UKIP Poster Campaign Attacked As RACIST

First topic message reminder :

22nd April 2014

Anybody bored of that word yet?

Ukip was plunged into a race storm yesterday after unveiling a series of posters campaigning against EU immigration.

The party has paid for billboards across the country to be emblazoned with messages such as: ‘26million people in Europe are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?’

Another has a picture of a construction worker begging on the street, with the slogan: ‘EU policy at work. British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap labour.’

The £1.5million campaign is funded by the Yorkshire businessman Paul Sykes, who is a former Tory donor.

All the posters call on voters to ‘Take Back Control of Our Country’ by backing Ukip in European elections on May 22.

But they were immediately condemned by rival politicians.

Mr Farage said:

"Are we going to ruffle a few feathers among the chattering classes? Yes. Are we bothered about that? Not in the slightest.

“Ukip is hugely grateful to Paul Sykes for his magnificent contribution to the great cause of restoring Britain’s ability to be a self-governing nation. The political earthquake I have spoken of is on its way.”





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609583/New-Ukip-posters-focus-immigration-branded-racist-political-opponents.html#ixzz2zbbO22xA

victorisnotamused wrote:considering what I carry now and again sassy.....what sort of out cry would you recon would ensue if someone obtained that from my unlocked vehicle and used it fataly????

that object and its brothers are in a locked safe bolted to the vehicle (which i can promise you no one on earth could get into inside 10 min...even with welding gear....

If the vehicle is interfered with the onboard security besides sounding the alarm, firstly SMS messages me
after 3 mins it then
secondly activates the onboard tracking
and thirdly activates a second tracking device which begins broadcasting its location AND a verbal, morse and text message to all and every radio ham station in range, requesting police action and WHY ......

so should said item/s ever be stolen from it...i recon I have covered my "reasonable duties"

Exactly, my ex, a landscaper, had all his tools and extra petrol for them in a huge steel box that was welded to the floor of the truck, that in turn had an extremely strong locking devise, and for extra safety he had steel straps that went round it and locked with a padlock. He never left the van, no matter how inconvenient it was, without making sure everything was locked up. He always said he was never going to be responsible for a child playing with one of his chainsaws!

I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

Nobody broke into the van, he left it open.

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

If you had left in unlocked you would be, you'd be at least contributing/ helping them get easy access.

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

what a childish response....

as long as you "secured" it as well as maybe then you have covered your "duty"..however...had you left it unlocked, keys in ignition etc ...and a young child ran his mate over...then YES YOU would be responsible...and quite rightly too.

how old were they?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

If you had left in unlocked you would be, you'd be at least contributing/ helping them get easy access.

If it was unlocked they wouldn't have needed to break in would they?   

I don't agree with you anyway - that's a stupid argument.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose the morons who broke into my car not long ago weren't to blame because I left the car parked outside!

what a childish response....

as long as you "secured" it as well as maybe then you have covered your "duty"..however...had you left it unlocked, keys in ignition etc ...and a young child ran his mate over...then YES YOU would be responsible...and quite rightly too.

how old were they?

It's an example of the way people like you think - everything is always someone else's fault - everyone except the actual perpetrator that is.

If some kid got into my car and ran over his mate, it would his own fault.

Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Not as low as you lot who want some poor bloke to be sacked and probably prosecuted because some kids messed around with petrol and a lighter.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Not as low as you lot who want some poor bloke to be sacked and probably prosecuted because some kids messed around with petrol and a lighter.

even though he broke the LAW?
failed in his duty?


so when a speeding driver runs you over its not his fault then? you shouldnt have been there???

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

what a childish response....

as long as you "secured" it as well as maybe then you have covered your "duty"..however...had you left it unlocked, keys in ignition etc ...and a young child ran his mate over...then YES YOU would be responsible...and quite rightly too.

how old were they?

It's an example of the way people like you think - everything is always someone else's fault - everyone except the actual perpetrator that is.

If some kid got into my car and ran over his mate, it would his own fault.

I think you will find the law will take a different view.....since it is (for that very reason) ILLEGAL to leave your vehicle unattended WITH THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


If you had left in unlocked you would be, you'd be at least contributing/ helping them get easy access.

If it was unlocked they wouldn't have needed to break in would they?   

I don't agree with you anyway - that's a stupid argument.

It's a stupid argument ?..that the guy left his van unsecured with a flammable substance in the back to which kids easily accessed and as a result one of them died....
Oh yes, a really silly argument that one...let's to back and blame the kids for getting access to that easily.

If kids were sold petrol on a forecourt, who do you think would be blamed ?

The bairn or the attendant?

If fags were sold to a bairn, who do you think the trading standards and licensing would bring to book ?

The bairn or the shop who sold them?

Your just being silly either for the controversy at attention.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's an example of the way people like you think - everything is always someone else's fault - everyone except the actual perpetrator that is.

If some kid got into my car and ran over his mate, it would his own fault.

I think you will find the law will take a different view.....since it is (for that very reason) ILLEGAL to leave your vehicle unattended WITH THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION....

Link please.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's an example of the way people like you think - everything is always someone else's fault - everyone except the actual perpetrator that is.

If some kid got into my car and ran over his mate, it would his own fault.

I think you will find the law will take a different view.....since it is (for that very reason) ILLEGAL to leave your vehicle unattended WITH THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION....

Are you sure victor?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it was unlocked they wouldn't have needed to break in would they?   

I don't agree with you anyway - that's a stupid argument.

It's a stupid argument ?..that the guy left his van unsecured with a flammable substance in the back to which kids easily accesses and as a result one of them died....
Oh yes, a really silly argument that one.

Your just being silly either for the controversy at attention.

Oh, I suppose you think they nicked his lighter as well do you? They chucked petrol on the boy and then flicked the lighter on FFS. What did they think would happen?

well...I'm not certain if thats the exact reason...but leaving it unattended with the keys in is....

It might actually hark back to wartime....you know...spies and escaped POW's and such shenanigins

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Oh lower things have been said...

by Sassy on Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:18 pm


Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour? :D

End quote

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Not as low as you lot who want some poor bloke to be sacked and probably prosecuted because some kids messed around with petrol and a lighter.

If the van was locked,this most likely wouldn't have happened, you  have strange views.

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, don't argue with idiots Victor, they only drag you down to their level, and in this case it's very very low.

Oh lower things have been said...

by Sassy on Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:18 pm

   
Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  :D

End quote

Yes - that was pretty nasty.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not as low as you lot who want some poor bloke to be sacked and probably prosecuted because some kids messed around with petrol and a lighter.

If the van was locked,this most likely wouldn't have happened, you  have strange views.

I don't think they're strange. I was taught to be responsible for the things I did - perhaps you weren't and that's why you always blame anyone other than the perpetrators.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


If the van was locked,this most likely wouldn't have happened, you  have strange views.

I don't think they're strange. I was taught to be responsible for the things I did - perhaps you weren't and that's why you always blame anyone other than the perpetrators.

..did you drop that responsibility when you turned 16?

Responsibility is a continuation throughout life you know, as adults too..even morse so.

We are supposed to understand as adults that children can be un predictive and not to understand consequences of their actions...often not at least until what is doe is done.

And as for responsibility again, you fail to understand that as adults, we are supposed to be more responsible than children, so just don't try to go that route.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're strange. I was taught to be responsible for the things I did - perhaps you weren't and that's why you always blame anyone other than the perpetrators.

..did you drop that responsibility when you turned 16?

Responsibility is a continuation throughout life you know, as adults too..even morse so.

We are supposed to understand as adults that children can be un predictive and not to understand consequences of their actions...often not at least until what is doe is done.

And as for responsibility again, you fail to understand that as adults, we are supposed to be more responsible than children, so just don't try to go that route.

You think it was a coincidence that they had petrol and a lighter? You think they didn't realise the petrol would catch fire? Get real.

Ahh..its a tort, not a criminal offense

NEGLIGENCE...right at the bottom...though all of this is relevant....

Negligence
Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.

In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.

The concept of negligence developed under English Law. Although English Common Law had long imposed liability for the wrongful acts of others, negligence did not emerge as an independent cause of action until the eighteenth century. Another important concept emerged at that time: legal liability for a failure to act. Originally liability for failing to act was imposed on those who undertook to perform some service and breached a promise to exercise care or skill in performing that service. Gradually the law began to imply a promise to exercise care or skill in the performance of certain services. This promise to exercise care, whether express or implied, formed the origins of the modern concept of "duty." For example, innkeepers were said to have a duty to protect the safety and security of their guests.

