No Way Known
The role that Governments have in constructing law is through voting in the houses. That is for for the written law. This is a case of common law where a judge finds the council owed a duty of care. You have to proove a duty of care to sure for negligence.
Just because the government legislates safety rules for some activites it doesn't mean in anyway that they are responsible for every little thing we may do to ourselves.
Depsite the fact we are living in a nanny nation this is the judicial system saying that local councils owe a duty to its citizens to tell them "don't smash your head on the ground or you will hurt yourself".
Should everyone who has a body of shallowish water on their property have to put signs up "hey diving in head first, not so hot"
Its ridiculous that people look for scapegoats for their own damn stupidity. If we think the government owes a duty of care to a teenager from making a decision about diving in to some water then we may as well give up on the notion of free will.
We always have the choice despite what the government legislates. The government can never, nor should it ever try, to warn people about all the dangers in life. If people want to take drugs, drive fast and reckless, dive into shallow water the consequences rest with them and them only.
The fact that tax payers whose money goes to the forestry commision, rate payers whose money goes to the local council have to see their money go to a new wealthy life for this guy is a disgrace. That money could be used benefit those you aren't complete morons and understand that head first diving into the ground is not a clever idea.
The fact the swimming hole was a popular place to swim has nothing to do with it. All the people who swam there including those who may have dived in and done better than this guy are still responsible in whole for their own actions.
You can't argue for the government to get out of our lives while embracing the fact that they should be responsible for us and our actions.
If you willingly and deliberatly take a cause of action that could kill you then you have no one to blame but yourself. If you can think of a situation where someone should be allowed to choose a dangerous cause of action and have someone else to blame please let me know.
Scott
Just because the government legislates safety rules for some activites it doesn't mean in anyway that they are responsible for every little thing we may do to ourselves.
Depsite the fact we are living in a nanny nation this is the judicial system saying that local councils owe a duty to its citizens to tell them "don't smash your head on the ground or you will hurt yourself".
Should everyone who has a body of shallowish water on their property have to put signs up "hey diving in head first, not so hot"
Its ridiculous that people look for scapegoats for their own damn stupidity. If we think the government owes a duty of care to a teenager from making a decision about diving in to some water then we may as well give up on the notion of free will.
We always have the choice despite what the government legislates. The government can never, nor should it ever try, to warn people about all the dangers in life. If people want to take drugs, drive fast and reckless, dive into shallow water the consequences rest with them and them only.
The fact that tax payers whose money goes to the forestry commision, rate payers whose money goes to the local council have to see their money go to a new wealthy life for this guy is a disgrace. That money could be used benefit those you aren't complete morons and understand that head first diving into the ground is not a clever idea.
The fact the swimming hole was a popular place to swim has nothing to do with it. All the people who swam there including those who may have dived in and done better than this guy are still responsible in whole for their own actions.
You can't argue for the government to get out of our lives while embracing the fact that they should be responsible for us and our actions.
If you willingly and deliberatly take a cause of action that could kill you then you have no one to blame but yourself. If you can think of a situation where someone should be allowed to choose a dangerous cause of action and have someone else to blame please let me know.
Scott
posted by Scott at 15:29
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home