The Occupy Protests

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
However, looking at your example of Sainsburys you are forgetting one very simple concept. The wet floor is due to a work activity, therefore the company has a duty of care. Where is the work activity in people protesting?
Dave_Notts

Oh the Dave...
As star to, do they work or do they not? Are Universities now offering courses in people protesting? If so, would this make people protesting a work activity? dunno

BTW Dave, how did you get on with the dictionary? AFAIK, the actual spelling is not diamterically.
bolt

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
The claims that are happening is that claimants put in a claim for under £1000 and the insurance settle out of court. Why do they do this? Quite simple really, most business excess on their insurance is £1000 so the insurance company will settle claims under £1000 and let the business pay for it. The insurance may start fighting it when it goes above this number as it will now start costing them money, but then again it depends on the economics of the claim. Sometimes it costs more to fight and win than pay and lose. Makes good business sense.........thats why your friend of a friend makes a mint. And this is why there are "fall guys" out there who will look for something to fall over and put in a claim. As long as they are not too greedy then it is easy money for them. Your example of a wet floor sign is right, it warns you of the hazard only. To prevent a claim the company should have barriered the area, wet mopped, then dry mopped, then when dry remove the barrier. Simple common sense common safety as advised by Lord Young........you did read that when he he said it is not the law but peoples interpretation of it that is the problem?

sorry for not getting back on this a bit erlier but had to contact my friend who then asked his friend about what you have written here.
he basicaly said that what you have said is utter rubbish. there may well be a few peeple who do this but in the main peeple would not even get out of bed for less than 3500 which he says is the average settlement figure in his law firm for these kinds of claims. certainly not anywhere near the 1000 pounds you are talking about.
so these claims are NOT being settled out of court it seams as they fall well over your figure of £1000.

Quote by Dave__Notts
However, looking at your example of Sainsburys you are forgetting one very simple concept. The wet floor is due to a work activity, therefore the company has a duty of care. Where is the work activity in people protesting?

the companies duty of care is to notify the public that there is a wet floor. if that member of the public ignores the sign and slips the company would still be liable to pay out compensation. the company would be guilty regardless in law if the sign was there or not, the only differance would be the pay out figure.
no sign big bucks, sign not so big, but money would still be paid.
this person also stated that you would not beleeve the kinds of claims they deal with and get paid out on.
example a customer breaks one of her nails in a shop door, and has a slight injury to her finger as well. she takes thirteen days off from work and the company pays out £ 2900 for her claim. for a broken nail and there was never any evidence asked for in court about her injured finger.
that is in court mr notts. not settled out of court and certainly a lot more than the 1000 pounds. still i did not expect you to know that mr notts as like me i presume you are not a lawyer or a barrister. still we all get it wrong from time to time. :thumbup:

Quote by foxylady
diamterically opposite demographics.

Quote by gnv
AFAIK, the actual spelling is Diametrically not diamterically.

ermmm. i did try and look that up but with the spelling being wrong it came up with nothing. now i have the correct spelling it all makes perfect sense. wink

:doh:

:rotflmao:

26 Oct 2011

Thanks for your non answers Star rotflmao

If they are settled in court then you can post the cases up to show your proof, as it is in the public domain...........don't worry, I'll give you time to phone your friend of a friend to ask their advice.
You'll notice this link to what a barrister does states that a high proportion of civil cases are settled out of court.......so your friend who says they are legal qualified should go have a word with their own Bar as they disagree with him/her........so looks like their input was not as well founded as you thought.
As for my question Star?
1) Where is the work activity in protesting? Who is the employer? Without these it cannot be a breach of H&S law, so no duty of care.
You claimed

Quote by starlightcouple
can you blame them using health and safety as a reeson mr notts?

so basically you are wrong, unless you would like to show where I am wrong..................I'll wait for you to call a friend again
Dave_Notts

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Dave_Notts
PS the bit you quoted was for caravans and not tents. At camp sites you have a bit of space but most sites have blocks of areas with access running around the length and breadth of the site for emergency vehicles (see photos of any music festival campsite e.g. Glastonbury). Looking at the site, from the photos, then the emergency vehicles can gain access and fight any fire from a number of places. Probably this is why the Police have not used their powers, as there is no problem......but on why they haven't used their powers I am only guessing

I believe the same guidance is used for caravan or tent

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

Dave_Notts
PS the bit you quoted was for caravans and not tents. At camp sites you have a bit of space but most sites have blocks of areas with access running around the length and breadth of the site for emergency vehicles (see photos of any music festival campsite e.g. Glastonbury). Looking at the site, from the photos, then the emergency vehicles can gain access and fight any fire from a number of places. Probably this is why the Police have not used their powers, as there is no problem......but on why they haven't used their powers I am only guessing

I believe the same guidance is used for caravan or tent
Its for caravan park licensing conditions Blue. Any caravan park that falls under the definition has to comply with these conditions.
If you imagine Glastonbury having to put 6 meters between each tent you will see where the problem will occur in trying to implement it. You would have to have 5 to 10 times as much campsite.
Dave_Notts

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts

Dave_Notts
PS the bit you quoted was for caravans and not tents. At camp sites you have a bit of space but most sites have blocks of areas with access running around the length and breadth of the site for emergency vehicles (see photos of any music festival campsite e.g. Glastonbury). Looking at the site, from the photos, then the emergency vehicles can gain access and fight any fire from a number of places. Probably this is why the Police have not used their powers, as there is no problem......but on why they haven't used their powers I am only guessing

I believe the same guidance is used for caravan or tent
Its for caravan park licensing conditions Blue. Any caravan park that falls under the definition has to comply with these conditions.
If you imagine Glastonbury having to put 6 meters between each tent you will see where the problem will occur in trying to implement it. You would have to have 5 to times as much campsite.
Dave_Notts
As I said Dave, it is guidance. In my humble view, all responsible people and organisers should follow them. Those that don't put there fellow campers at risk.
Tents Camping is fun for all the family. Guard against fire and keep it that way.
Tents are usually made of material that can easily catch fire:
always space tents at least 6 metres (20 feet) apart
never smoke in or near tents
never use candles in or near tents
never store or use flammable liquids in or near tents
keep gas containers outside tents
never use gas appliances in small tents
If you're using gas appliances in larger tents:
place them on a fireproof base, such as a flat stone
place them well away from items that catch fire easily, such as sleeping bags and clothing
place them clear of draughts
place them where they cannot be knocked over
consider having a portable fire extinguisher to hand
consider having a fire blanket to hand

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
As I said Dave, it is guidance. In my humble view, all responsible people and organisers should follow them. Those that don't put there fellow campers at risk.

I don't disagree with you Blue. In the case of St Pauls there is no responsible person or duty holder, so the law cannot apply to St Pauls. It is the protesters camp not St Pauls
It is down to common law and the duty of care of the protesters to each other and others. If they fail in that then they could face criminal law (i.e. manslaughter) or civil law (being sued).
Dave_Notts

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
As I said Dave, it is guidance. In my humble view, all responsible people and organisers should follow them. Those that don't put there fellow campers at risk.

I don't disagree with you Blue. In the case of St Pauls there is no responsible person or duty holder, so the law cannot apply to St Pauls. It is the protesters camp not St Pauls
It is down to common law and the duty of care of the protesters to each other and others. If they fail in that then they could face criminal law (i.e. manslaughter) or civil law (being sued).
Dave_Notts
But even if St Pauls does not have a legal responsibility, it could well feel a moral one. I know I would.

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
As I said Dave, it is guidance. In my humble view, all responsible people and organisers should follow them. Those that don't put there fellow campers at risk.

I don't disagree with you Blue. In the case of St Pauls there is no responsible person or duty holder, so the law cannot apply to St Pauls. It is the protesters camp not St Pauls
It is down to common law and the duty of care of the protesters to each other and others. If they fail in that then they could face criminal law (i.e. manslaughter) or civil law (being sued).
Dave_Notts
But even if St Pauls does not have a legal responsibility, it could well feel a moral one. I know I would.
Once again Blue, I do not disagree with you and I would do the same on moral grounds.
However, when I went to the papers or TV I would state clearly the reasons why I was closing it i.e. on moral grounds..................and not H&S law
This has been my problem with the statement in the paper. On everything else you said I agree with you.
Dave_Notts

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for your non answers Star
If they are settled in court then you can post the cases up to show your proof, as it is in the public domain...........don't worry, I'll give you time to phone your friend of a friend to ask their advice.

public domain? what how many cases are or are not settled? is it? where exactly?

Quote by Dave__Notts
You'll notice this link to what a barrister does states that a high proportion of civil cases are settled out of court.......so your friend who says they are legal qualified should go have a word with their own Bar as they disagree with him/her........so looks like their input was not as well founded as you thought.

i can only say what someone who does this for a living has stated. show any link you like mr notts does that meen it is correct or a lie? are all web sites based on actual facts?
As for my question Star?

Quote by Dave__Notts
1) Where is the work activity in protesting? Who is the employer? Without these it cannot be a breach of H&S law, so no duty of care.

then you should have a little word with the peeple who made the decision to shut st pauls mr notts. i am sure that had an expert on the matter such as yourself mr notts, been advising them, then the whole area would have remained open. you should put yourself down mr notts for a consultancy fee and give them the legal advice that they obviusly do not know.