The concept of negligence passed from Great Britain to the United States as each state (except Louisiana) adopted the common law of Great Britain (Louisiana adopted the Civil Law of France). Although there have been important developments in negligence law, the basic concepts have remained the same since the eighteenth century. Today negligence is by far the widest-ranging tort, encompassing virtually all unintentional, wrongful conduct that injures others. One of the most important concepts in negligence law is the "reasonable person," which provides the standard by which a person's conduct is judged.

The Reasonable Person

A person has acted negligently if she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. The hypothetical reasonable person provides an objective by which the conduct of others is judged. In law, the reasonable person is not an average person or a typical person but a composite of the community's judgment as to how the typical community member should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm to the public. Even though the majority of people in the community may behave in a certain way, that does not establish the standard of conduct of the reasonable person. For example, a majority of people in a community may jay-walk, but jaywalking might still fall below the community's standards of safe conduct.

The concept of the reasonable person distinguishes negligence from intentional torts such as Assault and Battery. To prove an intentional tort, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the defendant deliberately acted to injure the plaintiff. In a negligence suit, however, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the failure of the defendant to act as a reasonable person caused the plaintiff's injury. An intoxicated driver who accidentally injures a pedestrian may not have intended to cause the pedestrian's injury. But because a reasonable person would not drive while intoxicated because it creates an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians and other drivers, an intoxicated driver may be held liable to an injured plaintiff for negligence despite his lack of intent to injure the plaintiff.

The law considers a variety of factors in determining whether a person has acted as the hypothetical reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation. These factors include the knowledge, experience, and perception of the person, the activity the person is engaging in, the physical characteristics of the person, and the circumstances surrounding the person's actions.Knowledge, Experience, and Perception The law takes into account a person's knowledge, experience, and perceptions in determining whether the individual has acted as a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances. Conduct must be judged in light of a person's actual knowledge and observations, because the reasonable person always takes this into account. Thus, if a driver sees another car approaching at night without lights, the driver must act reasonably to avoid an accident, even though the driver would not have been negligent in failing to see the other car.

In addition to actual knowledge, the law also considers most people to have the same knowledge, experience, and ability to perceive as the hypothetical reasonable person. In the absence of unusual circumstances, a person must see what is clearly visible and hear what is clearly audible. Therefore, a driver of a car hit by a train at an unobstructed railroad crossing cannot claim that she was not negligent because she did not see or hear the train, because a reasonable person would have seen or heard the train.

Also, a person cannot deny personal knowledge of basic facts commonly known in the community. The reasonable person knows that ice is slippery, that live wires are dangerous, that alcohol impairs driving ability, and that children might run into the street when they are playing. To act as a reasonable person, an individual must even take into account her lack of knowledge of some situations, such as when walking down a dark, unfamiliar corridor.

Finally, a person who undertakes a particular activity is ordinarily considered to have the knowledge common to others who engage in that activity. A motorist must know the rules of the road and a product manufacturer must know the characteristics and dangers of its product, at least to the extent they are generally known in the industry.

Special Skills If a person engages in an activity requiring special skills, education, training, or experience, such as piloting an airplane, the standard by which his conduct is measured is the conduct of a reasonably skilled, competent, and experienced person who is a qualified member of the group authorized to engage in that activity. In other words, the hypothetical reasonable person is a skilled, competent, and experienced person who engages in the same activity. Often persons practicing these special skills must be licensed, such as physicians, lawyers, architects, barbers, pilots, and drivers. Anyone who performs these special skills, whether qualified or not, is held to the standards of conduct of those properly qualified to do so, because the public relies on the special expertise of those who engage in such activities. Thus, an unlicensed driver who takes his friends for a joyride is held to the standard of conduct of an experienced, licensed driver.

The law does not make a special allowance for beginners with regard to special skills. The learner, beginner, or trainee in a special skill is held to the standard of conduct of persons who are reasonably skilled and experienced in the activity. Sometimes the beginner is held to a standard he cannot meet. For example, a first-time driver clearly does not possess the experience and skill of an experienced driver. Although it may seem unfair to hold the beginner to the standards of the more experienced person, this standard protects the general public from the risk of a beginner's lack of competence, because the community is usually defenseless to guard against such risks.

