Shard Climber Jailed.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Dan Arkle 21 Oct 2019

24 week sentence, because there was injunction against climbing it.

The injunction was put there to stop Alain Robert climbing it. 

Seems a bit harsh to me. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/21/shard-freeclimber-jailed-fo...

1
 olddirtydoggy 21 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Absolutely shameful sentencing. A man can assault somebody and get away with a caution and a big business brings in a lawyer and this young man ends up with six months for climbing an oversized dildo?

1
 toad 21 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Wrong analogy. This is some property consortium's tiny penis replacement.

 marsbar 21 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

I think this is unfair.  

1
 Yanis Nayu 21 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Disproportionate.

1
 olddirtydoggy 21 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Anybody on here know this climber? Is there perhaps a crowdfunder to get an appeal going?

 Bristoldave 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

I agree- really shocked at the sentance. It seems they've set out to make an example of him.

1
 Billhook 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

But I guess he'll have done his time  (12 weeks?) by the time the crowdfunding gets done.  

But it certainly sounds harsh to me, for what is, only trespass.

1
Gone for good 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Billhook:

> But I guess he'll have done his time  (12 weeks?) by the time the crowdfunding gets done.  

> But it certainly sounds harsh to me, for what is, only trespass.

24 Weeks in a young offenders institute.  No chance of early release either. I don't suppose the sentence is a reflection of trespass but more because of the risk of loss of life and potential risk to other people if he fell. Still, it seems unduly harsh to me. 

OP Dan Arkle 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Gone for good:

The sentence is a reflection of the seriousness with which we treat contempt of court. 

In general, this is a good thing. I want to live in a country with strong rule of law. In this case, its created a very harsh outcome. 

8
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Disgusted by this. It seems that robbing and causing death on our roads can be dealt with community service but do something outside the norm that causes no harm and you get smacked down.

1
Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

It does seem harsh on the surface, but it was contempt of court and he did know what he was doing, he did know there was and injunction out and presumably the consequences?

The judge commented "He said despite King-Thompson's "young age and previous good character, it is not a sentence I am able to suspend"

Can someone with legal knowledge enlighten me, does this mean he could not impose a suspended sentence for legal reasons, or that he did not want to impose a suspended sentence?

Nempnett Thrubwell 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> Absolutely shameful sentencing. A man can assault somebody and get away with a caution and a big business brings in a lawyer and this young man ends up with six months for climbing an oversized dildo?

The trouble is - he didn't get sentenced for climbing something - he got sentenced for breaching a court order - which he himself admitted he knew was in place - but disregarded it because previously people hadn't been prosecuted

- which is a rubbish defence  - that's like saying - I thought it was ok to break the speed limit because I know other people do it and don't get prosecuted.

If he'd gone and climbed another skyscraper without an order on it, he wouldn't be looking at anywhere near as much punishment.

Yes he maybe getting made an example of - but examples need to be made to prevent repetition - a slap on the wrist isn't discouragement. 

People may say - no one got hurt what's the problem - the problem is the Police officers who had to come and deal with it - weren't able to respond to something else. Anybody who wonders why the Police take so long to respond to something should be in full favour of discouraging such pranks.

3
Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Two things come to mind, actions and consequences; he did know that his action may have serious consequences and chose to ignore them.

Secondly the emergency services and presumably many gawking public are potentially going to see someone fall 1000ft and splat on the pavement in front of them. Which is not a great way to start the day for anyone.

6
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

I'm all for discouraging but this is way over the top.  Its much longer than real criminals get for a first offence.  

1
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

He didn't fall though.  

You could apply that logic to everyone driving a car less than perfectly.  

4
 Ian W 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm all for discouraging but this is way over the top.  Its much longer than real criminals get for a first offence.  

Not if their first offence is contempt of court........

Nempnett Thrubwell 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

Agreed - But again - arguing that other people get less for different crimes isn't a defence for your sentence being too harsh.

