Things that ur happy about

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Thanks Yog,

I guessed that it was to safeguard (hopefully) both of us. He was following procedure, he reported it to our health and safety rep, he took photos etc., there is a sign but it's facing you as you leave, not on the way in, and it says 'pedestrians please use the pavement'. it was dark and windy though.

I wouldn't use it against my employer unless it was related in some way to time off and I needed medical time off etc.

I'm just hoping they don't have to stop us going in that way - I'll be well popular!

If they have any sense they'll put up appopriate signage and also high viz edging strips to the edge(s) of the 'concrete thing'.

Oh, and they might buy you a crash helmet for Christmas. lol

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

He's a tory. He believes that the damages caused to the poor by poor quality work should be carried by the poor. Capitalism for the little people, socialism for the rich.

It's a bit juvenile, but it was all I could come with in a drunken, smokey haze one night when entering a very short story competition (see below). Kind of sums it all up really though.

One Day

One day a caveman saw another caveman who was in trouble and decided to steal from him rather than help him out in his hour of need. Another caveman watched this and decided to steal off the former caveman at the earliest opportunity.

One day a caveman saw another caveman who was in trouble and decided to help him out.

Some cavemen are silly.

[eFestivals]

One Day

One day a caveman saw another caveman who was in trouble and decided to steal from him rather than help him out in his hour of need. Another caveman watched this and decided to steal off the former caveman at the earliest opportunity.

One day a caveman saw another caveman who was in trouble and decided to help him out.

Some cavemen are silly.

One Day

One day, a banker, a UKIP voter and an immigrant are sat at a table having a cup of tea, with 12 biscuits.

The banker takes 11 of them and says to the UKIP voter "be careful or the immigrant will steal your biscuit".

[eFestivals]

I don't think anyone would disagree it should of been recorded in a accident book / compensation paid if genuinely injured etc.

UKIP and the tories would - that's the sort of workers protection they both want to abolish.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I think this is the big that deserves a WOW in a negative way.

I don't think anyone would disagree it should of been recorded in a accident book / compensation paid if genuinely injured etc.

I don't really give a shit Barry. If employers decide to do the dirty and try to fuck you over, then fuck them, the gloves come off. My last employer were complete bastards at times. When that was aimed in my direction I was a bastard back. If you look at it one way, I was only holding a mirror up to their own lack of fair play.

[TheGayTent]

He's a tory. He believes that the damages caused to the poor by poor quality work should be carried by the poor. Capitalism for the little people, socialism for the rich.

No. Wrong as usual.

I believe if someone trips over because they weren't looking where they were going, the fault lies with the person who wasn't looking where they were going. That is true of a "poor" person tripping because they weren't looking where they were going, or an "extremely wealthy" person tripping because they weren't looking where they were going.

What would be the point of putting up signage warning about the concrete thingy, or taping it off - if you're not looking where you are going you'd only walk into the sign or the tape?

[eFestivals]

I believe if someone trips over because they weren't looking where they were going, the fault lies with the person who wasn't looking where they were going.

well, it's a good job that the law of this country has disagreed with your idea for at least 40 years.

If someone trips over due to their own fault, it's their fault. If someone trips over due to another's negligence then it's not.

That is true of a "poor" person tripping because they weren't looking where they were going, or an "extremely wealthy" person tripping because they weren't looking where they were going.

It's true for the tripping, it's different for who caused the tripping.

[TheGayTent]

If someone trips over due to their own fault, it's their fault. If someone trips over due to another's negligence then it's not.

Tripping over because you're not looking where you're going is not an example of tripping over due to another's negligence.

It's true for the tripping, it's different for who caused the tripping.

No it isn't.

[feral chile]

It's true I couldn't see where I was going, because of both the weather conditions and the fact that it was dark, and because don't have the best eyesight at the best f times - I don't have good depth perception, so some kind of visual clue as to where a grey ground surface ends and where a grey concrete obstruction begins would be helpful.

I have problems with steps that are all one colour for the same reason.

And I do tend to laugh it off as me being a clumsy clod, when perhaps I shouldn't.

I'm pretty sure they'll do a risk assessment now, and if they think they need to change anything they will.