Quote by Dave__Notts
You claimed can you blame them using health and safety as a reeson mr notts?

so basically you are wrong, unless you would like to show where I am wrong..................I'll wait for you to call a friend again
Dave_Notts
no need to call my friend anymore mr notts as i have found out today that he is talking total rubbish and that i have a much more knowledgable person to ask. :thumbup:
i will come to you in future mr notts when i am unsure about anything to do with law. :notes:
what do barristers know anyway? wink

at leest i now know who is right and who is wrong. :cheers:

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
As I said Dave, it is guidance. In my humble view, all responsible people and organisers should follow them. Those that don't put there fellow campers at risk.

I don't disagree with you Blue. In the case of St Pauls there is no responsible person or duty holder, so the law cannot apply to St Pauls. It is the protesters camp not St Pauls
It is down to common law and the duty of care of the protesters to each other and others. If they fail in that then they could face criminal law (i.e. manslaughter) or civil law (being sued).
Dave_Notts
But even if St Pauls does not have a legal responsibility, it could well feel a moral one. I know I would.
Once again Blue, I do not disagree with you and I would do the same on moral grounds.
However, when I went to the papers or TV I would state clearly the reasons why I was closing it i.e. on moral grounds..................and not H&S law
This has been my problem with the statement in the paper. On everything else you said I agree with you.
Dave_Notts
:thumbup:

26 Oct 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
no need to call my friend anymore mr notts as i have found out today that he is talking total rubbish and that i have a much more knowledgable person to ask. :thumbup:

Just as well you didn't have to pay his enormous fees then :grin:

26 Oct 2011

Quote by GnV
BTW Dave, how did you get on with the dictionary? AFAIK, the actual spelling is Diametrically not diamterically.

Thank you for the heads up on the spelling - actually a typing problem I think. Glad to see no-one had trouble with 'demographic'. :giggle:

26 Oct 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
Glad to see no-one had trouble with 'demographic'. :giggle:

Something to do with demonstrations I thought and on subject....

26 Oct 2011

Looks like all the Dean and Chapter had to do was ask. dunno

26 Oct 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
St Paul's to reopen?
Looks like all the Dean and Chapter had to do was ask.

Ah, what good news, The Dean asked, and the tents parted allowing a passageway allowing evacuation procedures lol

26 Oct 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
no need to call my friend anymore mr notts as i have found out today that he is talking total rubbish

Quote by starlightcouple
what do barristers know anyway? at leest i now know who is right and who is wrong. :cheers:

I am glad that you read the link to your barrister friends own Approved Regulator of the Bar of England and Wales. It is they who said what your friend said was wrong..........so yes you now know who is wrong, your friend.
Dave_Notts

26 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
St Paul's to reopen?
Looks like all the Dean and Chapter had to do was ask.

Ah, what good news, The Dean asked, and the tents partedallowing a passageway allowing evacuation procedures lol

I bet he feels like Moses now :lol:
Dave_Notts

28 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
St Paul's to reopen?
Looks like all the Dean and Chapter had to do was ask.

Ah, what good news, The Dean asked, and the tents partedallowing a passageway allowing evacuation procedures lol

I bet he feels like Moses now :lol:
Dave_Notts
:thumbup:

28 Oct 2011

This make's good sense to me
The prime minister said the freedom to protest should not imply the "freedom to pitch a tent anywhere in London".
Speaking at a press conference in Perth, Australia, David Cameron said: "I don't quite see why the freedom to demonstrate has to include the freedom to pitch a tent almost anywhere you want to in London.
"I do think that of course we need the right to protest but these tents, whether in Parliament Square or whether at St Paul's, I don't think is the right way forward and I think we do need to look at this whole area and I'm very keen that we do.

28 Oct 2011

People have the right to protest full stop. As long as it is peaceful, then whats the problem. Looks like they are getting their point across to me.
It's a lot better than petrol bombs and rioting
Dave_Notts

28 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
People have the right to protest full stop. As long as it is peaceful, then whats the problem. Looks like they are getting their point across to me.
It's a lot better than petrol bombs and rioting
Dave_Notts

I agree. And this blanket excuse "ELF N SAFERTY" does my nut in. If a situation is hazardous then simply explain why it is so.