Physical Characteristics The law takes a person's physical characteristics into account in determining whether that person's conduct is negligent. Whether a person's conduct is reasonable, and therefore not negligent, is measured against a reasonably prudent person with the same physical characteristics. There are two reasons for taking physical characteristics into account. A physically impaired individual cannot be expected to conform to a standard of conduct that would be physically impossible for her to meet. On the other hand, a physically challenged person must act reasonably in light of her handicap, and she may be negligent in taking a risk that is unreasonable in light of her known physical limitations. Thus, it would be negligent for a blind person to drive an automobile.

Mental Capacity Although a person's physical characteristics are taken into account in determining negligence, the person's mental capacity is generally ignored and does not excuse the person from acting according to the reasonable person standard. The fact that an individual is lacking in intelligence, judgment, memory, or emotional stability does not excuse the person's failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same circumstances. For example, a person who causes a forest fire by failing to extinguish his campfire cannot claim that he was not negligent because he lacked the intelligence, judgment, or experience to appreciate the risk of an untended campfire.

Similarly, evidence of voluntary intoxication will not excuse conduct that is otherwise negligent. Although intoxication affects a person's judgment, voluntary intoxication will not excuse negligent conduct, because it is the person's conduct, not his or her mental condition, that determines negligence. In some cases a person's intoxication is relevant to determining whether his conduct is negligent, however, because undertaking certain activities, such as driving, while intoxicated poses a danger to others.

Children Children may be negligent, but they are not held to the same standard of conduct as adults. A child's conduct is measured against the conduct expected of a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. Unlike the standard for adults, the standard of reasonable conduct for children takes into account subjective factors such as intelligence and experience. In this sense the standard is less strict than for adults, because children normally do not engage in the high-risk activities of adults and adults dealing with children are expected to anticipate their "childish" behavior.

In many states children are presumed incapable of negligence below a certain age, usually seven years. In some states children between the ages of seven and fourteen years are presumed to be incapable of negligence, although this presumption can be rebutted. Once a person reaches the age of majority, usually eighteen years, she is held to adult standards of conduct.

One major exception to the rules of negligence exists with regard to children. If a child is engaging in what is considered an "adult activity," such as driving an automobile or flying an airplane, the child will be held to an adult standard of care. The higher standard of care imposed for these types of activities is justified by the special skills required to engage in them and the danger they pose to the public.

Emergencies The law recognizes that even a reasonable person can make errors in judgment in emergency situations. Therefore, a person's conduct in an emergency is evaluated in light of whether it was a reasonable response under the circumstances, even though, in hindsight, another course of action might have avoided the injury.

In some circumstances failure to anticipate an emergency may constitute negligence. The reasonable person anticipates, and takes precautions against, foreseeable emergencies. For example, the owner of a theater must consider the possibility of a fire, and the owner of a swimming pool must consider the possibility of a swimmer drowning. Failure to guard against such emergencies can constitute negligence.

Also, a person can be negligent in causing an emergency, even if he acts reasonably during the emergency. A theater owner whose negligence causes a fire, for instance, would be liable for the injuries to the patrons, even if he saved lives during the fire.

Conduct of Others Finally, the reasonable person takes into account the conduct of others and regulates his own conduct accordingly. A reasonable person must even foresee the unlawful or negligent conduct of others if the situation warrants. Thus, a person may be found negligent for leaving a car unlocked with the keys in the ignition because of the foreseeable risk of theft, or for failing to slow down in the vicinity of a school yard where children might negligently run into the street.

You don't expect Rags to be able to read all that do you?

I think we'd have to see whether this has been tested in the courts.

How do we know that the keys were in the ignition? That in itself isn't illegal anyway. Every version of this story I have read says that the petrol can was on the back of a council pick up truck, therefore no keys required, no breaking in, just kids climbing onto the back of a pick up truck and taking a petrol can. There is every possibility it was for a council lawn mower or something.

An eye witness report

Local resident Paulina Pilska said she had been watching the children from her window as they jumped on top of a council pick-up van.

The 25-year-old cleaner said: ‘They were searching for something. I saw one of them with a container, like a watering can.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610108/Boy-seven-dies-doused-petrol-turned-human-fireball-group-children-prank-gone-wrong.html#ixzz2zezMbQjq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Before you lot hang, draw and quarter this council worker I think maybe you should wait for a few facts to come to light.

