Allan McVie (amv2f@udcf.gla.ac.uk)
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:00:03 +0000
At 22:26 14/03/00 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <38CEB570.383A@virgin.net>, Pete James
><peter.james1@virgin.net> writes
>>
>>
>>The above facts are basically true but the poor chap concerned was a
>>LRP-type not a re-enactor.
>>
>>Presumably their safety standards are a bit lower than ours.
>
>Not at all. In fact I would say on average the safety standards and
>requirements are higher in LRP.
>
>I base this statement on six years of both LRP and re-enactment, with
>societies of all types, periods, genres and sizes.
>--
>Gill R.
I also get the impression that LRP has higher safety standards than
reenactment.You just have to look at the weapons they use to realise that.
The Glasgow Herald gave some more details than mentioned above.
In their article it mentions that the man was struck on the head by a
shield, he sat down because he was dizzy but then carried on for another
hour before collapsing.
Allan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:31:09 GMT