back to article Brit lands on Rockall with survival podule, starts record attempt

Brit adventurer Nick Hancock has finally landed on the North Atlantic island of Rockall, just over a year since a first attempt to conquer the remote granite outcrop ended in failure. Nick Hancock. Pic: Michael Schofield Nick Hancock. Pic: Michael Schofield A short message beamed via satellite yesterday confirmed Hancock …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    anyone who can't really see the point

    Anyone needing a point for anything should look no further than that given by the famous mountaineer George Herbert Leigh Mallard.

    Well, what did you expect when you have two pluckys in one day.

    1. LarsG

      Raising money for Help the Hero's is reason enough.

      Now that he is on it, in 60 days he will have to get off it.

    2. Spacedman
      Joke

      Re: anyone who can't really see the point

      ... and look what happened to him.

      "Because its there" isn't a reason to go up it. Its a reason to go round it. - Linda Smith

      1. Uffish
        Pint

        @Linda Smith

        Man walked into a pub......teetotaller walked round it.

        The beer is for L.H.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Isn't that island included in China's claim?

      Isn't Rockall Island included within China's rather extensive South China Sea claim?

  2. Chris G
    Pint

    Good luck!

    From the looks of that swell, getting off will be at least as difficult as getting on to the rock unless Neptune is smiling that day.

    Have a beer Nick!

  3. EddieD

    At the next election...

    And the Lib-Dems have Rockall... (apologies to Ronnie Barker)

    Good luck to the guy, and try not to remember what happened to George Herbert Leigh Mallory when he was putting his pithy epithet into practice.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fantastic challenge and a fantastic charity to support. Help for heros always seems to bring out the best in people, the fundraising challenges people go through for it are worthy of their own TV station.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I find it extemely disgraceful that these charities exist and the government (of any flavour) doesn't step up to it's responsibilities towards those who they have put in a position of need.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I find it extemely disgraceful that these charities exist and the government (of any flavour) doesn't step up to it's responsibilities towards those who they have put in a position of need."

        Isn't that true of all charities though?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >Isn't that true of all charities though?

          No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally."

            The government didn't make them join the army in the first place! Personally I think it is a fantastic charity, it's just a shame people like you are disgusted with its existance. They provide a level of funding that the government will never make, no matter how much you moan about them.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              >it's just a shame people like you are disgusted with its existance. They provide a level of funding that the government will never make, no matter how much you moan about them.

              Oh dear, oh dearI I said it is disgusting these charities exist not that I am disgusted by its existence, however I suspect the difference is lost on you.

              As for the comment about not being forced to join the army. Great let's all sit at home and look after ourselves. I'm glad some people do chose to join up.

              1. Don Jefe

                Charities, and the legal status they receive, are governments taking action to assist those in need. Yes, there are some shady charities, and opinions vary on the responsibilities of government, but there is no doubt charities are able to deliver assistance in a targeted manner and raise funds from sources that would never hand monies and tangible assets over to the government beyond the legal requirements.

                In the greater scheme of things it's fairly impressive governments allow charities to exist. Government tend to adopt an 'I know best because I have a mandate' attitude, which is generally worthless.

                1. Elmer Phud

                  "In the greater scheme of things it's fairly impressive governments allow charities to exist."

                  The government has savagely cut funding to local authorities and public services to pay for the cock-up by the banks which we are still sufffering for.

                  Charities are supposed to pick up the pieces left behind but those pieces get bigger and bigger,

                  Remember 'Big Society'? this is it -- born out of desperation rather than altruism.

                  1. Don Jefe

                    The government always 'savagely cuts' funding for services, it's incredibly shortsighted to blame the bank bailouts for the service budget cuts. What you're seeing isn't 'big society', it's what happens when public agencies invest heavily in technology that's of great expense, questionable value and 'strategically focused'.