And in the meantime, RIP to the little one, whatever the circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

Oh lower things have been said...

by Sassy on Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:18 pm

   
Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  :D

End quote

Yes - that was pretty nasty.

Ah, you would rather I presumed it was true rather than asking you to confirm or deny it when you were judging someone else's sex life. Right, I'll remember that.

Is Ragga a female?

Did Ragga have an affair?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - that was pretty nasty.

Ah, you would rather I presumed it was true rather than asking you to confirm or deny it when you were judging someone else's sex life.   Right, I'll remember that.

What you need to remember is its got fuck all to do with you. Worry about your own life, leave everyone elses alone

harvesmom wrote:How do we know that the keys were in the ignition? That in itself isn't illegal anyway. Every version of this story I have read says that the petrol can was on the back of a council pick up truck, therefore no keys required, no breaking in, just kids climbing onto the back of a pick up truck and taking a petrol can. There is every possibility it was for a council lawn mower or something.

An eye witness report

Local resident Paulina Pilska said she had been watching the children from her window as they jumped on top of a council pick-up van.

The 25-year-old cleaner said: ‘They were searching for something. I saw one of them with a container, like a watering can.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610108/Boy-seven-dies-doused-petrol-turned-human-fireball-group-children-prank-gone-wrong.html#ixzz2zezMbQjq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Before you lot hang, draw and quarter this council worker I think maybe you should wait for a few facts to come to light.

And in the meantime, RIP to the little one, whatever the circumstances.

The stories I have read said this Harves:

The relative claimed the children had been playing out on the road when they took a petrol can out of the back of a council lorry.

She said: "Him and a group of mates were just mucking about. They were playing near a council van that had petrol in the back of it. I don't think they knew it was petrol.

"The back of the van was open

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/preston-flores-boy-7-set-3431391#ixzz2zf18pIiW
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - that was pretty nasty.

Ah, you would rather I presumed it was true rather than asking you to confirm or deny it when you were judging someone else's sex life.   Right, I'll remember that.

Presume what you like, but it was irrelevant to the subject matter anyway. You were just being malicious as usual. You really do have a face that should be slapped.

harvesmom wrote:How do we know that the keys were in the ignition? That in itself isn't illegal anyway. Every version of this story I have read says that the petrol can was on the back of a council pick up truck, therefore no keys required, no breaking in, just kids climbing onto the back of a pick up truck and taking a petrol can. There is every possibility it was for a council lawn mower or something.

An eye witness report

Local resident Paulina Pilska said she had been watching the children from her window as they jumped on top of a council pick-up van.

The 25-year-old cleaner said: ‘They were searching for something. I saw one of them with a container, like a watering can.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610108/Boy-seven-dies-doused-petrol-turned-human-fireball-group-children-prank-gone-wrong.html#ixzz2zezMbQjq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Before you lot hang, draw and quarter this council worker I think maybe you should wait for a few facts to come to light.

And in the meantime, RIP to the little one, whatever the circumstances.

read a bit back harves....the key in the ignition is a different matter

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Ah, you would rather I presumed it was true rather than asking you to confirm or deny it when you were judging someone else's sex life.   Right, I'll remember that.

What you need to remember is its got fuck all to do with you. Worry about your own life, leave everyone elses alone

Exactly. I don't know why she thinks she has a right to know about my personal life.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Ah, you would rather I presumed it was true rather than asking you to confirm or deny it when you were judging someone else's sex life.   Right, I'll remember that.

Presume what you like, but it was irrelevant to the subject matter anyway. You were just being malicious as usual. You really do have a face that should be slapped.

It was extremely relavant, you were judging someone because of their sex life, and if you were having an affair with a married man, you were in no position to judge, hence I asked you to confirm or deny the rumour, which is all over this board.

BigAndy9 wrote:Is Ragga a female?

Did Ragga have an affair?

WTF? What business is it of yours? I didn't realise you were a bandwagon jumper.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Presume what you like, but it was irrelevant to the subject matter anyway. You were just being malicious as usual. You really do have a face that should be slapped.

It was extremely relavant, you were judging someone because of their sex life, and if you were having an affair with a married man, you were in no position to judge, hence I asked you to confirm or deny the rumour, which is all over this board.