I'd only be likely to put in a claim if I needed treatment that I couldn't afford etc., or if I was out of pocket because of it.

(Actually, maybe I should have claimed back my fiver for ruining my leggings )

Edited December 12, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Tripping over because you're not looking where you're going is not an example of tripping over due to another's negligence.

No it isn't.

In law, yes it is. I know it's been like that for at least 40 years.

[TheGayTent]

In law, yes it is. I know it's been like that for at least 40 years.

No. No it isn't.

The plaintiff would have to prove negligence. To do that they would have to prove that the defendant had not exercised reasonable care and had taken into account harm they might foreseeably cause to people.

In this case, there's no judge in the land that would find the defendant guilty, because it couldn't be foreseen that people walk without looking where they are going.

[eFestivals]

No. No it isn't.

The plaintiff would have to prove negligence.

Negligence is what I said.

[TheGayTent]

Negligence is what I said.

Yes you did.

Incorrectly.

[eFestivals]

I said:

If someone trips over due to another's negligence then it's not [their fault].

You then told me I was wrong, before you agreed with me while telling me I was incorrect.

You've done the moron thing a bit too much in the last 24 hours. Perhaps get yourself a sanity test?

[eFestivals]

You have a certain degree of responsibility for your own health and safety. If you say I was looking where I was going then you would clearly have no case. Neil talking shit as ever.

If you fall over a a raised paving slab, for example, then it ain't your fault - in LAW!!

A person has a legitimate right to expect paving slabs to be laid flat. Whether you;'re looking or not doesn't come into it. Or do you think the poor-sighted should be treated like shit because the sighted say so?

The same principle that applies to the poorly sighted applies to the perfectly sighted - in LAW!

You and think that the legal position is wrong if you like, but I'm not talking shit about the legal position. I leave the talking shit to you.

<cue Barry and TGT with their normal diversion routines that they roll out every time they're caught out talking shite >

[TheGayTent]

I said:

Tripping over because you're not looking where you're going is not an example of tripping over due to another's negligence.

You said:

In law, yes it is. I know it's been like that for at least 40 years

Perhaps get yourself a sanity test?

Edited December 12, 2014 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

You also said this silly boy which is total bollocks

Nope. The laws of negligence in relation to tripping over something have been in place for at least 40 years.

But hey, you know everything, right? Like how the Labour Party plans to make cuts as big as the tories.

[eFestivals]

I said:

You said:

Perhaps get yourself a sanity test?

Care to tell me how your theory works for the unsighted?

You do not have to be looking where you're going for tripping over to be the negligence of another. That's the law!

Barry has quoted it above, that proves you wrong.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

What that you was saying about distraction

How's your own ability to read the words you quoted, which say nothing about having to look where you're going?

You quote how it works that proves me right, and still call me wrong. It doesn't get much more stupid than that.

[eFestivals]

The quote I put is the STARTING POINT to bring a claim. Your knowledge of health and safety law isn't quite what you think it is

A starting point that makes no comment about the need to be looking, because there is no need to be looking.

It only takes the surface to be negligent in it's construction for there to be negligence, just as what you quoted makes clear.

[eFestivals]

No it doesn't....

A blind person would of more of a claim than someone intoxicated....

First principle of health and safety is you have a certain amount of responsibility for your own health and safety.

Might you stop and consider that I know about this via my own experiences with the system as it works ion the real world and not how you've invented it in your head?

[eFestivals]

Not really given your past form.

My past form of experiences beats yours of making it up from your head hands down matey. Get over it.

[kaosmark2]

Fucking hell there's been a pointless amount of shite oneupmanship talked in the last page of this thread.

Edited December 12, 2014 by kaosmark2

[eFestivals]

Fucking hell there's been a pointless amount of shite talked in the last page of this thread.

Yep.

Unfortunately, Barry seems to think it's his purpose in life to talk back unknowledgeable shite to anything I might post.

I keep ridiculing him for it in the hope he'll give it up, but he seems to glory in his ignorance and deliberate lies.

[eFestivals]

PS: which does make me happy, to keep things thread-relevant.