacre on the beach and Hotels.


Would you say to your daughter why not go to x location /encourage her to go and then imagine if the worst did happen. I'm assuming you would jump off a bridge

Haven't you got some wrong advice to give people about car purchases?

Would you have gone on holiday to Belfast during the troubles? Or Medellin back in the 80s?

[GT03ROB]

WinstonWolf said:

Blown2CV said:

WinstonWolf said:

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

over and over with this non-sensical bravado. You seem to seriously think that just because dangers exist in the world, we shouldn't even attempt to avoid any kind of risk. You don't seem to have any concept that risk is variable. When the kids say "YOLO!" at least it can be blamed on the ignorance of youth. It doesn't seem you have that excuse. Even if it was as dangerous in london in the 70s, or on a bus, or "dahn tahn" on a friday night or all the other things you've come out with (which they are not) you seem to be ignoring the idea that you're volunteering for additional risk.

So, let's say a coward such as yourself ..............

A tad unfair methinks WW

[Blown2CV]

GT03ROB said:

WinstonWolf said:

Blown2CV said:

WinstonWolf said:

I hope you never take the bus in London WB...

We're you alive in the seventies when the IRA were properly active? I was, you learn to just get on with life and stop fretting about what may or may not happen.

over and over with this non-sensical bravado. You seem to seriously think that just because dangers exist in the world, we shouldn't even attempt to avoid any kind of risk. You don't seem to have any concept that risk is variable. When the kids say "YOLO!" at least it can be blamed on the ignorance of youth. It doesn't seem you have that excuse. Even if it was as dangerous in london in the 70s, or on a bus, or "dahn tahn" on a friday night or all the other things you've come out with (which they are not) you seem to be ignoring the idea that you're volunteering for additional risk.

So, let's say a coward such as yourself ..............

A tad unfair methinks WW

he keeps playing this 'hard man' card like some kind of wetherspoons "you looking at ma burd" skinhead, which to be honest if he frequents Sharm he probably is. He's probably had his Christmas tree up for a fortnight already. Anyway if/when faced with a knife, gun or bomb he'd st himself and die like everyone else. I've no idea what he's trying to achieve with the attitude he has because it will amount to nothing if the st hits the fan. He prob thinks he can punch all bullets out the air and then slap all the armed terrorists to death single-handed. Not really seeming to give a st about his family at all.

[audidoody]

WinstonWolf said:

So, let's say a coward such as yourself goes to London and you get blown up on a bus, you're going to feel a bit stupid then, aren't you. Except you won't because you'll still be dead. .

You're actually saying that someone who chooses not to visit a country currently being a hotbed of activity for the most psychotic terror group since the SS is a 'coward'? Really?

Anyone thinking of visiting anywhere in Egypt , let alone Sharm, right now needs their bumps felt,

And I write as a "coward" who also lived in London in the '70's (and was a mile from Hyde Park when the bombs went off), visited Queen Hatshepsut's Temple two months before the tourist massacre there, and spent a few months as a volunteer on a kibbutz half a mile from the Lebanese border and watched the nighty Katyusha rocket show.

I'd be interested in how you won YOUR war medals.

[Wacky Racer]

If any resort has an element of risk, why take the chance?...Especially if you have children.

There are hundreds of other places in the world to go to after all.

However, I do feel very sorry for the local hotels/bars/shops though.