Edge protection

Quoted message said:

So you were wrong :-)

You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you were wrong :-)

You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Good for you.

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Not much to laugh about.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you were wrong :-)

You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Good for you.

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Or are you being as biassed as you were when, after bird flu had been
found in Scotland, you said that people should avoid visiting bird
reserves belonging to conservation organisations? The bias was proved
when you wouldn't accept that you should have issued even more of a
warning about visiting town park lakes, where people can come into
direct contact with the wildfowl and their droppings, whereas on bird
reserves the people and birds are kept deliberately apart.

--
Malcolm

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So you were wrong :-)

You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Good for you.

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

Many of these are so-called conservationist organisations as was the
organisation that owned the land where the girl died.

Quoted message said:

Or are you being as biassed as you were when, after bird flu had been
found in Scotland, you said that people should avoid visiting bird
reserves belonging to conservation organisations?

I thought I said bird reserves. Where did I say bird reserves
belonging to conservation organisations?

Quoted message said:

The bias was proved
when you wouldn't accept that you should have issued even more of a
warning about visiting town park lakes, where people can come into
direct contact with the wildfowl and their droppings, whereas on bird
reserves the people and birds are kept deliberately apart.

As I have pointed out before birds don't [censored] where you want them to.
Also, the greatest concentration of wildfowl which could have
infection but not show the symptoms are at bird reserves. One doesn't
get thousands of wildfowl in the local duck pond.

An outbreak of HSN1 could happen at any time in the UK and for you to
infer that there is zero risk is irresponsible.

The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying away from birds
reserves in an area where the infection has been identified is a
prudent suggestion.

It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill
10,000 school children. That was announced last week. If that's not
a risk I don't know what is.

Experts, fear the virus could mutate at some point in the future, and
in its new form trigger a flu pandemic, potentially putting millions
of human lives at risk.

If someone has a mild flu and comes into contact with infected
droppings, mutation could take place and a pandemic ensue.

It's prudent to avoid bird reserves where large numbers of wildfowl
that may have been in contact with migratory birds are present.

So what's your problem?

The bird reserves won't be any the worse for lack of humans, will
they? More space and peace and quiet for birds I would say.

Your opposition to my suggestion is all about exploiting birds and
coining in money :-(

It's you who doesn't care about people getting bird flu; not me as you
try to infer :-(

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from
[email hidden] contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the anomaly that exists and
suggesting that the public should be protected from heights just as
workers are. Why not?

Workers are only protected because its the employers who get sued if
they fall. The workers are not at heights through choice, they are
there at the request of the employer.

As a member of the public, you are responsible for your own safety. If
you are not good in exposed places, just don't go there.

Now quit trolling and run along.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

>> So you were wrong :-)
>
>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Good for you.

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

The Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 specifically says that landowners
are not liable for the safety of those who choose to exercise their
access rights on their land. This applies regardless of whether the
landowner has invited people onto their land or not.

Quoted message said:

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Its not the subject matter that made me laugh.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

>> So you were wrong :-)
>
>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.

Good for you.

It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
same manner as workers.

Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

Many of these are so-called conservationist organisations as was the
organisation that owned the land where the girl died.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "no".

Thought not. Your agenda is blatantly obvious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or are you being as biassed as you were when, after bird flu had been
found in Scotland, you said that people should avoid visiting bird
reserves belonging to conservation organisations?

I thought I said bird reserves. Where did I say bird reserves
belonging to conservation organisations?

Bcause you repeatedly named Loch Leven and Montrose Basin as places to
avoid (completely contrary to all advice being offered by official
authorities). Perhaps, as an expert on the subject, you would like to
name some bird reserves which don't belong to conservation
organisations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bias was proved
when you wouldn't accept that you should have issued even more of a
warning about visiting town park lakes, where people can come into
direct contact with the wildfowl and their droppings, whereas on bird
reserves the people and birds are kept deliberately apart.

As I have pointed out before birds don't [censored] where you want them to.

And in town parks they [censored] all over the paths and grass on which people
walk and children play. If you had ever visited a town park with a lake
you would know this. If you had ever visited a bird reserve you would
also know that people do not walk, nor children play, where the birds
have been crapping. The fact that an occasional dropping might fall from
the sky on to a public path is immaterial. This happens all over the
country, including in your garden.

Quoted message said:

Also, the greatest concentration of wildfowl which could have
infection but not show the symptoms are at bird reserves. One doesn't
get thousands of wildfowl in the local duck pond.

You don't need "thousands", Angus, you just need one. And exactly the
same species occur on both reserves and town parks, including the
already proven highly vulnerable dabbling and diving ducks, geese and
swans.

Quoted message said:

An outbreak of HSN1 could happen at any time in the UK and for you to
infer that there is zero risk is irresponsible.

Then what risk is there, Angus? Care to put a figure on it? Perhaps the
government authorities can help you as they didn't suggest not visiting
bird reserves after the dead swan had been found in Fife.

Quoted message said:

The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying away from birds
reserves in an area where the infection has been identified is a
prudent suggestion.

No, you either advise people to stay away from birds or you don't. Where
the birds are is immaterial. There are migrants flying over your garden
which have passed through the avian flu infected areas in Nigeria. Are
you being careful?

And, here, dear readers, comes Angus's [censored], just as I predicted he
would be unable to resist posting, yet again. [censored] remains [censored].

Quoted message said:

It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill
10,000 school children. That was announced last week. If that's not
a risk I don't know what is.

Experts, fear the virus could mutate at some point in the future, and
in its new form trigger a flu pandemic, potentially putting millions
of human lives at risk.

If someone has a mild flu and comes into contact with infected
droppings, mutation could take place and a pandemic ensue.

It's prudent to avoid bird reserves where large numbers of wildfowl
that may have been in contact with migratory birds are present.

So what's your problem?

The bird reserves won't be any the worse for lack of humans, will
they? More space and peace and quiet for birds I would say.

Your opposition to my suggestion is all about exploiting birds and
coining in money :-(

It's you who doesn't care about people getting bird flu; not me as you
try to infer :-(

But unlike you I know what I'm talking about. You have admitted that you
have absolutely no expertise in birds, bird migration or avian flu. Nor
do you pay any attention whatsoever to the advice given out by experts
in any of those fields. Instead, you blatantly follow your
anti-conservation organisation agenda. It was seen through the moment
you posted here getting at the conservation organisation which owns the
site.

--
Malcolm

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>> So you were wrong :-)
>>
>>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.
>
>Good for you.
>
>It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
>same manner as workers.
>
Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

The Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 specifically says that landowners
are not liable for the safety of those who choose to exercise their
access rights on their land. This applies regardless of whether the
landowner has invited people onto their land or not.

Pointing out facts to Angus, who of course lives in Scotland, isn't a
very productive occupation. He will just continue to ignore them :-(

--
Malcolm

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>> So you were wrong :-)
>>
>>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.
>
>Good for you.
>
>It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
>same manner as workers.
>
Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

The Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 specifically says that landowners
are not liable for the safety of those who choose to exercise their
access rights on their land. This applies regardless of whether the
landowner has invited people onto their land or not.

I'm not sure you're correct about this as I understand landowners do
have a liability.

However, that doesn't alter what I'm suggesting, that if landowners
invite the public on to their land and make a material gain out of
doing, so either directly or indirectly, they should ensure the safety
is paramount - just as any other business would have to on other
property.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Geoff Berrow said:

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from
[email hidden] contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the anomaly that exists and
suggesting that the public should be protected from heights just as
workers are. Why not?

Workers are only protected because its the employers who get sued if
they fall.

Nonsense. If that was the case insurance cover would be sufficient;
albeit the premiums would be high.

Quoted message said:

The workers are not at heights through choice, they are
there at the request of the employer.

Everyone has a choice.

Quoted message said:

As a member of the public, you are responsible for your own safety.

Absolute nonsense. Everyone has a responsibility for the safety of
others.

Quoted message said:

If
you are not good in exposed places, just don't go there.

Safety in exposed places should be the same as everywhere else.

Quoted message said:

Now quit trolling and run along.