28 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
People have the right to protest full stop. As long as it is peaceful, then whats the problem. Looks like they are getting their point across to me.
It's a lot better than petrol bombs and rioting
Dave_Notts

I agree we all have the right to protest. But I also feel that when your protest encroaches onto others lives then it should not go on for days. Just my view

28 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
People have the right to protest full stop. As long as it is peaceful, then whats the problem. Looks like they are getting their point across to me.
It's a lot better than petrol bombs and rioting
Dave_Notts

I agree we all have the right to protest. But I also feel that when your protest encroaches onto others lives then it should not go on for days. Just my view
I'll go with that, in that it should not encroach on others lives.............we'll have a trial run and the next Countryside Alliance march should be no more than 5 people and they have an hour to protest and hand in their grieviences/petition to their nearest MP's surgery on a Tuesday afternoon.
Dave_Notts

29 Oct 2011

blimey is this thred still going on? innocent

thankfully st pauls will end and it will not end up being like this monster became, and 19 yeers so st pauls be grateful for that eh>? lol

it seams even back then there were plenty of peeple prepared to sleep in tents but no doubt still ok to pick there benefit cheque up from the very government they despised. not a lot of difference in the two protests. the only difference is that in 2011 these " protesters " prefere the cosy evenings that a nice comfy house brings. at leest the peeple at greenham had some balls and stayed in there tents.
i always wondered though how these peeple washed or brushed there teeth? i cringe at that sometimes and wonder what the smells were like in sided that camp. at leest with the warriors at st pauls they can get to go home to a nice bath and a brushy of there toothy pegs.

:rotflmao:

29 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
People have the right to protest full stop. As long as it is peaceful, then whats the problem. Looks like they are getting their point across to me.
It's a lot better than petrol bombs and rioting
Dave_Notts

I agree we all have the right to protest. But I also feel that when your protest encroaches onto others lives then it should not go on for days. Just my view
I'll go with that, in that it should not encroach on others lives.............we'll have a trial run and the next Countryside Alliance march should be no more than 5 people and they have an hour to protest and hand in their grieviences/petition to their nearest MP's surgery on a Tuesday afternoon.
Dave_Notts
As an old boy I used to work with used to say "There is a big differance between shitting and tearing your arse"
Almost all of country side marches were held on a Sunday and lasted less than a day, the two are not comparable Dave

29 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I'll go with that, in that it should not encroach on others lives.............we'll have a trial run and the next Countryside Alliance march should be no more than 5 people and they have an hour to protest and hand in their grieviences/petition to their nearest MP's surgery on a Tuesday afternoon.
Dave_Notts

As an old boy I used to work with used to say "There is a big differance between shitting and tearing your arse"
Almost all of country side marches were held on a Sunday and lasted less than a day, the two are not comparable Dave
It is good to hear that you are willing to support the rights of one group to protest but not the other because you don't agree with their protest.
I neither agree or disagree with either group but I support their right to peaceful protest, however they wish to protest.
Dave_Notts

29 Oct 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
I'll go with that, in that it should not encroach on others lives.............we'll have a trial run and the next Countryside Alliance march should be no more than 5 people and they have an hour to protest and hand in their grieviences/petition to their nearest MP's surgery on a Tuesday afternoon.
Dave_Notts

As an old boy I used to work with used to say "There is a big differance between shitting and tearing your arse"
Almost all of country side marches were held on a Sunday and lasted less than a day, the two are not comparable Dave
It is good to hear that you are willing to support the rights of one group to protest but not the other because you don't agree with their protest.
I neither agree or disagree with either group but I support their right to peaceful protest, however they wish to protest.
Dave_Notts
I support the right for all to protest :thumbup:
I may, however, have difficulties with methods used.
It is one thing to disrupt for a few hours but very selfish when you disrupt others live for many days or weeks

29 Oct 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
It is one thing to disrupt for a few hours but very selfish when you disrupt others live for many days or weeks

rubbish bluefish.
you are only saying that because you beleeve that your hunts only disrupt for a few hours. What about the disruption to the local police and residents that actually start days before a hunt, especially if demonstrators are involved. do you seriusly beleeve that this is all planned on a saturday morning a few hours before the hunt?
to the ones being disrupted a few hours can be a living fucking nightmare bluefish. at st pauls it is not residents that are being disrupted and I beleeve that is worse to be a resident and to be disrupted.
disruption creates anger and resentment wether it be for an hour or a week. :notes:

29 Oct 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

It is one thing to disrupt for a few hours but very selfish when you disrupt others live for many days or weeks

rubbish bluefish.
you are only saying that because you beleeve that your hunts only disrupt for a few hours. What about the disruption to the local police and residents that actually start days before a hunt, especially if demonstrators are involved. do you seriusly beleeve that this is all planned on a saturday morning a few hours before the hunt?
to the ones being disrupted a few hours can be a living fucking nightmare bluefish. at st pauls it is not residents that are being disrupted and I beleeve that is worse to be a resident and to be disrupted.
disruption creates anger and resentment wether it be for an hour or a week. :notes:
How ever you word it Star, this protest has lasted longer than any hunt protest :thumbup:
What about the disruption to the local police and residents that actually start days before a Occupy protest, especially if demonstrators are involved. do you seriusly beleeve that this is all planned on a saturday morning a few hours before the ocupy protest?
wink