This B****y Country

[rambler]

hi folks

for last ten years i have been going swimming twice a week at a local leisure center,love swimming...almost as much as a good days walking.

but this evening i thought..'right, new year,back into the usual routine' monday nights swim. :D

but....pulled into car park and a BIG sign with bollards either side,'SHUT DUE TO ICY CAR PARK' couldnt believe it.

if my works car park,(same size as a football pitch) done this we wouldnt have any customers come in to collect stuff :(

as it happens it is VERY slushy and horrid to load vans & customers cars

what IS this country coming to,when i were a lad(long time ago now)..we walked to school,through any weather,ice,snow,wind ,rain..just got on with it

ITS ONLY ICE.......get on with it,if you fall / slip..get up and carry on

[Ravmania]

I agree, unfortunately we have a breed of selfish penny pinching arrogant exploitative little runts called solicitors (allegedly) who will run to every bugger who slips on that ice and convince them to make a claim for compensation. Yes you know who you are, advertisements in hospital waiting rooms, knocking on doors, advertising on tv - the ambulance chasers.

The 'law' is also at fault for allowing these spurious claims, they will blame the property owners because they 'should have known someone would slip on ice' rather than the people who walk on it who should know ice is slippy, if you don't want to take the risk don't walk on it. With the coming ice age we should all get used to it, ha ha!

I cycled over a wet mossy wooden bridge a few weeks ago and slipped off my bike, some guy shouted that 'they should put a sign up to say its slippy' he said someone else had fallen there the previous day, I totally disagreed with him and I thought it was a sad sign of the mentality of the country. It was my choice to cycle over the bridge and I am quite capable of making that decision. I will learn much more quickly to watch out for slippery bridges having fallen off than I would if someone put a sign out. Crikey if they put a sign out for every potential danger I would spend my life falling over signs!

The more the government, councils and the law pander to the increasing urge for people to want to be nannied and to avoid having to take responsibility for their own actions the stupider people get.

Ha ha, you got me started now...I could go on...but I wont...phew!

[mickboy]

Well said ....this country is being paralysed by The Health and Safety Organisation and unfortunately local councils etc are the biggest instigaters. Unless there is a backlash against this and the PC brigade then this country wont be worth living in in a few years time..

Keep taking the tablets.......................Mick

[vivianM]

Well said ....this country is being paralysed by The Health and Safety Organisation and unfortunately local councils etc are the biggest instigaters. Unless there is a backlash against this and the PC brigade then this country wont be worth living in in a few years time..

Keep taking the tablets.......................Mick

I agree with all that has been said but do not blame Parish Councils - most are not responsible for gritting or snow clearing- in our area it is Derbyshire County Council.

My Parish Council, and I am Chairman, but I will not name it - our Park Keepers have been out delivering grit to bins on roads, helping with gritting footpaths and much more - none of which is our responsibility - but in the interests of our residents we do what we can.

It was very noticeable that DCC gritted and scraped clean their local office car park and ignored a local road which elderly people have to use to get to a doctors surgery.

Guy

[cabcurtains]

My other half is a Physio for the NHS, there car park wont be cleared because if the staff were to be injured then they could sue the NHS as they cleared the area. If they leave it uncleared and you fall over its considered a natural disaster and nobody is accountable. The fact she is a falls physio makes it worse!

I just scratch my head and wonder where it all went wrong :o

[Parts-King]

The 'law' is also at fault for allowing these spurious claims,

Sadly, the "Law" was enforced by Europe so that it allowed the ordinary Joe Egg to to able to Suit the "Big Bad Boys" of industry, little did anybody foresee how it would all turn out. No win no fee should have been fantastic for anybody wanting access to the law but it has all gone horribly wrong, I'm not sure who you can blame for it, Solictors are just exercising the law....what was it somebody once said about the law and asses?

Kingo

[Jamesbelfast]

Don't blame the EU or government agencies. Blame the courts. It all started back in 1932 involving a legal case that went all the way up to the House of Lords. This was a decision based on the Common Law of Torts which goes back hundreds of years so it certainly ain't a new problem. For further reading try a google search for Donoghue v Stevenson 1932.

Local government agencies just don't have the resources to fight such claims and even if they won it would incur costs and guess who would pick up the bill - yes you and me the tax payer.

So if you ain't happy about the situation don't complain to the Council or whoever but to the Courts.:)

[Parts-King]

So if you ain't happy about the situation don't complain to the Council or whoever but to the Courts.:)

Acts of law=Government=EU=Courts ;)

Conditional fee agreements (CFAs), or no-win no-fee deals, were first allowed for a range of court cases in England and Wales in 1995. Three years later a move was made to extend these to all civil cases, with the exception of action in the family courts.

At the time then-minister Geoff Hoon said: "No-win no-fee conditional agreements will result in better access to justice. Access will be given to the many people who fall between those who are very rich or those who are so poor that they qualify for legal aid.