Saying sentencing is rubbish for assault cases is irrelevant to any appeal in this case - they will have to find examples of other court order breaches.

I imagine you could with a bit of searching find plenty of examples of 6 month sentences for breaching court orders.

1
Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> He didn't fall though.  

> You could apply that logic to everyone driving a car less than perfectly.  

He certainly didn't fall and I have absolutely no objection to people wanting to take risks - such as free climbing - I have no probs with that.

But in this case emergency services have to attend and are forced to watch (part of their job), it is putting them in a very unpleasant situation, unnecessary stress and possibly worse for them if it goes wrong.

9
XXXX 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Gone for good:

> 24 Weeks in a young offenders institute.  No chance of early release either.

I wonder how high the walls are...

 Xavierpercy 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

Yes. The sentence could have been suspended.

The judge obviously took the view that this was a flagrant and carefully planned breach of a court order. 
The actual criminality of the act itself appears to have been dealt with by way of a police caution which is a low level disposal.

 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

How many road incidents do they attend in an average week?  In parts of London it's stabbings.  Far more stressful.

1
 fred99 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

> The sentence is a reflection of the seriousness with which we treat contempt of court. 

> In general, this is a good thing. I want to live in a country with strong rule of law. In this case, its created a very harsh outcome. 


Hopefully then Boris Johnson can expect 6 months (or more) in a Scottish Jail.

2
 fred99 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

> Secondly the emergency services and presumably many gawking public are potentially going to see someone fall 1000ft and splat on the pavement in front of them. Which is not a great way to start the day for anyone.

How many of the emergency services actually had to be there, and how many turned up to gawk themselves ?

5
 Blue Straggler 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> He didn't fall though.  

> You could apply that logic to everyone driving a car less than perfectly.  

Is the imperfect driving of a car a deliberate act intended to draw attention?

1
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sometimes.  Certainly when I was younger it was a popular activity for the yoofs.  

I'm not convinced he wanted attention, he wanted to climb it. 

Post edited at 11:29
1
In reply to Dan Arkle:

From the figures quoted here I’d estimate cost of his period of detention to be around £40000

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-s...

doesn’t really strike me as good value for money 

1
 trouserburp 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

This is shameful. Disproportionate sentencing of an individual to set an example is completely counter to the fundamental point of justice and will likely ruin that individual's life. He may be back in court and for something far worse than making a bit of a show

Will they be rearresting all the other people that have climbed up the ladder on the shard then? Greenpeace certainly weren't doing it to stay out of the spotlight

1
Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to fred99:

> How many of the emergency services actually had to be there, and how many turned up to gawk themselves ?

I would imagine however many were instructed (ordered) to attend. Not many police, fire, medics in central London have time to waste gawking.

Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> How many road incidents do they attend in an average week?  In parts of London it's stabbings.  Far more stressful.

Fine then, you are obviously an expert on the degrees of stress, falling off a building and splatting on the pavement is not so bad. 

5
 fred99 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

> I would imagine however many were instructed (ordered) to attend. Not many police, fire, medics in central London have time to waste gawking.


Instructed or Ordered then.

Every time there's something major or "newsworthy", there's a great show of Police Officers standing around to "show a presence" for the inevitable visiting Senior Officer. This is normally after the fact, and there is no crime to be prevented, certainly not one which requires the numbers assembled. They aren't actually doing anything - they are just standing around. I see this on the news all the time. I would imagine even the Police Officers would rather be back at the station catching up on their paperwork (and not wasting fuel driving their cars around) rather than standing around "looking pretty".

3
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

Splattered bodies are part of the job unfortunately.  Harsh perhaps but true. At least they can stand away from potential landing spots.  Probably not as stressful as trying to arrest someone with a knife.  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/13/two-three-knife-crime-offenders...