No I wasn't, I was commenting on them having children they couldn't afford. Now stay out of my private life you old hag, unless you want me to comment about yours.

Would you like to link to these rumours by the way?

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Is Ragga a female?

Did Ragga have an affair?

WTF? What business is it of yours? I didn't realise you were a bandwagon jumper.

Oh god yes - especially where affairs, dry-bumming, and affairs are concerned.

Ok, more a nosey b4rsteward I suppose.

If people are offering such mad info on a news discussion forum, i'll listen.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think we'd have to see whether this has been tested in the courts.

the actual "criminal law" i was thinking about was leaving the vehicle unattended with the engine running...apparently known as "quitting"

however...leaving the keys in ...resulting in an accident would certainly be considered "negligent" (and your insurance company   would agree)

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

WTF? What business is it of yours? I didn't realise you were a bandwagon jumper.

Oh god yes - especially where affairs, dry-bumming, and affairs are concerned.

Ok, more a nosey b4rsteward I suppose.

If people are offering such mad info on a news discussion forum, i'll listen.

It's just Sassy being a malicious old twat and spreading false rumours.

victorisnotamused wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I think we'd have to see whether this has been tested in the courts.

the actual "criminal law" i was thinking about was leaving the vehicle unattended with the engine running...apparently known as "quitting"

however...leaving the keys in ...resulting in an accident would certainly be considered "negligent" (and your insurance company   would agree)

Oh god I should think so.   

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!!!

victorisnotamused wrote:CAT FIGHT!!!!!!!!

  

Sassy wrote:

harvesmom wrote:How do we know that the keys were in the ignition? That in itself isn't illegal anyway. Every version of this story I have read says that the petrol can was on the back of a council pick up truck, therefore no keys required, no breaking in, just kids climbing onto the back of a pick up truck and taking a petrol can. There is every possibility it was for a council lawn mower or something.

An eye witness report

Local resident Paulina Pilska said she had been watching the children from her window as they jumped on top of a council pick-up van.

The 25-year-old cleaner said: ‘They were searching for something. I saw one of them with a container, like a watering can.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610108/Boy-seven-dies-doused-petrol-turned-human-fireball-group-children-prank-gone-wrong.html#ixzz2zezMbQjq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Before you lot hang, draw and quarter this council worker I think maybe you should wait for a few facts to come to light.

And in the meantime, RIP to the little one, whatever the circumstances.

The stories I have read said this Harves:

The relative claimed the children had been playing out on the road when they took a petrol can out of the back of a council lorry.

She said: "Him and a group of mates were just mucking about. They were playing near a council van that had petrol in the back of it. I don't think they knew it was petrol.

"The back of the van was open

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/preston-flores-boy-7-set-3431391#ixzz2zf18pIiW
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

This would tell me that its a lorry and not a van. And the fact she says the back of the 'van' was open' would signify its an open backed pick up truck.

But really, is it fair to be hanging the blame on a council worker until we are sure of the facts? And where does it say any keys were left in the ignition, in a lock, anywhere???

The other thing to point out was that link also says

"The back of the van was open and his mates were chucking petrol on him. They had lighters and they were sparking them.


If they didn't realise it was petrol, why would they throw it on him and set light to him?

harvesmom wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The stories I have read said this Harves:

The relative claimed the children had been playing out on the road when they took a petrol can out of the back of a council lorry.

She said: "Him and a group of mates were just mucking about. They were playing near a council van that had petrol in the back of it. I don't think they knew it was petrol.

"The back of the van was open

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/preston-flores-boy-7-set-3431391#ixzz2zf18pIiW
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

This would tell me that its a lorry and not a van. And the fact she says the back of the 'van' was open' would signify its an open backed pick up truck.

But really, is it fair to be hanging the blame on a council worker until we are sure of the facts? And where does it say any keys were left in the ignition, in a lock, anywhere???

The other thing to point out was that link also says

"The back of the van was open and his mates were chucking petrol on him. They had lighters and they were sparking them.


If they didn't realise it was petrol, why would they throw it on him and set light to him?

Exactly!

We all know this is a case of people trying to help out naughty chavs.

Blame the government, blame the authorities but for gods sake don't blame the chavs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

It was extremely relavant, you were judging someone because of their sex life, and if you were having an affair with a married man, you were in no position to judge, hence I asked you to confirm or deny the rumour, which is all over this board.