"In future, the question of whether one gets one's case to court will no longer depend on whether one can afford it, but on whether one's case is a strong one."

Pay the middleman

The 1999 Access to Justice Act, which came into force in April 2000, dramatically increased the attractiveness of no-win no-fee deals as judges could make the losing side shoulder the extra costs associated with conditional fee cases.

These are the "uplift" fees charged by solicitors, an increase on normal fees to compensate for the possibility of loss and therefore no fee, and the insurance premiums paid to protect against the other side's legal costs in the event of defeat.

"Trip and slip" cases get the headlines

And legal aid for personal injury cases was abolished, making a conditional fee agreement many people's only hope of justice.

The type of claims we see have arisen directly as a result of the GOVERNMENT abolishing Legal Aid (in certain cases) and introducing CFA's, the Goverment could'nt afford the legal aid bills so made CFA's so that everybody had access to a form of justice without the Govenment footing the bill. Courts don't make up the law, Governments do!

Kingo

[balli hi]

I remember an article i read in the daily express on monday as regards the clearing of snow and ice entitled " Mad rules that leave our pavements icy " the thing is i regularly clear a path from my drive to the front door , i even helped one of my elderly neighbours out by clearing a path from his drive to his front door , i'm not sure i'll be doing this any more .

HOME > NEWS / SHOWBIZ > UK NEWS > Mad rules that leave our pavements icy

UK NEWS

MAD RULES THAT LEAVE OUR PAVEMENTS ICY

Story Image

Pavements are being left thick with ice

Monday January 11,2010

By Daily Express reporter

PAVEMENTS are being left thick with ice because home owners and businesses risk being sued if they clear them.

Barmy health and safety rules have led to firms being warned not to grit public paths. If people clear ice outside their home or business, they open themselves up to legal action.

Yet if they leave paths in a treacherous condition, they cannot be sued.

The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, which represents 36,000 health and safety experts, has warned businesses not to clear paths. Michael Pepper, 68, was warned he could be sued for gritting his own street. He asked Cambridgeshire County Council to deliver grit, offering to lay it himself, but an official told him not to try this without public liability insurance.

But a council spokesman said people could grit roads “provided they do not put other members of the public at risk”.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said: “We would advise people, especially local businesses and shop owners, to attempt to make entrances safe.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/150968...-pavements-icy/

I quite liked this comment under " have your say "

WHAT A COUNTRY WE HAVE BECOME.....

11.01.10, 10:40am

It goes on and on and on....as many have written before me ,where is the sense of proportion we once had in this country and were PROUD of...too much has passed to the Loony left.

I at last do feel a change in attitudes to Government ,Politicians and Local Authorities ..in that at last more and more people are finding the voice we had in the past as a country to question and challenge many of these idiots who put themselves forward as leaders of our society....who in reality are so distant from our day to day lives and issues they as well maybe on anothe planet...some may say they already are!!!

• Posted by: Darm •

[hertsnminds]

What I don't understand is this...

The snow falls and becomes ice, if you slip on this there is no one to sue.

You clear the snow/ice so there is less risk of falling. The weather continues to be cold so there is more snow/ice and someone slips so they can now sue you as you cleared the path.

Why would a judge not rule in favour of the person who cleared the path as the person who slipped made a conscious decision to go out in bad weather conditions and to use the part of the path that was cleared. If they had chosen to stay in, wear better gripping footwear, not use the path where it was cleared it then they would not have fallen.

If the blame for path clearing argument stands up in court then you can argue that a car maker is at fault if you crash or speed as they built the car and you have no responsibility at all as to how you drive it.

[dawesy]

TBH im sick of all the 'claims' ads on the TV. for crying out loud.

the best one is ' i was installing a fire alarm system and given the wrong ladder!' if its the wrong ladder then dont use it.

all this health and safety is going against the darwin theory. you now dont have to care about what you do as someone else is responsible if you get hurt.

even down to the warning on peanut butter spread ' may contain nuts' i hope so thats why i brought it.

come on people we need to lobby for common sense to prevail!

[balli hi]

Its clear we as a nation are becoming increasingly unhappy , that could explain this " Britain is experiencing the greatest exodus of its own nationals in recent history while immigration is at unprecedented levels, new figures show. "

Last year, 207,000 British citizens - one every three minutes - left the country while 510,000 foreigners arrived to stay for a year or more.

The British made up more than half of the 400,000 moving abroad - yet only 14 per cent of immigrants were UK nationals coming home.

[Jamesbelfast]

So if you ain't happy about the situation don't complain to the Council or whoever but to the Courts.:)

Acts of law=Government=EU=Courts ;)

Conditional fee agreements (CFAs), or no-win no-fee deals, were first allowed for a range of court cases in England and Wales in 1995. Three years later a move was made to extend these to all civil cases, with the exception of action in the family courts.