Post edited at 13:59
1
In reply to Dan Arkle:

I’m really puzzled by this. As far as I know the courts don’t go granting injunctions against the world not to do stuff; the injunction must have been against a defined class of persons. If so then given it wasn’t against our hero I don’t see why he’s in contempt of court, and certainly he couldn’t have been expected to know he was, which is usually important in contempt cases.

jcm

1
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I understand it was aimed at protesters but wasn't specific.  I believe he admitted to seeing a sign on a door he walked through.   

It does seem harsh for someone who has cooperated fully, and who timed the climb very early in the morning so it would have minimal disruption.  It's not like he was on the M1 at rush hour.  He was finished by 5am.  

1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Near us we have roads that have court orders/injunctions in place to prevent 'cruising' (there are signs up to let you know) I would imagine a similar order/injunction could be placed on a building against climbing it. Why a bit of common sense couldn't have been applied here I don't know. Do they really imagine there will be a queue of 'thrill seekers' following his example. You could make the case that the difference between this and Honnold's solo ascent of El Cap is not so huge.

 malk 22 Oct 2019
In reply to trouserburp:

>  He may be back in court and for something far worse than making a bit of a show

no worries bro, he's 'quit his job as a personal trainer at a gym after gaining a book deal, was filming a documentary and in talks about hosting his own TV series'

maybe the plan all along? 200 beta visits! seems he has ADHD: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7596917/Free-climber-20-locked-six...

wonder how big ben man fares..

Post edited at 14:32
 Jon Greengrass 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Real Estate Management Limited, which manages the Shard made this statemtent.

"We felt we had no option than to secure the injunction and ask the court to uphold it. We hope that today’s outcome will deter other prospective climbers, and help them recognise the great dangers that these actions pose to the public, emergency services and themselves."

I wonder if it is to do with their public liability insurance? Being Britain's tallest building it was a certainty that someone would attempt to climb the Shard, perhaps they were unable to insure themselves against possible damages caused by a climber falling?

Nempnett Thrubwell 22 Oct 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

His use of the hashtag "rooftopillegal" to promote his stunt suggests he was very much aware of the fact that he shouldn't be doing it.

He also admits he'd visited the Shard almost 200 times in preparation - so again most likely he was well aware of the situation. 

 malk 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

i have more sympathy for the XR guy who could get 51 weeks for climbing big ben:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/big-ben-climb-protest-polic...

 olddirtydoggy 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

I get all these points about him knowingly breaking an injunction and the wasted emergency services time. The bottom line for me is he hasn't hurt anybody and real crimes are not getting prosecuted.

It was interesting a while back watching an interview with that French bloke who does these stunts as he was taking about the Russian police taking him back to the station and drinking vodka with him before letting him go compared to our so called civilised pattern of throwing a man in jail for breaking a rule.

Whist one crime doesn't justify another one, if our court and justice system was processing and chasing real criminals I could maybe stomach this kind of stuff.

2
 Oceanrower 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> ... and real crimes are not getting prosecuted.

For example?

1
In reply to Dan Arkle:

> 24 week sentence, because there was injunction against climbing it.

> The injunction was put there to stop Alain Robert climbing it. 

> Seems a bit harsh to me. 

If it was a proper winter ascent, the injunction would be an objective danger like an avalanche. The prison sentence the equivalent of finding yourself at the bottom of the slope, shaken and half buried, but still alive. 

 muppetfilter 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

Theft , Assault, Burglary , Vehicle Theft , Drug dealing , Spousal Abuse ,Fox hunting, Robbing £110,000 in grants to get your leg over with a robust agricultural American lass , Being Posh In Charge of  Corporation Corporation Tax fiddle

1
 Oceanrower 22 Oct 2019
In reply to muppetfilter:

Blimey. You've been busy!

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Surely someone must be writing a buildering guide to the capital.

Will the grading system include potential sentences? 

Big Ben, E6(months) 6a

1
 olddirtydoggy 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

In the last 3 years I've been,

I've been assaulted, man let off with caution as no previous. We found out he batters his wife and never been charged. How can somebody have a previous if they never convict them!!

