Shrimpsvoices

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:11 pm**

I didn't realise that if a shopkeeper or even a householder decides to clear the snow and ice from outside their property that if somebody falls and hurts themselves that the shop or householder are liable for any claim made by the injured party.

When I was younger (a lot younger

) shop keepers and householders used to clear the paths in front of their premises. It now seems that some Whitehall or European red tape has deemed it illeagal.

Bloody stupid in my opinion.

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:19 pm**

This isn't the Daily Mail letters page CC

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:27 pm**

If anyone has an accident on your property shopkeeper or householder they can sue you, what anyone has to do is show due dilligence, this tosh peddled around by the mail and other idle journalist is nonesense. there is no law preventing you from clearing your outside areas, in fact the opposite is true, there is a thing called the "snow code" which actively encourages people to do what common sense says you should do.

we'll be back to the rubbish about straight bananas next

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:33 pm**

When I was stationed in Germany we HAD to clear the snow from our paths to our Married Quarters as if anyone slipped on the unswept ice they would sue you.

With all the council tax we pay they should be doing a little bit more to clear up the pavements to allow people to actually get out and about to businesses (now don't get me started on business rates

)

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:22 pm**

sgt major wrote:With all the council tax we pay they should be doing a little bit more to clear up the pavements to allow people to actually get out and about to businesses

Get the fit to work benefit claimants out doing the job.
That includes young unmarried mothers, whose off-spring could be put in a council creche (manned by other young unmarried mothers) for the day!

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:07 pm**

Bare bum wrote:This isn't the Daily Mail letters page CC

Peter wrote:Get the fit to work benefit claimants out doing the job.
That includes young unmarried mothers, whose off-spring could be put in a council creche (manned by other young unmarried mothers) for the day!

OH YES IT IS!!!

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:56 pm**

Keith wrote:OH YES IT IS!!!

Oh no it's not! All the media are as bad as each other in different ways.
How much does a 19 year old unmarried girl with 2 kids and a council house cost the public purse?
Why shouldn't the taxpayer expect something in return?
A little bit of hardship (which is hardly what it is) might make these kids think twice about the sleezy easy route to a comfortable life.

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:29 pm**

we have allways been a nation of beancounters with a thug element at our disposal, our thugs now all live with their unmarried mums and anyone with half a brain has buggered off to new zealand.

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:47 pm**

genius neil, total, yes genius, genius, even i could not have come up with such a shit post :lol:

Posted: **Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:19 pm**

mrpotatohead wrote:genius neil, total, yes genius, genius, even i could not have come up with such a shit post

Oh I don't know...

Give it time and I'm sure you'll come up with something!

Shrimpsvoices

O/T Untreated footpaths

O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths

Re: O/T Untreated footpaths