13yr old boy falls

[magpie]

Originally Posted by Yolanda25

the boy you all talkin about is the son of my friend, yeah u all rite, the same way i feel,that kids shoudnt been on that building on the 1st place, at 13 im sure u know tht it is wrong to go in places like that, but there u go, like someone said earlier, boys will be boys

well maybe she ought to find out where and what her son is up to.....

(ops she does now after the stupid git nearly killed himself)

another idea would be for parents to pay the bill maybe that way it would make them keep a better eye on their off springs......

[Neil]

Originally Posted by blazey

I go on many walks in the countryside and often it isn't clear which bits are and aren't the footpath, and if a farmer failed to signpost that I was wandering on to land that contained a risk to me and I got injured I'd be pretty annoyed.

Who is at fault though for not installing the signs, the farmer or whoever says that footpath is a safe public right of way? Also if she did wonder off the public footpath whoose fault is that? I don't think the farmer should have to signpost a path which is not in reality his. If it was his he could close it off when it is not safe to use, he can not close the footpath as it is a public right of way.

If he can not close of the path when it is dangerous to use then he is in effect being denied the use of his own land.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Neil

Who is at fault though for not installing the signs, the farmer or whoever says that footpath is a safe public right of way? Also if she did wonder off the public footpath whoose fault is that? I don't think the farmer should have to signpost a path which is not in reality his. If it was his he could close it off when it is not safe to use, he can not close the footpath as it is a public right of way.

If he can not close of the path when it is dangerous to use then he is in effect being denied the use of his own land.

These are all points that will be raised in court. As I have said time and time again, the law isn't black and white, nor does it provide simple yes and no answers to every problem. If it did we could just use computers to solve the problems.

I haven't studied land law yet, at least not in any depth, so I do not know which result is likely. Will just have to wait and see.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by blazey

These are all points that will be raised in court

I was hoping we could have a little debate on the topic. It could have been interesting.

Thats the last time I make a serious post on here

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Neil

I was hoping we could have a little debate on the topic. It could have been interesting.

Thats the last time I make a serious post on here

I could debate the topic til I'm red in the face but no oubt some smarmy so and so will try and tell me I'm wrong

One of the first things we're taught in law school is that there is no such thing as a wrong answer, just a answer that isn't backed up with evidence and sources.

I can give you all the relevant law on this point, but no cases, and no doubt someone would say 'its bad law' when in fact this law isn't bad at all, its just misused.

The law is due to change I believe on trespassing to give rights back to the land owner regarding illegal trespassers, but I'm unsure whether its happened yet because its not something I've been following.

[derekgas]

The law should be 'trespassers may be shot'

[blazey]

Originally Posted by derekgas

The law should be 'trespassers may be shot'

Yes I can see how fair that is to innocent trespassers. And children too who play on land.

Who needs fox hunting when we can shoot children instead?

What a brilliant idea, can't believe I didnt think of it.

[panther]

And ya call me sarcastic