Do I understand you Roger ?
In that going willingly to a ship 16 miles off the coast that has no steering or propulsion. nobody on board who knows much about ships, no heating in mid winter, no washing facilities aside from cold water in buckets, no flushing toilets.
Lit sometimes by a petrol generator or even oil lamps, wet bedding, not much in the way of life saving equipment, food shortages along with the dubious ability to cook that food, all to chase the dream of getting back on air is an acceptable risk.
The decison will never now be put to you, but had it been, would you have gone out there ?
May the Lord preserve me from hypothetical questions posed by armchair observers. I wonder what Neal thinks ??
PM.
"its not worth that. Is it?"
Ian, that could be said about so many everyday risks that are part of our lives.
Whether it was luck or judgement or a bit of both, offshore radio had a casualty rate much lower than most other, non-government regulated, adventurous activities. If offshore radio risks, along with many other borderline'acceptable' risks, were not taken, life would be so boring and many advances would not have come to pass. Moving forward every day is a challenge. Face it, don't hide from it.
Once in 1980 and again in 1991 idealistic people came really close to losing their lives. As much as I loved offshore radio, its not worth that. Is it? Yet, some will only recognise the "real Caroline" when there are people sitting on a boat risking their lives whilst they sit in their armchairs and criticise.
It's a strange old game.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index