Fool-hardy youngsters vs cantankerous oldies

I concur – it's mad that people can become worked into such hysteria. Perhaps the asininity of those fatuous few can be forgiven though; after all, many have been cooped up as a ramification of the "big-freeze" and perhaps suffering from cabin fever, the symptoms of which entail hyperbole, pedantry and petulance – if we were to use those quoted as a sample group.

I note the phrase: "fool-hardy youngsters". Let me reciprocate by calling you cantankerous oldies.

There are several ways to estimate the strength of the ice, one being by observation of its transparency and another, concededly more dangerous, method of trial-and-error. In the middle, where the ice is thicker, it's strong enough to carry a substantial amount. This can be tested by using the weight of bricks – or humans, if you're that way inclined. People did walk over the lakes but not "in spite of the warning signs", per se.

Jump from the Eiffel Tower, and you'll die. Therefore, jump from a bench then the force of impact will also kill you. This conclusion was made in an analogous way to one of your readers – conjecture based on incomparable premises. I'll concede that their deduction is more implicit, however. The lake which caused the death of two brothers was vastly larger in volume than Mewsbrook and the Oyster Pond (meaning a difference in strength). Furthermore, Mewsbrook, iced over, is only 4ft deep – the average teenager's head would be above water level.

I would contend that someone falling in would stand a greater chance of survival than the one in which two brothers died, and probably come out feeling rather cold – pneumonia at worst. Death is possible (where isn't it?), but that doesn't mean that "the chance of survival is minimal" (as quoted). Risks are everywhere – stadium sports, hiking, beach-related activities, even everyday life.

I don't condone walking on the ice. Neither do I condone the absence of impartiality in this story or the manner it's been treated. One reader said they "challenged the. . . teenagers", which implies confrontation.

Is that the best way to deal with such matters? People complain about teenagers lingering on the streets; people complain that youths aren't getting enough exercise; two birds with one stone, surely? The ambiguity and ambivalence must cease.

This issue's severity has been blown out of proportion; the icing is a meteorological rarity and people have walked on iced-over lakes, for years. Why should that change? To use a concededly over-used, but nonetheless pertinent phrase, it's because Britain is becoming a nanny state.

Kyran Schmidt

Southfields Road

Littlehampton

-----------------------------

Click here to return toLittlehampton Gazette news.

Where are you? Add your pin to the Gazette's international readers' map by clicking here.

Email the Gazette: [email protected]

Want to read this page in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Urdu or 48 other languages? click here for Google translate.