My Van was stolen and and a neighbour's on the same area. The joiner up the road chased them down the drive and tried to provide the police with security camera footage and evidence. They wouldn't even take the footage and just told us both to use the crime number on the forms for our insurance payout. Neither van was recoved and no investigation. The crime cost me around £2000 in costs, lost business and an increased premium the following year.

My point is these crimes don't even make court.

Post edited at 17:20
1
 olddirtydoggy 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Has somebody added the Shard to the UKC crag map yet?

 Bob Kemp 22 Oct 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Apparently it's a quia timet injunction, and is increasingly being used.

https://hardwicke.co.uk/trespass-obtaining-injunctions-against-persons-unkn...

OP Dan Arkle 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

My main problem is that corporations are using injunctions like this to effectively invent private laws. He was not prosecuted by the state.

Its ridiculous to give someone 6 months because they annoy big businesses. 

However, I still support a strong rule of law. Regarding Russia, would you like to live in a state where life is cheap, the state itself murders citizens for opposing it politically, and powerful people and businesses can do whatever they want. I know Britain is a long way from perfect, but in Russia your rights are worthless. 

OP Dan Arkle 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Would it be possible for you to get an injunction against people stealing your stuff? 

Then you could prosecute them yourself for breaking it?!? Just thinking aloud  

 olddirtydoggy 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Fair and good points well made, I understand that this is a case financed privately and nothing to do with the police. I'm just looking at this case through my eyes, similar to many working people who have fallen victim to real crimes.

The American system of throwing money at lawyers is fast becoming the pattern here. Money buys you protection, even on a state, legal level. I think much of the anger is at the system and the imbalance. It's not like the public can even boycott this vile company.

 Babika 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Good effort but I lost a bit of sympathy when I read that climbing the Shard meant "he had quit his job as a personal trainer at a gym after gaining a book deal, was filming a documentary and in talks about hosting his own TV series".

If folk are obsessed about attracting celebrity status and easy money then they must expect a few downsides.  I'm sure the prosecution will add to his book deal. 

 FactorXXX 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

>  It's not like the public can even boycott this vile company.

Bet George King wished he'd boycotted them...

 Philb1950 22 Oct 2019
In reply to toad:

No it,s the irresponsible actions of an attention seeking idiot. Why doesn,t he go off and free solo some E5,s. Oh I forgot; possibly too hard and no internet exposure or publicity. Sooner or later someone would be killed and probably middle class family would sue the buildings owners, as they would be clearly liable. So stop it now, or provide an unclimbable barrier at the base.

6
 marsbar 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Philb1950:

Take that to it's logical conclusion and no one would be allowed to climb anything.

1
In reply to Dan Arkle:

> However, I still support a strong rule of law. Regarding Russia, would you like to live in a state where life is cheap, the state itself murders citizens for opposing it politically, and powerful people and businesses can do whatever they want. I know Britain is a long way from perfect, but in Russia your rights are worthless. 


Good grief, I didn’t realise it was either/or...!

Post edited at 20:18
Moley 22 Oct 2019
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

>

 It was interesting a while back watching an interview with that French bloke who does these stunts as he was taking about the Russian police taking him back to the station and drinking vodka with him before letting him go compared to our so called civilised pattern of throwing a man in jail for breaking a rule.

The Russian police are great, sure ours could learn a lot from them!

4
 Coel Hellier 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

> People may say - no one got hurt what's the problem - the problem is the Police officers who had to come and deal with it - weren't able to respond to something else.

"Had to"?  Any particular reason why the police "had to" attend? 

 off-duty 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> "Had to"?  Any particular reason why the police "had to" attend? 

He's breaching a court order.

Duty of care to safeguard him.

Duty of care to safeguard those underneath him.