                    It's that last bit that's most crucial. Public agencies are cutting back on their own capabilities in order to weight performance in other, headline grabbing, activities. Along with the tech comes agency staff whose entire purpose is maximizing the visible value of that tech.

                    What you've got are public agencies increasing specializations and marginalizing their abilities to deliver a broad range of mission furthering services. Don't blame governments for cutting back funds, blame the agencies for trying to operate like businesses. Go take a look at technology spend then compare that with their overall budget. You'll see tech spend growing 3, 4 even 5x faster than budgets grow. You'll see a corresponding reduction in everything from full time staffing to the elimination and combination of programs. You're way, way out of touch on the issue. Whoever told you the bank mess played a hand in any of this is either an idiot, or is taking you for one. Don't take that bait.

            2. cordwainer 1

              Maybe YOUR government didn't make them join the army....

              But here in the US we have something called the "draft".

              And compulsory service in wartime (sometimes in peacetime) is not unique to the US.

              (I'm not weighing in on either side of the charity or not argument. Just correcting an ignorant statement.)

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: cordwainer Re: Maybe YOUR government didn't make them join the army....

                "But here in the US we have something called the "draft"....." Help For Heroes was set up to help those servicemen and women hurt in British military ventures, not Americans. It has nothing at all to do with America or the draft other than how they often co-operate with similar charities in America. So please take you politics and shove them where you have so stupidly placed your own petard.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Other things government inflicted

              "No. Governments do not give you cancer, parkinsons disease, alzheimers nor a host of other things there are charities for. In this case the government has actively taking a decision while sitting in their comfy chairs to send people into war then wash their hands of them when they return injured, physically or mentally."

              The government do give regular handouts to those on the dole - see correlations with obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, etc. which are paid for by the dole money, but which the recipients should use with a duty of care to look after themselves. They chose to abuse themselves and yet the government chose to look after them.

              Many of these dole scroungers have done nothing to protect or advance the country, but are looked after through their illnesses, and yet those who have fought for this country are just discarded as a burden!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Actually Tony Blair took that particular decision. He's done quite well out of it ever since.

            Good on you Nick Hancock for doing this - perhaps our former PM (Blair) might be persuaded to put his hand in his pocket and sponsor him...

            1. TopOnePercent

              perhaps our former PM (Blair) might be persuaded to put his hand in his pocket and sponsor him

              Yes, he can start with the £42 Million he owes in taxes for the £100 Million he earned while Gordon was throwing phones at people. Its a disgrace that a Labour leader would avoid taxes by squirrelling that much money into off shore trusts, companies, and accounts.

      2. Velv
        Stop

        "I find it extemely disgraceful that these charities exist and the government (of any flavour) doesn't step up to it's responsibilities towards those who they have put in a position of need."

        While you may think it is the government who hasn't stepped up to its responsibilities, ultimately it is you and I. We elect the government, and more importantly, we pay the taxes.

        I'm not for one minute going to comment on the relative merits of one group over another. But ultimately the pot is only so large and can only be divided so many ways. And you won't find a politician (whose self-glory, whose job, whose pay packet, relies on everyone's vote) willing to increase income tax to pay for all the worthy causes.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          HTF can you compare a worthy cause with those put in a position of need because our government chose to send people to war. As you say, we elected the government so ultimately it is our taxes which should pay for problems caused by their decisions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            For fucks sake people. Please stop trying to bring your agenda into an article that is all about charity and over coming adversity for the benefit of others.

        2. OffBeatMammal

          if the choice is for my taxes to go to paying Vets what they have fought for vs boondoggles for MPs and Military Contractors to spend millions on things that don't protect anything buy a company's bottom line ... hell yeah, give them to the folks who served and are paying the price.

          longer term we need to look at why we are engaging in military action in the first place ... we're not Team America, World Police (don't get me started on those clowns) and we're not longer the folks who can paint 3/4s of the globe pink and put fly the flag ... so when we're off helping "liberate" oil for BP lithium and other minerals for vested interest can't we at least charge them and stop pretending it's about peace keeping or democracy

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I find it extremely disgraceful that these charities exist and the government (of any flavour) doesn't step up to it's responsibilities towards those who they have put in a position of need"

        MPs don't have an issue with standing and smiling whilst they cut the ribbons at food banks...

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You have described this in terms that qualify it to be called a problem. To that problem, there are two remedies: 1) Ban charity or 2) reform the culture that makes them necessary.

        The first is abhorrent, the second improbable.

  5. joeW
    Trollface

    Best of luck Nick

    Enjoy your stay in Ireland ;)

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Best of luck Nick

      I wonder if the bird poo is still on the Union Jack that's painted on there? ;)

  6. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Best luck to him

    How do you get a 60-day all-expenses-paid completely do-not-disturb vacation?

    However, wait a second... Is that white stuff on top of the rock bird shit? Maybe I'll pass on that one then...

    1. Anonymous Custard

      Re: Best luck to him

      The question is whether he hates footie and decided to avoid all the World Cup stuff, or he's a sneaky fan, and took a solar (or wave) powered telly and stash of snacks for the ultimate in interruption-free game enjoyment...?

      Good luck to him either way!

    2. Mark York 3 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Best luck to him

      WISE OLD BIRD:

      My dear old thing, you have such a sympathetic face.

      ARTHUR:

      Is that why you’ve done what you’ve done all over it? I’m sorry, but on my world I had a nice home and a good job with prospects and I get angry at the thought that my life suddenly consists of sitting in sewage filled models of my own ear, being patronised by a lot of demented birds!!!

  7. Anonymous Custard
    Thumb Up

    No longer f**k-all on Rockall?

    Damn, with a bit more warning and preparation we could have re-opened the Rockall Post Office again!

    That raised some good money for charity from Lester et al's run up there in 2005 - double-damn was that really almost a decade ago?!?

    Anyway best of luck to one man and his pod...

    1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Re: No longer f**k-all on Rockall?

      Ah yes, I still have one of those covers. It's sitting next to my small chunk of Rockall.

      1. Martin Budden Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: No longer f**k-all on Rockall?

        Is a small chunk of Rockall still a small chunk of Rockall when said small chunk is not at all on Rockall? Is it a small chunk of rock all alone?

    2. Lexxy

      Re: No longer f**k-all on Rockall?

      No, given the huge population percentage increase on Rockall, it's likely Starbucks will soon be opening a branch there...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Erm

    Maybe you could get in touch with Nick and let him know the title for the individual images of the "survival podule" link is rather intriguing.

    "Nick Hancock teats his RockPod"

  9. Sammy Smalls

    Wow.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall#mediaviewer/File:Rockall_wave_March_1943.jpg

    Good luck!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wow, indeed !

      Nice sequence of pics - but check out the last one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall#mediaviewer/File:LE_Roisin_at_Rockall.jpg

      I am sure it looks like there is the roof of a house on the very top ?!?!?!?

      So why did Nick bother taking a pod .... ?

      1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Wow, indeed !

        "I am sure it looks like there is the roof of a house on the very top ?!?!?!?"

        Its a Starbucks.

  10. Shane McCarrick

    You do realise Rockall isn't British?

    When the United Kingdom ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 25 July 1997, which states - “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”, it signed away any legal claim to Rockall. Ireland and the UK subsequently sat down and decided on a policy of how to split up any explorations rights and/or rights of exploitation in the area. Iceland and Denmark disagree with Ireland and the UK- and Iceland in particular, makes a particular point of exploiting fishing in the area, to annoy other interested parties.

    Its a rock, a barren, desolate rock- and we're not even fighting over it- we sat down over a table and agreed to how exploit the area- so why antagonise one another over it. Or at very least- the Irish and the UK- should gang together and get Iceland and Denmark- the hell out of the area.........

    1. kmac499

      Re: You do realise Rockall isn't British?