It's not a troll. I have had letters published in at least three
newspapers on this subject in the past few days.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from
[email hidden] contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now quit trolling and run along.

It's not a troll. I have had letters published in at least three
newspapers on this subject in the past few days.

It's a shame you have nothing better to do.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>> So you were wrong :-)
>>
>>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.
>
>Good for you.
>
>It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
>same manner as workers.
>
Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
organisation like the National Trust?

Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

Many of these are so-called conservationist organisations as was the
organisation that owned the land where the girl died.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "no".

Thought not. Your agenda is blatantly obvious.

You're confused again. Malcolm. I didn't say "no".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or are you being as biassed as you were when, after bird flu had been
found in Scotland, you said that people should avoid visiting bird
reserves belonging to conservation organisations?

I thought I said bird reserves. Where did I say bird reserves
belonging to conservation organisations?

Bcause you repeatedly named Loch Leven and Montrose Basin as places to
avoid (completely contrary to all advice being offered by official
authorities).

Only because they were close to where the dead swan was found.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps, as an expert on the subject, you would like to
name some bird reserves which don't belong to conservation
organisations.

I don't claim to be an expert on land ownership.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bias was proved
when you wouldn't accept that you should have issued even more of a
warning about visiting town park lakes, where people can come into
direct contact with the wildfowl and their droppings, whereas on bird
reserves the people and birds are kept deliberately apart.

As I have pointed out before birds don't [censored] where you want them to.

And in town parks they [censored] all over the paths and grass on which people
walk and children play. If you had ever visited a town park with a lake
you would know this. If you had ever visited a bird reserve you would
also know that people do not walk, nor children play, where the birds
have been crapping. The fact that an occasional dropping might fall from
the sky on to a public path is immaterial. This happens all over the
country, including in your garden.

As I have pointed out before birds don't [censored] where you want them to.
Also, the greatest concentration of wildfowl which could have
infection but not show the symptoms are at bird reserves. One doesn't
get thousands of wildfowl in the local duck pond.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, the greatest concentration of wildfowl which could have
infection but not show the symptoms are at bird reserves. One doesn't
get thousands of wildfowl in the local duck pond.

You don't need "thousands", Angus, you just need one. And exactly the
same species occur on both reserves and town parks, including the
already proven highly vulnerable dabbling and diving ducks, geese and
swans.

Statistically you are much more likely to get one where thousands are
present.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An outbreak of HSN1 could happen at any time in the UK and for you to
infer that there is zero risk is irresponsible.

Then what risk is there, Angus? Care to put a figure on it? Perhaps the
government authorities can help you as they didn't suggest not visiting
bird reserves after the dead swan had been found in Fife.

No one can put a figure on it. An outbreak of HSN1 could happen at
any time in the UK and for you to infer that there is zero risk is
irresponsible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying away from birds
reserves in an area where the infection has been identified is a
prudent suggestion.

No, you either advise people to stay away from birds or you don't. Where
the birds are is immaterial. There are migrants flying over your garden
which have passed through the avian flu infected areas in Nigeria. Are
you being careful?

See above.

Quoted message said:

And, here, dear readers, comes Angus's [censored], just as I predicted he
would be unable to resist posting, yet again. [censored] remains [censored].

"Dear readers", indeed. That's real [censored] :-))

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill
10,000 school children. That was announced last week. If that's not
a risk I don't know what is.

Experts, fear the virus could mutate at some point in the future, and
in its new form trigger a flu pandemic, potentially putting millions
of human lives at risk.

If someone has a mild flu and comes into contact with infected
droppings, mutation could take place and a pandemic ensue.

It's prudent to avoid bird reserves where large numbers of wildfowl
that may have been in contact with migratory birds are present.

So what's your problem?

The bird reserves won't be any the worse for lack of humans, will
they? More space and peace and quiet for birds I would say.

Your opposition to my suggestion is all about exploiting birds and
coining in money :-(

It's you who doesn't care about people getting bird flu; not me as you
try to infer :-(

Quoted message said:

But unlike you I know what I'm talking about.