 Becky E 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Gone for good:

> 24 Weeks in a young offenders institute.  No chance of early release either. I don't suppose the sentence is a reflection of trespass but more because of the risk of loss of life and potential risk to other people if he fell. Still, it seems unduly harsh to me. 

It isn't prison sentence for trespass: it's a prison sentence for breaching an injunction.

If you breach an injunction, you are in contempt of court.

The punishment (prison sentence) is a punishment for being in contempt of court.  So it doesn't necessarily reflect the thing that you did.

Hence people protesting against the felling of street trees in Sheffield got suspended prison sentences for being in contempt of court (let's not get into the fact that the council have now decided that at least one of those trees doesn't need to be felled after all, because guess what... the pavement can be repaired after all).

 Becky E 22 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

>> "Had to"?  Any particular reason why the police "had to" attend? 

> He's breaching a court order.

> Duty of care to safeguard him.

> Duty of care to safeguard those underneath him.

NB the police don't enforce injunctions.  The person / organisation who has obtained the injunction has to gather the evidence and present it to the court.

 Dr.S at work 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Moley:

> The Russian police are great, sure ours could learn a lot from them!

Have you ever been detained by the Russian Police?

 off-duty 22 Oct 2019
In reply to Becky E:

Two out of three ain't bad.

Moley 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Have you ever been detained by the Russian Police?

I was being ironic - but we don't have an "ironic imoji" to use so I bunged an ! on the end.

But it didn't read quite how I wanted, sorry.

 Coel Hellier 23 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Duty of care to safeguard him.

If someone decides to solo, say, Cemetery Gates, do the police have a duty of care to safeguard them?  Also, how exactly does meeting the climber at the top of the Shard, after he's finished his climb, "safeguard" him?    The only way of "safeguarding" him would be to put a massive catch net at the bottom; did they do that?

> Duty of care to safeguard those underneath him.

What are the stats on how many passers-by have been killed by climbers falling off buildings they're climbing?  I'm betting it's fewer than the number killed by meteorites.

1
 Blue Straggler 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What are the stats on how many passers-by have been killed by climbers falling off buildings they're climbing?  I'm betting it's fewer than the number killed by meteorites.

What are the stats on how many passers-by have been massively traumatised by witnessing a messy impact death ? 

1
 Coel Hellier 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> What are the stats on how many passers-by have been massively traumatised by witnessing a messy impact death ? 

From climbers falling off tall buildings?  Close to zero I'd have thought. 

Of course if passers-by witnessing a messy impact death is a police priority then they could start by banning driving. 

 fred99 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Of course if passers-by witnessing a messy impact death is a police priority then they could start by banning driving. 

Or at least doing every idiot who kills/injures a pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist with murder or attempted murder. Seems that sort of messy impact death ISN'T a priority.

 off-duty 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If someone decides to solo, say, Cemetery Gates, do the police have a duty of care to safeguard them?  Also, how exactly does meeting the climber at the top of the Shard, after he's finished his climb, "safeguard" him?    The only way of "safeguarding" him would be to put a massive catch net at the bottom; did they do that?

> What are the stats on how many passers-by have been killed by climbers falling off buildings they're climbing?  I'm betting it's fewer than the number killed by meteorites.

Thanks for your tips around safeguarding   I'll give your suggestions the consideration they deserve the next time I'm called to a person stood at the edge of a tall building.

 trouserburp 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

So what's to stop a crag landowner from taking out a quia timet injunction, and can I have one so any burglars get a 24 week sentence

 off-duty 23 Oct 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Or at least doing every idiot who kills/injures a pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist with murder or attempted murder. Seems that sort of messy impact death ISN'T a priority.

I think you're confusing prosecution with duty of care.

Either that or you have never been stuck in a traffic jam following a fatal RTC.

 off-duty 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Of course if passers-by witnessing a messy impact death is a police priority then they could start by banning driving. 

