I've bumped this back up. The mods locked it for two days & by the time it was unlocked it was pages back & ignored

This is very sad, and could've been avoided. I note that the Army have taken on board the Coroner's suggestions. There's no mention that the school has. I see they've also changed their name. I wonder why!

IMHO the 'headline' for the posting is necessary, unhelpful and offensive; I believe it to be poorly conceived. This accident is without any doubt tragic and I would hope that lessons will be learnt all round to try and prevent something similar happening again, although realistically more will; that is the nature of such activities; but it was not Lord Young's fault and nor do I think that anything in his report leads me to believe that the risk of this sort of accident should necessarily be increased by his recommendations. The greater tragedy would be that such activities will be stopped, curtailed or 'dumbed down' by the cotton wool brigade, denying people, especially young people the opportunity to take part in challenging activities that inevitably carry a certain level of risk; even the risk of death. There has to be a balance between the risk and the benefit of taking part in these sort of activities and this is recognised in the HSE position statement on play provision and managing risk in play provision, the principles of which can be translated to this sort of situation. I fully expect a slating from many, but the essence of my post is that it is unfair to blame Lord Young and as professionals we do have to recognise the balance between risk and benefit of participation in such activities. Right, off to get my stab vest and helmet on!

This was a tragic accident, but we need to remember that teenagers need activities to keep them fit, and prepare them for adult life, we need to let them do adventure training, sports etc, there is always a risk whatever we do, the risk assessments was done, so a safe system of training was in place, maybe they should have had a leader with them to supervise, but they were told not to cross the streams, we dont want to become a nanny state,

Whilst regretable and that some of the teachers were having breakfast in a nearby town at the time, the point of the ten-tors is to challenge the participants. Having Teachers accompany them 24/7 will not accomplish this and would just be a walk on the moors. The Tors is supposed to be challenging and 'nannying' them will not achieve this. Even if the teachers were not in Princetown at the time, its unlikely the outcome would have been different and certainly none of Lord Young's reccomendations would have made a difference either. Perhaps better training and preparations for the participants is one part of the solution and perhaps an awareness of the scale of the undertaking. I did the ten-tors as a young Boy-Scout and was always under no illusion that it would be tough and a real challenge physically and mentally. (A long time ago now, admittedly!). It is tragic for the parents of the poor girl, but I'm not sure how, short of cancelling the whole event which has been going for nearly 50 years, it could be made 'Safe'.

I’m sorry some of you were upset by the title and I apologise. The point I was trying to make was the LY “consulted” interested bodies when he was formulating his report but not victims. This incident illustrates the heartache behind a death or serious injury which I don’t feel he considered. He has recommended removing the controls that should have been in place and should have protected this child. Wizzpete – This was a practice session not the real thing - my guess is the real thing would have fully implemented the requirements of the “paperwork”. Also the kids themselves did a dynamic risk assessment and asked to come off the moor. The leader thought he knew better.

I'm a by-product of an elated father returning from running a successful scout team on the ten tors challenge many years ago. I can remember my dad saying that conditions could be harsh, but on the evnets he took part in, the army and all scout leaders, etc., ALWAYS kept a close eye on the young participants due to the nature of the terrain/ event.

Steve I am wondering how you managed to conclude that none of who have replied so far could complete Ten Tors; or for that matter the relevance of the remark? I completed Ten Tors during my training in the RAF, it IS challenging, but great fun and something of a relief to get to the end! Similarly, I don’t know if Lord Young (and others!!) have had to deal with the aftermath of such a serious event, or not. For all I know they may well have. On reflection, I rather regret posting last night, although not because of the content of my post. I also note the apology at #12. I personally don’t think it was useful, and would like to think that the point being made could have been made with the need for such an attention-grabbing headline. It looked more like the stuff of the tabloid press, although perhaps I am being too sensitive. I can’t help but feel that the immediate response to my post was typically cynical and added little or nothing of any value to the debate. As unpalatable as it may be to many, the pursuit of absolute safety remains the Holy Grail of health and safety and as unreachable as ever. It is an unpleasant, uncomfortable, but inevitable fact that sometimes ‘mistakes’ such as this are made, and that they sometimes have an outcome that is tragic and disproportionate to the circumstances and the expectations of the people involved. However, there has to be a trade off between risk and the benefits of taking part in life in general including participation in such events which play a hugely important role in teaching young people many life skills and helps them to gain an appreciation of risks. Nobody wants such a tragedy to happen, including I would suggest, Lord Young; there should be considered, sensible and proportionate controls in place, but there are no, and nor can there be any guarantees that such an incident won’t happen or that it won’t happen again. The assessment process/protocol being suggested in the implementation guide to the management risk of play provision differs from the standard MHSW assessment in that the assessment should not only consider the risk but also the benefit derived from being exposed to the risk. Some of the elements of such an assessment are less tangible than others and as I have found recently, this requires a fairly fundamental shift in ‘traditional’ thinking that I must confess, I have struggled with. While I accept that this type of event may not be considered ‘play’ or necessarily what the writers of the guidance had in mind, I suggest that the guiding principles are transferable. I will bow out gracefully, but will keep my helmet firmly planted on my head!

Judging from the responses this case represents a fine line between achievement, experience and risk. These types of trips need to well planned and with contingencies if things don't go to plan eg adverse weather. I'm not sure that 14 year olds, particularly girls, should be left unsupervised in a potentially harsh environment - but that's just my view. That said, it is all very well for the Coroner to criticise the lack of supervision and to suggest better controls in future, but who is to say the Coroner knows any better than anyone else? It is often all too easy after the event and with the benefit of hindsight to say what should or should not have been in place to protect these youngsters. The legal system rarely recognises a significant risk without an adverse outcome. This tends to lead to a knee jerk reaction and yet more regulations and guidance. Indeed, it is something that many h&s practitioners deal with on a regular basis. I would like to forget the amount of times some jobsworth has commented that the remedial measures in an accident/incident investigation are not sufficient, forgetting that sometimes a one-off and unforeseeable event cannot be mitigated with further controls.