      In the days before Internet everywhere (come to think of it it was pre web) Whilst discussing our relative geographies with an american co-worker we told him about Rockall and it's then effect on our fishing, mineral rights etc..

      "RockAll !!! you guys named a place RockAll, I don't believe you."

      After much scouting about we found a paper map with that bit of sea in it and convinced him.

      Good luck to Nick

    2. Fibbles

      Re: You do realise Rockall isn't British?

      You seem to have misunderstood what UNCLOS III does. Not being able to enforce an exclusive economic zone in the sea around an uninhabited rock (200 miles in every direction,) does not mean that a country can't claim sovereignty over that rock. In fact because the UK claims sovereignty they can enforce their right to territorial waters around the rock (12 miles in every direction).

      1. Shane McCarrick

        Re: You do realise Rockall isn't British?

        Britain is not alone in claiming sovereignty though- Ireland has claimed both sovereignty over the rock, and the territorial waters. Ireland came to an accommodation with the UK over exploration and exploitation rights- however, unlike its territorial claim to Northern Ireland which was rescinded with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement- Ireland never gave up its territorial claim to Rockall (and lands scores of fishermen on the rock annually, just to make this very point). Muddying the waters, if you'll excuse the pun, are Iceland and Denmark- who don't seem of a mind to come to a mutually agreeable arrangement such as the Irish and British governments did- however, even that agreement is in abatement, after the last leg of the talks (11 years ago in Dublin). So- read into it as you may- but as far as Ireland is concerned, it has sovereign right to the rock, and its agreement with Britain on exploration and exploitation- deliberately did not address the sovereignty issue- it was simply kicked into the long grass. Denmark and Iceland, on the otherhand, refused to negotiate at all (after the 4 way negotiations in London, 3 years previous, broke down- when they said the Irish and British were trying to railroad them).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: You do realise Rockall isn't British?

          It might not be allowed its own zone but is it in anyone else's?

  11. Blank-Reg
    IT Angle

    Makes me wonder whatever did happen to that esteemed publication The Rockall Times

    1. smartypants

      It found itself between a rock and hard place.

      No sorry.

      It needed to be hung up to dry

      No that's not it

      The readership dried up.

      Arse! That would never happen on Rockall.

      Oh I give up.

      1. Martin Budden Silver badge

        You seem to be all at sea.

  12. Primus Secundus Tertius

    The Great Escape

    Some people will do anything to get away from their relatives for a few weeks.

  13. Ken 16 Silver badge

    Yes, Ireland and Scotland should decide what to do with it

    Sometime in late September.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Kudos to Nick, and to Lester

    How many IT journals can report this story with the insights from a former embedded reporter?

  15. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Joke

    It takes all types, I suppose.

    "....and anyone who can't really see the point of his escapade....." OK, I could see the point if it was sixty days stuck on the rock with a suitable bird for company, but just seagulls....

  16. paulc

    Some better photies of the pod would be nice

    including internal shots to show just how claustrophobic it will be, especially with suppplies inside as well...

  17. Intractable Potsherd

    Th pull Rockall exerts on all that have seen it??

    Sorry, Lester - I've seen Rockall, and it exerted no pull over me at all. Put a lighthouse on it, and I might want to go, but as it is, I just regard it as another bit of rock in the sea. This isn't to say that people who go and try to spend time on it are wrong, but I had to counter your hyperbole in case anyone thought there is some Dr Who-type villain* inexorably drawing people there after one glance.

    * Silurians, probably.

  18. woot21

    With so many people visiting the rock and spending excessive amounts of time there, do you have to book time for your stay?????

  19. Arachnoid

    Limited spaces, book early

    One bed apartment close to the sea with good views of the coastline

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why??

    As the old saying goes "There's f***all in Rockall!"

  21. John 62
    Mushroom

    All the best to Nick, hope he gets a knighthood, but IIRC last time el Reg went to Rockall there was a bit of a falling out.

This topic is closed for new posts.