In the name of Health and Safety... I give you vandalism by the Woodland Trust UK

I may be a bit skeptical, but he is making some broad claims based on only footage of one worksite and no secondary sources. The problem is it’s the kind of idiocy a nanny state does produce so it is believable. But this format of reporting is very easy to mislead. Without more information from solid sources my instinct is to withhold judgement.

But if it is true that liability is the sole reason for cutting broad swaths around foot paths, then it is pure foolishness.
 
I just can’t take anything seriously from farage. He’s downplayed global warming consistently but here he’s making a case for carbon capture? Seems like a 180 to me.
I think he is making fun of the compromised beliefs of the Woodland Trust...
 
. . . But if it is true that liability is the sole reason for cutting broad swaths around foot paths, then it is pure foolishness.
The UK has a similar problem as here in the US, where people are ready at the drop of a hat to sue over a twit hitting them in the head or stubbing their toe on a piece of large gravel. The legal profession is the root of so much grief and unnecessary expense.
 
The UK has a similar problem as here in the US, where people are ready at the drop of a hat to sue over a twit hitting them in the head or stubbing their toe on a piece of large gravel. The legal profession is the root of so much grief and unnecessary expense.
I think this problem stems a little up the chain from lawyers. If the lawyers could not get paid from a liability ruling, they would not waste their time. The laws and responsibility for liability are skewed beyond reason.

I lived in South Africa for a while. There were in ground trampolines with no surrendering nets and no supervision at the freeway stops so the kids could burn off energy. Liability squarely rested on the user so it could be offered. Although I understand they are moving toward following the rest of the world.
 

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom