Fidget Spinners

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
70

I think that there is a significant “generation” issues too.

Year ago, if you injured yourself if you had been somewhere you shouldn’t have been = no claim. Go back to the Farnborough Air Show crash in 1952, one recent documentary stated that no-one made a claim for damages. Today - get sued for a kid using a pen…

Similarly, even as a teenager, there seemed to be far more respect for authority & very few “tech” options for study / research / reminders about homework, etc. Pen & paper were the key items! The one available school text book on “underwater basket weaving” was the source for homework & exams. Today, the tech world is the source of good & bad. Set your e-calendar for homework / appointment reminders - nah, far too difficult! :wink:

71

And?
If there’s a big fence around it, with signs on it, and it’s obvious it’s a building site and there’s a night guard, then what do you think is going to happen?

If some kid is that stupid they go in and get hurt, it’s their own fault. But instead, the poor night guard gets it in the neck for not having eyes on the back of his head.

It’s not the nightguards fault, it’s not the company’s fault. It’s the parents fault and ultimately the kids fault.

You play stupid games, you get stupid prizes.

72

This one did!!

1 Like
73

If they’ve taken steps to that extent to keep people out, then it’s highly unlikely that they’d be prosecuted.

74

Stop feeding the troll. His knowledge of the legal system surrounding the rather old principle of the duty of care owed to trespassers is laughable (confirmed by the House of Lords in 1972.) It’s also probably largely based upon reading papers like the Mail or the Express. Well known for their quality legal reporting…

Let’s take his example of the poor Night guard. someone breaks in to and dies. Can the company be sued? Maybe, it entirely depends on what killed them. If they jumped off a crane taking a selfie, no chance.

The duty under the 1984 Act is to “take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the non-visitor does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned”. There are other pre-requisites such as knowledge of the danger which exists.

But what about the signs? Well, the Act says: “Any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may, in an appropriate case, be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk.”

So, if you put up signs, there is a good chance you will be ok, as you have warned people. If the risk is sufficiently clear then “No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person”

The children issue with warnings is different, because not all children can read. and the 1957 act also provides that we should “be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”. This is just common sense, especially when we see that kids like Teflon loved nothing better than to play on building sites. What if, on that building site there was a large hole covered by a tarp, or a big gap in a fence surrounding an electric transformer? If you leave a danger like that, then you are stupid enough to deserve to pay for it.

Oon the whole, as long as the person takes reasonable, common sense precautions to avoid dangers or protect people from them they will be ok.

So that’s what the law says, essentially apply common sense, if there is a gap in a railway fence, and the railway company knows there is a gap in the railway fence, if a child wanders through the gap, and is hurt or killed, of course that is negligent. If an adult did the same thing, there may not be negligence provided there was sufficient warning signs. the adult took the risk voluntarily. (I would argue that you wouldn’t even need the signs, it’s pretty common knowledge not to cross railway lines, but people do it every day.)

My point is, the legal system of this country is nowhere near as risk-averse as industry. The prospect of being sued is actually more scary to organisations than the reality.

1 Like
75

From a railway standpoint it may be seen as sufficient to have signs at the nearest point of access, be that a crossing or a station. This certainly covers the criminal offence of Railway trespass where one of the points to prove is that signage was present. (Courts have accepted that the railway is too big to put signs on every fence panel).

76

But that’s all part of the learning survival process.

Hmm that hurt or that didn’t taste nice, flight or fight etc. There is also the factor of evaluating for self-preservation. Do I drive down this country lane open to all traffic at 60 as it’s NSL or do I go for around 30-40, so I’m better able to react to other traffic etc?

Many of these processes are removed from kids today as it’s someone else’s fault if they get hurt etc, IMO if you do something you accept the risk that it might not go absolutely right. If you want thrills in life be prepared to accept the consequences.

As MJ alludes years ago in the majority of incidents if something happened to you, you accepted the fact things happen and go badly and didn’t always look for someone to blame. I can imagine people today blaming hammer manufacturers if they hit their finger or cutlers if they cut themselves with a knife as it has been explained on a leaflet. As for the mum and shoes, who pays any more than the absolute minimum for kids shoes and clothes in general, unless you are stupid or more money than is sensible.

Stupid is as stupid does and you cannot put other people at fault for absolutely everything that happens to you. Sorry HQAC H&S dept. However this thinking might put huge holes in insurance company and ambulance chaser’s profits and devastate the H&S industry including sign makers.

Could you imagine a world without every little group requiring insurance for the things they do, just in case. Our local forum pays for insurance and the treasurer worked out that in 18 years of having it there have been no claims and it has cost around £6K, which is a lot of money. The only reason they have it is just in case for the couple of things they run each year to tick a box for the council. Which is the same for us when we do community events, we only need whichever group’s PLI for a box tick. Keeps a minion in a job I suppose. Since the mid 00s ATC sqns have to have all risks insurance as HQAC didn’t want to provide the cover they did, which given the excess is money up the wall for the vast majority of things and for us has been c£2K wasted.

I think if you don’t claim against insurance then you should get a 55% rebate, which would make the market more sensible and would highlight where the real problems are.

1 Like
77

Stop confusing the argument with facts :wink:

1 Like
78

I can’t believe you think I read newspapers.

And you can’t just call someone a troll for not agreeing with you. I don’t think you know what that word means…

79

“A Troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll’s amusement.”

Your first post on this thread:

"Talk about emotional knee jerk reactions that somehow link contesting medical conditions with racism.

He’s entitled to his opinion. And there’s always counter arguments and counter research. A simple google search can throw up articles for and against.

Not to mention the whole antidepressant drug issue.

It’s like the whole transgender issue. Yea there’s a huge mainstream agenda for pushing it but there’s a lot of research and articles against, with the lead professor at the Johns Hopkins Medical university refusing the continue medical treatment until further reasearch is done. And will continue treating it as a psychological issue.

But then again it’s all about emotional kneejerking and agendas these days isn’t it. Speaking of which I am still waiting for a decent counter argument over on that transgender thread, that isn’t “it’s 2017” or “your a racist bigot”."

Sometimes, you don’t need to make a closing speech…

80

I see nothing wrong with that. I engage in debate. The points I raised are relevant.

A troll would pull the pin and then not bother.

I could easily start trolling if you want?

81

Back on topic. If you think a post is trolling report it. If not let’s get on with it.

2 Likes
82

I am a OC and I have three !..big deal as long as the cadets are not playing with them in the lessons what is the issue…None methinks !! I find Moilephones more of a problem

83

How old are you?

1 Like
85

why? is it a problem? I am old !!

1 Like