Exactly. Why shelter under a tree when he had top of the range camping gear with him?

It might have been boring and made for boring TV, but if he'd stayed in his sleeping bag he'd have been better off.

They probably all went to stay in the nearest hotel when not filming.

Do you have any idea how remote that area of Canada is?

There is no such thing as a 'nearest hotel' to those mountains.

He might not have been there quite as long as the show made out, but let's put this cynical 'err i bet they stay in a hotel' guff aside.

Either way the H&S gods at the BBC would never ever place one of their staff in ANY danger. The risk assessments are thorough and strictly adhered to for starters.

Well of course, although you maybe misunderstand what a risk assessment really is. It's merely a written acknowledgement of the risk. The risk assessment may well have said 'very b***** high risk indeed' but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

Things like when they went to the North Pole are a good example. Yes they'll have been trained, filmed and supervised by arctic experts and every precaution will have been taken, but driving a three tonne truck over the arctic ice when nobody has done it before is dangerous, no matter how safe you try to make it.

Out of interest Jamie, do you actually know exactly where they were, and the location of nearby towns? Or are you just having an aggressive rant along the lins of "I know everything and those who disagree must be idiots"?

I haven't been there myself but it doesn't take a genius to Google Earth the area and get an idea as to how remote it is. Mind you the presence of a snowy mountain tipped me off to start with.

My lack of being there doesn't therefore mean there is a five star hotel just out of shot and I therefore have to believe it.

The 'you've not been there so I'm obviously right' attitude makes me want to throw my laptop out of the window.