Should people who have been rescued pay back some of the cost?

I was watching The One show tonight and they were discussing whether people who have been rescued should pay back some of the costs to the rescue service.

For example, one particular bloke stole a boat and ended up being trapped in mud. The cost of his rescue came to £20,000 and he decided to walk around the coast of britain in order to raise money and pay back some of the costs. He raised £30,000 and gave it all back.

Another example was when someone was trapped at sea for five days (or so). He ended up being trapped in an air pocket and the cost of his rescue came to around £7,000,000.

The Rescue Services themselves (featured in this programme, I do not know what other services think) say no. They say that it is their job & if people think they have to pay the services back they may end up delaying their call for help which could result in a more dangerous situation for both the person in distress and the rescue services.

Some people who had been rescued said that a "thank you" was enough whereas others said that they felt a form of 'debt' where they needed to do more than say "thanks"

What do you all think?

Discuss

Nope - same as paying for the fire brigade or NHS.

Edit - but right-minded people would probably do some fundraising

nope that's what national insurance is for.

Personally I think that maybe some "token" gesture should be given ie. some kind of fundraising?

What instantly springs to my mind is the RNLI. The RNLI depends entirely on charitable donations and the crews are volunteers who give up their time and comfort to provide a 24 hour lifesaving service in what are quite often dangerous conditions.

2 years ago a very good friend of mine drowned in the English Channel together with his 2 year old son. It was 2 full days before my friends body was found. The RNLI worked tirelessly and when they were told to give up the search for the night they carried on until the small hours of the morning... they were then back out there at daylight.

You could argue that Alan and his son weren`t "rescued" as their lives weren`t saved but how many others are each year? My friends family work tirelessly to raise money for the RNLI and I`ve supported them when I can though I did draw the line at a recent abseil!

i alway's donate too rnli and air ambulance when i see them about.

[Luckypants]

I have been involved in rescues and with the rescue services, my son is still involved with them, so I have some knowledge on this.

First of all, no one should have to pay to be rescued or saved in some way. Cost should not be a factor in an emergency situation. Second, a lot of rescue services (Fire, Ambulance and Coastguard for instance) are state funded, so are paid for from taxes. Thirdly, the voluntary services are run by people who passionately believe in what they do and that saving someone is an act they are willing to do regardless of reward. So therefore none of those services expect to paid for a rescue.

Now when you are rescued because of your own stupidity, then making a financial gesture to the services involved should be morally imperative to you, so that others can benefit from the work of the rescue services. Unfortunately this is often not the case and the increase in this type of rescue from stupidity is often what gives rise to the debate about paying to be rescued. The kind of person who goes up Snowdon in a light jacket and trainers, but with a mobile, who then calls out mountain rescue because the weather changed would not think about payment "cos it's my rights init". OK generalisation but you get the drift. It is often those rescued when a situation goes bad, even if they are prepared for the worst, that will give something back to those who rescued them.

You will never square this and those that treat the rescue services responsibly will always pay for them in some way. Others will just be users.

My view is that I give what I can as often as I can to the services I believe in and hope that others do the same so that those services will be there should I ever need them again.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by zsv650

nope that's what national insurance is for.

That was never intended to pay for the rescue services, only the ambulance service is part of NHS (notianally paid for by NI). The statutory rescue services are funded from general taxation. Most rescue services are voluntary (RNLI, mountain rescue teams, cave rescue, swift water rescue etc)

Originally Posted by Luckypants

That was never intended to pay for the rescue services, only the ambulance service is part of NHS (notianally paid for by NI). The statutory rescue services are funded from general taxation. Most rescue services are voluntary (RNLI, mountain rescue teams, cave rescue, swift water rescue etc)

alright mr pedant still paid for though

[Swin]

The problem is this story concerns paying back the Australians for their efforts to find the young lad who wandered off into the outback with no phone, adequate food or navigation aids and didn't inform anyone where he's going.

I feel he should make a payment towards these guys efforts as apparently he stands to make a lot of money selling the rights to his negligence to a film company.

Normal accident/incident I agree, shouldn't have to pay - but if you're proven to have been negligent to this sort of degree I feel you should at least offer to help recover the outlay, but I'd hate to see it made legal.

[edit]

Originally Posted by zsv650

alright mr pedant still paid for though

It was in Australia, so not covered by NI anyway

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by zsv650

alright mr pedant still paid for though

The vast majority of rescue services are voluntary, so no, they are not paid for. That was my point.