No I wasn't, I was commenting on them having children they couldn't afford. Now stay out of my private life you old hag, unless you want me to comment about yours.

Would you like to link to these rumours by the way?

Having children involves sex. You said she was stupid to have children, but if you were having an affair with a married man you would be in no position to judge about sex and stupidity.

And you are always telling Phil (Cat) to stop saying you are having an affair. Hence I asked you to deny or confirm it, rather than just believing it.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No I wasn't, I was commenting on them having children they couldn't afford. Now stay out of my private life you old hag, unless you want me to comment about yours.

Would you like to link to these rumours by the way?

Having children involves sex.   You said she was stupid to have children, but if you were having an affair with a married man you would be in no position to judge about sex and stupidity.

And you are always telling Phil (Cat) to stop saying you are having an affair.   Hence I asked you to deny or confirm it, rather than just believing it.

Balls. Its got nothing to do with you to believe it or not!
Bit late in the day for the backtracking. You showed everyone your true colours.
Nasty poisonous old bat. You dropped one there didnt you?

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Having children involves sex.   You said she was stupid to have children, but if you were having an affair with a married man you would be in no position to judge about sex and stupidity.

And you are always telling Phil (Cat) to stop saying you are having an affair.   Hence I asked you to deny or confirm it, rather than just believing it.

Balls. Its got nothing to do with you to believe it or not!
Bit late in the day for the backtracking. You showed everyone your true colours.
Nasty poisonous old bat. You dropped one there didnt you?

How the hell did that subject come up on here?

because they didnt realise the SERIOUSNESS of the consequences???
because they had just been watching some stupid movie where the "superhero walks in flames?
because of any number of silly "childish" reasons

and...regardless... Even IF the kids WERE deliberately trying to kiil one another........


THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE PETROL FAILED IN HIS DUTY OF CARE UNDER H&S LAW AS A REASONABLE PERSON

in as much as

Knowledge, Experience, and Perception The law takes into account a person's knowledge, experience, and perceptions in determining whether the individual has acted as a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances. Conduct must be judged in light of a person's actual knowledge and observations, because the reasonable person always takes this into account.


Special Skills If a person engages in an activity requiring special skills, education, training, or experience, such as piloting an airplane, the standard by which his conduct is measured is the conduct of a reasonably skilled, competent, and experienced person who is a qualified member of the group authorized to engage in that activity. In other words, the hypothetical reasonable person is a skilled, competent, and experienced person who engages in the same activity

and especially

Conduct of Others Finally, the reasonable person takes into account the conduct of others and regulates his own conduct accordingly. A reasonable person must even foresee the unlawful or negligent conduct of others if the situation warrants.


having regard to........

Children Children may be negligent, but they are not held to the same standard of conduct as adults. A child's conduct is measured against the conduct expected of a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. Unlike the standard for adults, the standard of reasonable conduct for children takes into account subjective factors such as intelligence and experience. In this sense the standard is less strict than for adults, because children normally do not engage in the high-risk activities of adults and adults dealing with children are expected to anticipate their "childish" behavior.


He would be as responsible if he had left petrol available to a bunch of ADULT homicidal maniacs......

harvesmom wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The stories I have read said this Harves:

The relative claimed the children had been playing out on the road when they took a petrol can out of the back of a council lorry.

She said: "Him and a group of mates were just mucking about. They were playing near a council van that had petrol in the back of it. I don't think they knew it was petrol.

"The back of the van was open

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/preston-flores-boy-7-set-3431391#ixzz2zf18pIiW
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

This would tell me that its a lorry and not a van. And the fact she says the back of the 'van' was open' would signify its an open backed pick up truck.

But really, is it fair to be hanging the blame on a council worker until we are sure of the facts? And where does it say any keys were left in the ignition, in a lock, anywhere???

The other thing to point out was that link also says

"The back of the van was open and his mates were chucking petrol on him. They had lighters and they were sparking them.


If they didn't realise it was petrol, why would they throw it on him and set light to him?

..even if the van was open at the back, I'm still sure it would be policy NOT to leave petrol in the van unattended, as I said earlier a pump attendant at a filling station would serve a child petrol would they?

That must have been terrible to see that wee lad on fire...and more so to be that poor wee boy feeling atrocious pain.