View Full Version : Municipal Madness

Tartan Gannet
9th Aug 2001, 09:55
Most of us will have heard by now of the cutting down of Horse Chestnut Trees by Norwich City Council, to prevent children being hurt either obtaining or playing with conkers, an example of the Nanny State gone mad.

Now here is an example of the opposite extreme. A man put barbed wire at a sensible height round the fence of his 90 year old mother's house to discourage burglars, her home having been broken into several times. Since the wire was installed she has been left unmolested. Now the PC warriors of Northampton Council are ordering him to remove the wire, although it is properly fixed at such a height that only someone climbing the fence would be injured, the ordinary passerby being perfectly safe. Seems as if one cannot even passively protect an ageing parent these days. (Source ITV Morning News Thursday 9th August at about 5.40am)

Anyone else got examples of such Municipal Madness?

tony draper
9th Aug 2001, 13:06
Probably something to do with access for the emergency services Mr G.
Had a similar experience a few years back,helped a mate erect one of those aluminium sectional green houses in his garden, it was knocked back because we had bolted it down to a brick foundation, thats was a no no in his particular back garden, guy said if it wasn't fastened down it would be ok,because the fire brigade would just be able to move it if necessary.
I understand cementing brocken glass around the top of high walls is also frowned upon nowadays.
The planning office are not as bad as they used to be, one time you had to have permission if you wanted to paint your back door a different colour, anything that altered the outside appearance of your home had to have planning permission.
Don't know if you remember it but we had a punter up here that shot the planning officer dead that was giving him a hard time,
he did it live on tv, shows what frustration with bureauocracy can do.

9th Aug 2001, 13:12
Good Lord, Draper! You don't mean that Newcastle was actually PLANNED to look like that? :eek:

You'll be telling us that Earl Grey was a refined country gentleman next :D

Through difficulties to the cinema

Send Clowns
9th Aug 2001, 22:56
I think it is actually to protect the little sh|t who is climbing the fence. He can certainly sue the homeowner if injured. What are the people on who decide this crap?

9th Aug 2001, 23:44
Yes, it would appear the Council are very concerned that in their words 'could injure anyone who foolishly decides to climb the fence'. Of course!!!!

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

9th Aug 2001, 23:58
My 90-year old mother here in the wonderful country of Latvia called the police when she heard that someone was trying to break into her apartment. The burglars failed and left.

A half hour later the cops showed up and wrote her up an "administrative fine" of 25 Lats (USD 30) for "unfounded provocation of the police by you foreigners." I took it to court and won by the skin of my teeth.

Squawk 8888
10th Aug 2001, 00:37
Last year, the Toronto District School Board spent a fortune to demolish nearly all school playgrounds because they didn't meet the new safety guidelines for playground design. These playgrounds had been in place for more than a decade without serious injuries. The worst part about the whole thing was that old line "if it saves one life it's worth it" :rolleyes:. For their next trick, the board is sure to go into crisis management mode when they notice that all the kids are overweight and lethargic because they're not allowed to take risks anymore.

tony draper
10th Aug 2001, 02:03
Lots councils are going to have to shut park playgrounds swings seesaws ect, because if little Johny falls and cuts his knee, mommy tends to reach for the solicitor rather than the elastoplast now.
It would cost ratepayers a fortune to upgrade them to the safety standard req,
and then the vandles would probably wreck them in a week.
I have little time for the council jobsworths
but they are between a rock and a hard place here.
AS for the other thing, a burgler who breaks into your house then trips on a lose floorboard and breaks a leg is allowed to sue the house holder, thats absolute insanity
How the hell can any solicitor or barrister represent someone in court in those circumstances, I mean, I know they are lawyers but even they must have some human feelings.
Has a case like this ever come to court?.

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

Tartan Gannet
10th Aug 2001, 09:42
Tony, a solicitor or barrister would represent SATAN himself if there was a fee in it, either Private or Legal Aid. I dont mind them making a living but it is all the pious bulls*it they pump out about it that sickens me!

10th Aug 2001, 12:17

'a solicitor or barrister would represent SATAN himself if there was a fee in it, either Private or Legal Aid.'

Isn't that because they want to be on the right side of their future landlord?

10th Aug 2001, 12:29
Read this. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,12-2001272646,00.html

Things are not as bad as the scare sheets would have you believe. NB, for those with short attention spans, the guy lost.

10th Aug 2001, 12:37
Nice one radeng!

Squawk 8888
10th Aug 2001, 19:04
Big problem isn't so much the lawyers, it's the judges. One of their responsibilities is to act as a gatekeeper and they used to have no qualms about throwing out meritless cases. Now they're letting a lot of dubious claims get to juries and every lawyer worth his salt knows that a group is far easier to manipulate than an individual. The other problem is the "deep pocket" rule- in many jurisdictions, including the one where I live, the party with the best ability to pay the damages (assets or insurance) is on the hook for the entire cost regardless of the degree of fault. I one case here a few years back, a teenager who was rendered brain-damaged and quadriplegic after a motorbike collision on city-owned land (on which he and the other biker were trespassing at the time) sued the city. The city was found 20% at fault for not securing the property (apparently fences and "no trespassing" signs aren't enough :rolleyes: ), but since neither of the two bikers involved had any insurance the city was on the hook for the entire $23-million judgment.

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Squawk 8888 ]

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Squawk 8888 ]

13th Aug 2001, 13:30
Tartan Gan Hi,

Solicitor is an anagram of Clitoris, which given circumstances is more useful, but can't get you off a speeding fine, unless it belongs to you and you let em touch it!!