I hate to disagree, but it’s definitely a hazard if kids try to climb over it (in which case it wouldn’t be trespassing because they’re minors) or if someone trips and falls. If the fence were 8 feet high, I would agree that only a thief could hurt themselves, but in this case he should just take it down.
– Jeremy, CT, USA, 09/10/2008 21:50
Looks like we have sheep here in the US that want to be the same thing.
Jeremy is an idiot. The chances of a “child” “falling” “randomly” on this is practically nil. When I was a kid, I knew better than to play near barbed wire. And how many “kids” just walk down the road without parental supervision?
The problem is that morons like Jeremy think he’s being logical – the disease is spreading here too.
Honestly, sometimes I think I should move to England and be a criminal. I’d have more rights and freedoms than I do here, sometimes.
It’s not his “private property” though Huck, it’s an “allotment.” The plot of land is not his, but rented from the council that asked him not to put the fence up. The council is the one who is liable for anything that happens on the land.
So while of course I don’t think anyone should be liable for injuries a mutant sustains in the process of committing a crime, the reality is that he is not actually being prevented from putting a barbed wire fence on his privately-owned land, which changes things a little bit.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Looks like we have sheep here in the US that want to be the same thing.
Jeremy is an idiot. The chances of a “child” “falling” “randomly” on this is practically nil. When I was a kid, I knew better than to play near barbed wire. And how many “kids” just walk down the road without parental supervision?
The problem is that morons like Jeremy think he’s being logical – the disease is spreading here too.
Honestly, sometimes I think I should move to England and be a criminal. I’d have more rights and freedoms than I do here, sometimes.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
What happened to “private property is sacred” and/or “your home is your castle”?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Is it me, or is the prospect of a child trying to climb a barb wire fence sound like a excellent learning experience?
October 10th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
By contrast, in Latin America, the exterior walls around the courtyards of homes have broken glass embedded in the top.
October 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It’s not his “private property” though Huck, it’s an “allotment.” The plot of land is not his, but rented from the council that asked him not to put the fence up. The council is the one who is liable for anything that happens on the land.
So while of course I don’t think anyone should be liable for injuries a mutant sustains in the process of committing a crime, the reality is that he is not actually being prevented from putting a barbed wire fence on his privately-owned land, which changes things a little bit.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
That place is really, really sad, yet hilariously funny at the same time…
October 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Guav said “The council is the one who is liable for anything that happens on the land.”
Evidently not, Guav. The council didn’t accept liability for the two thefts of property the lessee had previously suffered.
In the absence of responsibility it is imperative that there also be an absence of authority.
You may quote me on that.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
And the reverse should also be true. One should not be held responsible for what he has not the authority to correct.