Health & Safety Police

[chesters1]

insurance companies cannot insist on insurance surely so who is it?

"car park built to engineering standards"

theres risk doing anything but i dont have insurance to cross a road or go on a train but strangely i need it to paddle in the sea if the council was that concerned the coast from brean down to lynmouth would be closed!

Edited July 26, 2010 by chesters1

[arbocop]

insurance companies cannot insist on insurance surely so who is it?

"car park built to engineering standards"

theres risk doing anything but i dont have insurance to cross a road or go on a train but strangely i need it to paddle in the sea if the council was that concerned the coast from brean down to lynmouth would be closed!

 

 

Exactly, you've answered the point. Except, you do not need insurance to paddle on your own, and the sea is nothing to do with the Council.

 

The key here is that your activities are solo and not organised. If you injure yourself on a train from a pointy seat (say) it's not your insurance you cvlaim from is it?

 

If I decide to paddle alone then thats fine - I have no respite to anyone but me. If I organise an event, advertise, and invite loads, or several people to paddle with me, seek flatfish, fish off a pier, worm charming whatever - the risk, or part of it, of someone watching, or taking part suffering an injury transfers to me. The risk, therefore of prosecution by one of these people transfers to me.

 

I am an organiser of a flounder event (I'm not by the way). If I don't seek insurance, then I run the risk of having to defend myself in court, which will be expensive. If I do, the insurers will not insure me unless they have a reasonable chance of protecting that money they have. It's their income.

 

You are correct. There is no legal reason to have insurance apart from protecting yourself from the risk of a claim - succesful or otherwise. Full circle for the legal profession. However, given the circumstances of no income from the event, would you take on the risk? If you would, then go ahead and organise it. There is nothing stopping you or anyone. Voluntary organisations have these problems every time they organise a charioty event.

 

Imagine if someone tripped at a briong and buy sale and claimed. It happens all the time. Good honest well meaning people lose the income that is supposed to help people becuase thet forgot to fill in a bit of papaer correctly. The reason they need to fill in the paper is becasue the bit of paper will be tested by a solictor acting for an inured party. Nothing to with health and safety, everything to do with a society obnsessed with claims.

Edited July 26, 2010 by arbocop

[chesters1]

so i need insurance if i have a party ?

i'm inviting people ,could be a bit dangerous with alcohol and glass etc ,so your saying if fred gets **** and cuts himself its my fault not his?

 

ps i dont know anyone havnt had a part for twenty years and i hope someone does get peed enough to cut themselves ,its not a party if theres no injury ,so sue me you cant get what i haven't got

 

Tort law will work in this case a waiver clearly stating the organiser takes no responsibility for contestants etc ,you sign it by taking part just as you waive your rights parking your car.

its most probably some councillor who gets peed off someone pinches his space outside the pub when the comps on ,just like the councillor who had a stake in the local shop tried getting a ice cream van banned from the village because it took his trade ,its called abuse of power.

one reason was "wrappers" from lollies ignoring the fact the place was knee deep in plastic pint glasses and crisp bags from the pub who i think is another councillor (not completely sure it changes hands so often)

 

AH yes the chap who helped waste a million quid because the traffic interfered with the parking outside the pub ,now the pubs parking interferes with the traffic and is ten times more dangerous

 

ofcourse it was brought in to make the village more "safe" hmmm yes thats why 80% was removed because it was more dangerous and the only bit left is ....wait .....wait ..by the pub

Edited July 26, 2010 by chesters1

[arbocop]

so i need insurance if i have a party ?

i'm inviting people ,could be a bit dangerous with alcohol and glass etc ,so your saying if fred gets **** and cuts himself its my fault not his?

 

ps i dont know anyone havnt had a part for twenty years and i hope someone does get peed enough to cut themselves ,its not a party if theres no injury ,so sue me you cant get what i haven't got

 

Tort law will work in this case a waiver clearly stating the organiser takes no responsibility for contestants etc ,you sign it by taking part just as you waive your rights parking your car.

its most probably some councillor who gets peed off someone pinches his space outside the pub when the comps on ,just like the councillor who had a stake in the local shop tried getting a ice cream van banned from the village because it took his trade ,its called abuse of power.

one reason was "wrappers" from lollies ignoring the fact the place was knee deep in plastic pint glasses and crisp bags from the pub who i think is another councillor (not completely sure it changes hands so often)

 

AH yes the chap who helped waste a million quid because the traffic interfered with the parking outside the pub ,now the pubs parking interferes with the traffic and is ten times more dangerous

 

ofcourse it was brought in to make the village more "safe" hmmm yes thats why 80% was removed because it was more dangerous and the only bit left is ....wait .....wait ..by the pub

 

 

Whatever, i give in.

[Steve Walker]

You cannot protect yourself from a succesful prosecution by saying - it's up to you.

 

Perhaps that's something simple the new government could enact law to enable which would make this country a better place in one swoop?

[Ken L]

Perhaps that's something simple the new government could enact law to enable which would make this country a better place in one swoop?

 

What, you mean like enshrining a legal principle that if you take part in something that has clearly identifieble and predictable risks then you do so at your own risk and can only sue the organisers in the event of subsequent injury or death if they can be shown that they acted recklessly or dangerously or that they deliberatly disguised the level of risk. ?

 

Sounds like common sence to me and to be honest, I thought that was pretty much the way the courts view sports like rugby anyway.

[Sportsman]

As has been stated, nothing to do with Health and Safety. We live in litigious times and the organisers couldn't afford to cover their ar5e.

The poor old Health and Safety Executive get blamed all the time for things they never did (i.e. banning conkers in schools) They even have a "Myth of the Month" section on their website.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/apr10.htm

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sportsman

[Steve Burke]

This all goes back to the last government which much reduced the provision of Legal Aid. In its place they allowed no win/no fee litigation. The predictable result was a lot of such cases leading to more claims on insurance companies. Quite naturally insurance premiums had to go up.

 

Did the goverment foresee the result? Probably. Did they care? Very doubtful! After all it took the cost away from them (another stealth tax many would argue).

 

In fact it would make a lovely storyline for the sitcom "Yes, Minister".

 

Except in real life it's not funny at all.

[arbocop]

As has been stated, nothing to do with Health and Safety. We live in litigious times and the organisers couldn't afford to cover their ar5e.

The poor old Health and Safety Executive get blamed all the time for things they never did (i.e. banning conkers in schools) They even have a "Myth of the Month" section on their website.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/apr10.htm

 

 

I thought it was just me that looked at the HSE myths pages!

 

Health and Safety in Companies is frequently given to the person least capable to deal with it. As a result they try to protect themselves and ban everything, and wind everyine up. A sensible assessment of risk and adopting any precautions available is a very good thing. Trying to remove risk altogether is nonsense made up by people who don't assess risk properly.

 

Tree surgery is one of the most dangerous occupations, but with precautuions it's fine. The HSE wouldn't ban conkers and allow tree surgery would it?

[chesters1]

Yes it would ! conkers have little taxation value tree surgery does

if you banned dangerous occupations there would be no tax to fund the HSE and job protection is top over safety ,not the jobs of tree surgeouns ofcourse the HSE jobs

labour set up hundreds (if not thousands) of "organisations" who do nothing but invent stupid legislation or enforce the stupid legislation ,not because its needed but those workers doing nothing will realise if they didnt vote labour their jobs were at risk ...it almost worked

Edited July 27, 2010 by chesters1