Maybe we could start by regulating those allowed to use the road. We could say that in order to drive you need to pass some sort of test. Maybe we could insist there is some kind of code that you should follow to regulate how you drive on the highway. Perhaps we could restrict the speed at which you could drive....

Post edited at 16:26
 Bob Kemp 23 Oct 2019
In reply to trouserburp:

From what I understand of these injunctions there's a test of harm, so hopefully climbers going on someone's land would not mean any actual harm (physical, financial etc.) would ensue. But I'm not a lawyer so can't be definitive. As for burglars, I suspect that the existing criminal law would be invoked first. 

 Ridge 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> From what I understand of these injunctions there's a test of harm, so hopefully climbers going on someone's land would not mean any actual harm (physical, financial etc.) would ensue. But I'm not a lawyer so can't be definitive. As for burglars, I suspect that the existing criminal law would be invoked first. 

The irony is the penalty for breaching an injunction significantly exceeds anything a burglar would receive for a first offence.

 Bob Kemp 23 Oct 2019
In reply to Ridge:

I think that very much depends on the offence. Sentencing guidelines have all sorts of nuances. With burglary it depends on things like where - domestic or other - age, whether entry was forced, value of what was taken, whether the burglar cooperated... etc. etc. 

In reply to Ridge:

> The irony is the penalty for breaching an injunction significantly exceeds anything a burglar would receive for a first offence.


So in order to receive a decent level of protection for my property I need to be rich enough to get an injunction stating that burgling my house is not allowed, and post an informing notice in front so people are aware of it...

1
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> What are the stats on how many passers-by have been massively traumatised by witnessing a messy impact death ? 

Caused by climbers of buildings? Are you aware of even one?

In reply to Moley:

> I was being ironic - but we don't have an "ironic imoji" to use so I bunged an ! on the end.

> But it didn't read quite how I wanted, sorry.

I thought the irony was obvious. They were a bit cheeky in editing out the previous paragraph that made it more so.

 Blue Straggler 24 Oct 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Caused by climbers of buildings? Are you aware of even one?

Caused by people falling from height onto a hard surface. Don’t be so facetious 

1
In reply to Blue Straggler:

The whole thread is about a specific event not death and mayhem through all life.

 Blue Straggler 24 Oct 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> The whole thread is about a specific event not death and mayhem through all life.

And yet you didn’t jump on anyone else who went “off topic”. I wonder why that is. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not sure what you are getting at. I thought Coel made a good and fair point (Yes, Coel !!) about climbers on buildings. Not suicides or general accidents. I don't think you went off topic.

 Blue Straggler 24 Oct 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Not sure what you are getting at...... I don't think you went off topic.

I was responding to your replies to me at 07:30 and 08:17. The latter seems to be a chastisement for moving away from the specific event in the OP and onto the more general case of people falling from height fatally, an odd chastisement given that at 7:30 you seemed to be challenging me to name an example of a building climber doing so.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Coel wrote:

What are the stats on how many passers-by have been killed by climbers falling off buildings they're climbing?  I'm betting it's fewer than the number killed by meteorites.

To which you replied:

What are the stats on how many passers-by have been massively traumatised by witnessing a messy impact death ? 

To which Coel replied:

From climbers falling off tall buildings?  Close to zero I'd have thought…

Which seems quite similar to my own response so not just me then.

 Blue Straggler 24 Oct 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Which seems quite similar to my own response so not just me then.

Your reply had a slight difference to it, which altered its tone and warranted a response. Your loaded question was a thinly veiled challenge. 

As it happens, I do know of a death in 2019 of someone who was climbing ON a building (trying to break into her own flat, 10 metres above ground, as she had locked her keys in. 

I don't know if her fall was witnessed, I know the death wasn't instant. It was by all accounts a grim affair (she was fighting for life for four days in hospital). 

Admittedly it's impossible to gauge whether a police presence might have changed the outcome. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Well it was a question (questions challenge for an answer) and the example you give is not really the same is it?

Post edited at 13:07

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...