uk-survival-gets-tougher

Southsea · 10-28-2008, 01:33 PM

bear-with-me-spacebar-on-keyboard-is-broken

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-firewood.html

this-is-of-concern,can-anyone-else-see-the-implications?

Here's-something-else-to-think-about-apparently-the-word-holocaust-translates-in-the-original-as-a-sacrafice-a-burnt-offering!!

All-the-Best

Rob

AndyH · 10-28-2008, 01:42 PM

So much for magna carta, the forestry commision override that.
The UK needs a constitution, despite this announcement this right remains under law until removed by parliament...not by the forestry commission sheesh.

Actually...iirc not even parliament can change magna carta, isn't that right reserved to the Queen only?

Allie · 10-28-2008, 04:13 PM

I honestly don't think that there is any implication - other than a fear of litigation.

Most councils are ultra-cautious in almost everything they do due to these silly health and safety laws - which themselves arise because people will sue if they can.

Some examples I've seen in my own community are a) a Carnival banner which used to stretch across the road from one lamp post to another was deemed dangerous in case it fell on a car. It never had in all the years the Carnival took place but the potential was there. b) the local council bought a strip of magnificent, natural land to prevent it being used for home building. They were obliged to 'mow' as much of it as they could and to carry out regular safety checks for fallen tree limbs, holes and so on - because people walked their dogs on the land and might fall over a log or get a foot down a hole. c) kids approached the council for funds to pop a small, five-a-side net on a grass verge in an extremely quiet road. The council didn't dare give them the money because if an accident had occurred, the council would be deemed responsible for funding the net. Parents allowing their children to use it didn't come into the equation.

I could go on (and on

) but in respect of the article in the Daily Mail, it appears necessary to buy a licence in order to forage. As a financial transaction/licence has taken place, whoever owns this land would have responsibility towards the user. If such a user was to have an accident - even a small one - and decided to sue the cost to the land owner could be high. To maintain the land in order to comply with the health and safety laws would also be costly.

There's nothing sinister here - just our society's inclination to sue the A**e off anyone for anything.

ATYT · 10-28-2008, 05:09 PM

W O W .. its incredible ..

AndyH · 10-28-2008, 07:48 PM

Ridiculous nanny state cr*p.

Allie · 10-29-2008, 12:17 AM

From what I know, we are our own worst enemies with regard to the Nanny State.

I feel we have developed a bit of a victim-type mentality, where we constantly seek to place personal responsibility beyond ourselves and onto A.N. Other. If the tiniest part of that responsibility fails - we sue. This is why so many health and safety laws exist.

I have yet another example of this. (truth be told, I've got hundreds!). If you have a lad aged between 8 - 10 and he plays for a local football team, who is responsible for getting him to the Sunday game, staying with him whilst he plays and taking him home? Now, you might logically and reasonably say 'the parents', but I know of one case where a kid's team was given a superb piece of land upon which the local councils built a pitch. It was about 40yds from a road. The road was not busy by any stretch of the imagination, but there had been a non-fatal accident on it. The parents were up in arms about the location of the pitch - somehow they seemed to think that their child's safety in respect of this road was the council's responsibility.

So, this in turn implies that they would either let their child go to the match alone - crossing a road they seemed so concerned about - or would allow them to somehow run away (40yds) whilst there - and probably with the parent standing by doing nothing Jeez!!

Some health and safety laws are very necessary, but it is our propensity to sue that is causing the dafter ones to creep in.

10-28-2008, 01:33 PM	#1
Southsea Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 46	uk-survival-gets-tougher bear-with-me-spacebar-on-keyboard-is-broken http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-firewood.html this-is-of-concern,can-anyone-else-see-the-implications? Here's-something-else-to-think-about-apparently-the-word-holocaust-translates-in-the-original-as-a-sacrafice-a-burnt-offering!! All-the-Best Rob

10-28-2008, 01:42 PM	#2
AndyH Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 289	Re: uk-survival-gets-tougher So much for magna carta, the forestry commision override that. The UK needs a constitution, despite this announcement this right remains under law until removed by parliament...not by the forestry commission sheesh. Actually...iirc not even parliament can change magna carta, isn't that right reserved to the Queen only?

10-28-2008, 04:13 PM	#3
Allie Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 161	Re: uk-survival-gets-tougher I honestly don't think that there is any implication - other than a fear of litigation. Most councils are ultra-cautious in almost everything they do due to these silly health and safety laws - which themselves arise because people will sue if they can. Some examples I've seen in my own community are a) a Carnival banner which used to stretch across the road from one lamp post to another was deemed dangerous in case it fell on a car. It never had in all the years the Carnival took place but the potential was there. b) the local council bought a strip of magnificent, natural land to prevent it being used for home building. They were obliged to 'mow' as much of it as they could and to carry out regular safety checks for fallen tree limbs, holes and so on - because people walked their dogs on the land and might fall over a log or get a foot down a hole. c) kids approached the council for funds to pop a small, five-a-side net on a grass verge in an extremely quiet road. The council didn't dare give them the money because if an accident had occurred, the council would be deemed responsible for funding the net. Parents allowing their children to use it didn't come into the equation. I could go on (and on) but in respect of the article in the Daily Mail, it appears necessary to buy a licence in order to forage. As a financial transaction/licence has taken place, whoever owns this land would have responsibility towards the user. If such a user was to have an accident - even a small one - and decided to sue the cost to the land owner could be high. To maintain the land in order to comply with the health and safety laws would also be costly. There's nothing sinister here - just our society's inclination to sue the A**e off anyone for anything.

10-28-2008, 05:09 PM	#4
ATYT Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 65	Re: uk-survival-gets-tougher W O W .. its incredible ..

10-28-2008, 07:48 PM	#5
AndyH Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 289	Re: uk-survival-gets-tougher Ridiculous nanny state cr*p.

10-29-2008, 12:17 AM	#6
Allie Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 161	Re: uk-survival-gets-tougher From what I know, we are our own worst enemies with regard to the Nanny State. I feel we have developed a bit of a victim-type mentality, where we constantly seek to place personal responsibility beyond ourselves and onto A.N. Other. If the tiniest part of that responsibility fails - we sue. This is why so many health and safety laws exist. I have yet another example of this. (truth be told, I've got hundreds!). If you have a lad aged between 8 - 10 and he plays for a local football team, who is responsible for getting him to the Sunday game, staying with him whilst he plays and taking him home? Now, you might logically and reasonably say 'the parents', but I know of one case where a kid's team was given a superb piece of land upon which the local councils built a pitch. It was about 40yds from a road. The road was not busy by any stretch of the imagination, but there had been a non-fatal accident on it. The parents were up in arms about the location of the pitch - somehow they seemed to think that their child's safety in respect of this road was the council's responsibility. So, this in turn implies that they would either let their child go to the match alone - crossing a road they seemed so concerned about - or would allow them to somehow run away (40yds) whilst there - and probably with the parent standing by doing nothing Jeez!! Some health and safety laws are very necessary, but it is our propensity to sue that is causing the dafter ones to creep in.