At the time then-minister Geoff Hoon said: "No-win no-fee conditional agreements will result in better access to justice. Access will be given to the many people who fall between those who are very rich or those who are so poor that they qualify for legal aid.

"In future, the question of whether one gets one's case to court will no longer depend on whether one can afford it, but on whether one's case is a strong one."

Pay the middleman

The 1999 Access to Justice Act, which came into force in April 2000, dramatically increased the attractiveness of no-win no-fee deals as judges could make the losing side shoulder the extra costs associated with conditional fee cases.

These are the "uplift" fees charged by solicitors, an increase on normal fees to compensate for the possibility of loss and therefore no fee, and the insurance premiums paid to protect against the other side's legal costs in the event of defeat.

"Trip and slip" cases get the headlines

And legal aid for personal injury cases was abolished, making a conditional fee agreement many people's only hope of justice.

The type of claims we see have arisen directly as a result of the GOVERNMENT abolishing Legal Aid (in certain cases) and introducing CFA's, the Goverment could'nt afford the legal aid bills so made CFA's so that everybody had access to a form of justice without the Govenment footing the bill. Courts don't make up the law, Governments do!

Kingo

Of course Courts don't make up the law but they do have to apply it.:)

[Jamesbelfast]

If an employer instructs his employee to carry out a task in a dangerous manner or without inadequate tools or equipment then the employer is at fault. This is based on a very old legal test whereby a master is responsible for the acts of his servants. This test is not new but has been around for about 1000 years. And has been reinforced by Statute Law.

If a person takes action on anothers land or property then they can become liable for such action if it proves to be negligent or cause damage. When will people get it into their thick heads that most public pavements or roads don't belong to them nor have they any responsibilty over such.:)

[caveman_si]

Im sure in some parts of the alps on the continent its is the law to clear the path/ road outside your house.

It would be great if we had that type of law here.

[KPARRIS-JONES]

It does drive me nuts how everyone angles to get a day off because of snow. My god, just get on with it. Take an advanced drivers course and get some tips when it comes to driving in the snow.

Why does a snowy day mean you cannot work? My bus picked me up an hour late today, but I still got to school ready to start an exam! Why do people struggle to simply get on with it, and plan around the weather?

I did however get the day off, but that was because I wouldn't have been able to get back home had I not taken the drivers offer of a lift home as he left... :P

[KPARRIS-JONES]

Im sure in some parts of the alps on the continent its is the law to clear the path/ road outside your house.

It would be great if we had that type of law here.

I agree with that, but it doesn't work so well when your neighbours shovel their drive, putting the snow into your drive....

argh this thread has agitated me! I'm going to have to leave for a while!

[hertsnminds]

If a person takes action on anothers land or property then they can become liable for such action if it proves to be negligent or cause damage. When will people get it into their thick heads that most public pavements or roads don't belong to them nor have they any responsibilty over such.

It is a PUBLIC pavement if you pay any form of tax then you pay to create it, use it and maintain it. You may not own it on paper and if you can argue that you do not own it and you have or never wish to have it maintained then why pay the tax to support it?

Why can't you argue that the act of clearing the pavement is not negligent and does not cause damage. The act of the person electing to walk on that part of the pavement that has been cleared is what caused them to fall. If a person elects to jump in front of a fast moving train then it is not the train driver who has been negligent.

If an employer instructs his employee to carry out a task in a dangerous manner or without inadequate tools or equipment then the employer is at fault.

So if an employer instructs me to do something obviously dangerous I have no right to refuse to perform that task? Health and safety is the responsibility of every employee and they should report any dangers to their employer. If the employee has not reported a problem or they are the one who leaves a draw open or boxes in a fire corridor (against the stipulations in company policy) then who is at fault?

Just imagine if there were no insurance policies covering public liability and similar claims. The maximum pay outs would be what an individual or company could afford and the person bringing the case would have to pay their own legal fees until the case was won in their favour. How would this reduce the number of claims being made?

[balli hi]

A hypothetical question , your driving along and bang you drive over a big pothole that the council has neglected to repair and your suspension is damaged , how many of you would actually sue the authority concerned for reimbursment of costs incurred for the repair of the car ??

[Phoenix999]

A hypothetical question , your driving along and bang you drive over a big pothole that the council has neglected to repair and your suspension is damaged , how many of you would actually sue the authority concerned for reimbursment of costs incurred for the repair of the car ??

I would if I have previously told the council about the pothole.... They are liable if they know about the faulty road

[Bizarra]

I'm not qualified to comment on things as they are in the UK,

but I totalyy agree with what has been said previously.

The same, or very similar situation applies here in Ireland.

Come the Revolution................................. & it can't come soon enough.

There is a lot to be said for having a Dictatorship

When people are fed up with him/her, put a bullet through the head--- no pensions or Golden handshakes !

:lol2: