Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Just thought I'd post these and lighten the forum up a bit. Some still enforceable laws of our beautiful country. In London, England, it is illegal to use a camera tripod, throw a stick for your dog or use an offensive powder like pepper on your jacket potato in any park. Wife beating is illegal just as long as it is not after 9pm and it doesn't disturb the neighbours. It is also illegal to impersonate a Chelsea pensioner which once carried the death sentence in the 19th century. My personal favourite: In Birmingham, it is illegal for a man and a woman to have sex on church steps after sundown. Presumably ok before that then (Actually, my real fave involves welsh people, bows and arrows, but some on here might sue me)
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Difference is it's a School, there's a high concentration of stupid children. says a lot for the education system but of all the thousands of kids that go in and out the school every day isn't it a strange coincidence that the one who gets hurt is there illegally ;
Edmund Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Whilst I agree with much of what you're saying, I have to defend the "shite legal system" bit. Tort law is, I believe, the oldest of all our 'laws'. Any man or woman can take a Tort case and win, because they are so win-able!If you're interested, take a butcher's at this link. I know it's Wiki, but it's quite accurate and easy to understand. Tort's are fun! It's the rest of the judicial system that's gone to cock. I understand what your saying that its the law etc, but what happened to common sense. In common sense I mean the kid shouldnt have been there in the first place and entered ileagely so its the kid/parents responsibility. It's like me going to the beach when the tides high and getting drowned and then sueing the beach council(considering i survived the drowning). I mean was this jury and judge agreeing with the boy and his family or only agreeing with the black and white on the paper. This is life, not everything is going to go to plan. Next peopel will be sueing the church/god for losing relatives/friends.....
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I understand what your saying that its the law etc, but what happened to common sense. I mean was this jury and judge agreeing with the boy and his family or only agreeing with the black and white on the paper. This is life, not everything is going to go to plan. Next peopel will be sueing the church/god for losing relatives/friends..... billy connolly http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/
l444ry Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I understand what your saying that its the law etc, but what happened to common sense. I mean was this jury and judge agreeing with the boy and his family or only agreeing with the black and white on the paper. This is life, not everything is going to go to plan. Next peopel will be sueing the church/god for losing relatives/friends..... Common sense went out with the Ark and high buttoned boots. Ever since our political parties have had career politicians this country has going further down the pan. They haven't got a bloody clue about real life.
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I understand what your saying that its the law etc, but what happened to common sense. In common sense I mean the kid shouldnt have been there in the first place and entered ileagely so its the kid/parents responsibility. It's like me going to the beach when the tides high and getting drowned and then sueing the beach council(considering i survived the drowning). I mean was this jury and judge agreeing with the boy and his family or only agreeing with the black and white on the paper. This is life, not everything is going to go to plan. Next peopel will be sueing the church/god for losing relatives/friends..... No. No. And No I agree that common sense must prevail and there is a strong argument that it was the boy and/or his family should shoulder some blame. But there's no agreeing with "black and white on paper" bit. No case in Law is black and white, they are many shades of grey. Your analogies do not match the criteria set by the Tort of Negligence. Go back to my post with the Wiki link, read up and come back. I'm not saying you are wrong, you are just not right
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Common sense went out with the Ark and high buttoned boots. Ever since our political parties have had career politicians this country has going further down the pan. They haven't got a bloody clue about real life. I don't get it What have politicians got to do with anything? And do not say they make the Laws. I know they do, but Torts are different. And I still have common sense. And high buttoned boots...
Edmund Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 No. No. And NoI agree that common sense must prevail and there is a strong argument that it was the boy and/or his family should shoulder some blame. But there's no agreeing with "black and white on paper" bit. No case in Law is black and white, they are many shades of grey. Your analogies do not match the criteria set by the Tort of Negligence. Go back to my post with the Wiki link, read up and come back. I'm not saying you are wrong, you are just not right Ive read the wiki link and to be honest that didnt make any sense at all. At the end of the day you are probably right but that is what is wrong. If you read this story and putting the law aside the only outcome for this should have been either the child or parents being charged. I know its in the law that they can sue the school but this is bollox full stop and 99% of the people in this thread agree that the outcome was wrong. Call me small minded, ignorant etc but that wiki article wasnt in plain english for your average joe like me and will only make sense if i hadnt of had a cpl of beers/spliffs. It's as if they have to sound clever when in actual fact all the judge has to do is turn around and say no this kid is a nusience im giving him community service. Im probably not coming off very clear here but i know what im trying to say and is probably looking like waffle but all i can say is i know, the judge knows, the jury knows, everyone on here knows the kid was in the wrong so for god sake dont go and reward him..... anyway thats my last on this subject as its so hard to debate over the net and ive had my say.....
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Ive read the wiki link and to be honest that didnt make any sense at all. At the end of the day you are probably right but that is what is wrong. If you read this story and putting the law aside the only outcome for this should have been either the child or parents being charged. I know its in the law that they can sue the school but this is bollox full stop and 99% of the people in this thread agree that the outcome was wrong. Call me small minded, ignorant etc but that wiki article wasnt in plain english for your average joe like me and will only make sense if i hadnt of had a cpl of beers/spliffs. It's as if they have to sound clever when in actual fact all the judge has to do is turn around and say no this kid is a nusience im giving him community service. Im probably not coming off very clear here but i know what im trying to say and is probably looking like waffle but all i can say is i know, the judge knows, the jury knows, everyone on here knows the kid was in the wrong so for god sake dont go and reward him..... anyway thats my last on this subject as its so hard to debate over the net and ive had my say..... Go chill, foxyarmy. You are right and at least you bothered to go and read some of it. 90% of the general public would agree with you. The other 10% are Lawyers, mate.
Daggers Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I think it should be legal to throw stones at parents who don't control their kids. Go to any town centre beverage purveyor and see all the Doleys tanked up. Where are their many miserable spawn? Vandalizing, stealing, committing violence and abusing substances. Yup, throwing stones at them would sort it... And trebling the price of beer in shitty pubs... And confiscating their flat-screen TV's so they can't watch Trisha... And only allowing people to buy fags that have a valid P60 showing tax paid in the last 12 months... And stopping their benefits... Christ! I think I'm coming over all Tory
Webbo Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Christ! I think I'm coming over all Tory Welcome to the dark side.
Daggers Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Welcome to the dark side. No! There has to be a place for the infliction of pain on the proletariat within the confines of caring socialism. There has to be.
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 No!There has to be a place for the infliction of pain on the proletariat within the confines of caring socialism. There has to be. I believe they call it UKIP. Well that's what I was sold on anyhow! Rule Britannia.
lookwhaticando Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 i'm mad and i dont even pay tax! That's a sure fire way of getting some FTers to gang up on you and bully you into submission to their view of the world.
Daggers Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 i'm mad You sound just the kind of chap that UKIP are after
Alexikokopops Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 You sound just the kind of chap that UKIP are after Oh oh oh, UKIP hanging round me, And I'm not so glad you found me, You're still doing things that I gave up years ago...
Guest Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Sorry I disagree, all this means is that the council will now have to have a log for every gate, fence, window, door, wall ,fence and doorstep to name but a few from a list of several 100, 000 different items that go into making a building and surrounding property. Why should they have to have proof that it is properly maintained - no other company has to do this? Isnt there an element to say that the kid shouldnt have been swinging on the gate in the first place - after all even if the gate had been correctly maintained this was not the purpose of the gate. Expect your council tax to go up to fund this. Chances are that the damages awarded were actually lower, for reason of contributory negligence, volenti, or ex turpi. To make you feel better, here's a link to Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust. One of the problems here arises that negligence is not a law, per se. Negligence is a Tort, effectively a civil wrong, not criminal wrong.The school has a "duty of care" to ensure it's property is safe. It clearly wasn't as the gate fell off and that, in the mind of a reasonable man, is bloody hard if it's closed! Hence, the boy filed for injury to him because of the lack of care by the school... However, trespass is also a tort, I think. And as I didn't read the whole article, I don't know if the school countered the negligence claim with the trespass claim. Much of the process of tort law involves determining who is at fault and the extent of the damage. There. Simple. Tort Law. Done. Questions?? I think the important thing is that we don't have the full facts, and reactionary journalism like this really pisses me off.
Edmund Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 Chances are that the damages awarded were actually lower, for reason of contributory negligence, volenti, or ex turpi.To make you feel better, here's a link to Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust. I think the important thing is that we don't have the full facts, and reactionary journalism like this really pisses me off. so your defending tax rises because of scum like this?
Guest Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 so your defending tax rises because of scum like this? Firstly, did you not follow the link to the Keown case? Secondly, where are the tax rises come from? You'll find that it's insurance premiums that rise, as local authorities will have public liability insurance to pay out cases like this. Thirdly, what makes you think that I am defending them? All I am saying is that without being aware of all of the facts, I would rather not jump to any conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. I've just finished studying the law of tort, and having started the module with the feeling that the 'compensation culture' in this country is getting stupid, I've had the chance to read what the judges have had to say, and the reasoning behind it. Sometimes I have disagreed with their outcomes, but more often than not, their decisions have been logical, if somewhat unfair. Believe it or not, many claims are thrown out, or even if a claim has gone in an applicants favour, they have ended up with nothing for various reasons of their own doing.
Kent Fox Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 Firstly, did you not follow the link to the Keown case?Secondly, where are the tax rises come from? You'll find that it's insurance premiums that rise, as local authorities will have public liability insurance to pay out cases like this. Thirdly, what makes you think that I am defending them? All I am saying is that without being aware of all of the facts, I would rather not jump to any conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. I've just finished studying the law of tort, and having started the module with the feeling that the 'compensation culture' in this country is getting stupid, I've had the chance to read what the judges have had to say, and the reasoning behind it. Sometimes I have disagreed with their outcomes, but more often than not, their decisions have been logical, if somewhat unfair. Believe it or not, many claims are thrown out, or even if a claim has gone in an applicants favour, they have ended up with nothing for various reasons of their own doing. I like you, Lisa. You're clever. I like clever people. I am now officially your new best friend. Whether you like it or not PS: I hope that jibe about reactionary journalism wasn't aimed at my trying to inform people
Dr The Singh Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 I like you, Lisa.You're clever. I like clever people. I am now officially your new best friend. Whether you like it or not PS: I hope that jibe about reactionary journalism wasn't aimed at my trying to inform people Yes it was!!!!
Guest Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 I like you, Lisa.You're clever.I like clever people.I am now officially your new best friend.Whether you like it or not PS: I hope that jibe about reactionary journalism wasn't aimed at my trying to inform people Aww bless you, it's people like you I need at the moment.The reactionary journalism comment is aimed at the original article. I read it somewhere, and all it said was "councils paying compo to law breaking scum shocker", or words to that effect. I almost exploded there and then. Yes it was!!!! Ooh, you are cheeky!
Kent Fox Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 Aww bless you, it's people like you I need at the moment.The reactionary journalism comment is aimed at the original article. I read it somewhere, and all it said was "councils paying compo to law breaking scum shocker", or words to that effect. I almost exploded there and then. Ooh, you are cheeky! You just let me know if my over-friendliness comes across as stalking. I dont want that type of allegation made to happen
Guest Posted 18 July 2007 Posted 18 July 2007 You just let me know if my over-friendliness comes across as stalking.I dont want that type of allegation made to happen If Sir Fynwy notices, that's when you need to start to worry!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.