Garbage. Unless you know where H5N1 will strike next.

Quoted message said:

You have admitted that you
have absolutely no expertise in birds, bird migration or avian flu.

Where did I "admit" that?

Quoted message said:

Nor
do you pay any attention whatsoever to the advice given out by experts
in any of those fields. Instead, you blatantly follow your
anti-conservation organisation agenda. It was seen through the moment
you posted here getting at the conservation organisation which owns the
site.

You're confused as ever. Malcolm. But that doesn't surprise me from
one who claims "unlimited intelligence" and says that men who reach
the moon will be "native" because they got there under their own
steam.

A rather sad state of mind.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Geoff Berrow said:

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from
[email hidden] contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now quit trolling and run along.

It's not a troll. I have had letters published in at least three
newspapers on this subject in the past few days.

It's a shame you have nothing better to do.

I have plenty to do.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

<I have plenty to do.

Angus Macmillan >

No Angus, it's quite clear from looking at the statistics of the
postings on this thread that you are permanently sitting at a keyboard
defending what is a 'nanny state' argument - you can;t have 'plenty to
do' or you wouldn't be writing so much waffle, including 'having
letters in 3 newspapers on the subject'

I thought originally that you were trolling, that you were introducing
the topic to stir up an argument, but I now see that you are one of the
poor people in this world who genuinely believe that state should see
to it that we are all totaly protected from ourselves. Life is not
like that and the more that we are pushed into big brother watching
over us, the more human nature will react and reject that.

In the end, we are the fools that encourage you. I really do suggest,
guys, we give up on this one as we are never going to win, and allow
this wimp to go back into his slough of despair.

Rob

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from
Rob G contained the following:

Quoted message said:

I thought originally that you were trolling, that you were introducing
the topic to stir up an argument, but I now see that you are one of the
poor people in this world who genuinely believe that state should see
to it that we are all totaly protected from ourselves.

No, it's not trolling, it's attention seeking. And if he thought he
would get anything other than derision in a group like this then he's a
bigger fool than I thought he was.

When I started walking which was only a few years ago, I felt as if the
scales had been lifted from my eyes. I never knew you could get to such
places freely and without restriction. I was amazed at just how much
was available to see and enjoy. My one regret is that I left it so
late.

And yes, the high bits are scary and exciting. But isn't that's what is
missing from the lives of so many young people? Wouldn't these
activities be better for kids who are having to get their adrenaline
highs from vandalism and joyriding? Angus is about 180 degrees off the
mark.

I'm responding to Angus because he's a bloody fool and needs to practice
some critical thinking. But I'm a teacher, so I guess it comes with the
job,

Quoted message said:

In the end, we are the fools that encourage you. I really do suggest,
guys, we give up on this one as we are never going to win, and allow
this wimp to go back into his slough of despair.

It's worse that he lives in Scotland and doesn't appreciate the
highlands.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Rob G said:

In the end, we are the fools that encourage you. I really do suggest,
guys, we give up on this one as we are never going to win, and allow
this wimp to go back into his slough of despair.

Nah, 'The Slough of Despair' was considered a danger to the public long
ago. It's been drained, tarmacked over and is now the carpark of a Tescos!

Jim Ford

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:15:35 +0100, Malcolm
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>In article <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes
>>On 11 May 2006 03:09:51 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>>>> So you were wrong :-)
>>>
>>>You probably cant imagine how much that comment made me laugh.
>>
>>Good for you.
>>
>>It seems you don't care whether or no the public are protected in the
>>same manner as workers.
>>
>Would you have written the same letter had the tragic death occurred on
>land belonging to an individual or body which wasn't a conservation
>organisation like the National Trust?
>
Although the law does not seem to differentiate, there is a clear
distinction between landowners who invite the public onto their land
and those who don't.

If an individual or organisation invites the public to visit their
land they should provide safety.

The Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 specifically says that landowners
are not liable for the safety of those who choose to exercise their
access rights on their land. This applies regardless of whether the
landowner has invited people onto their land or not.

I'm not sure you're correct about this as I understand landowners do
have a liability.

It is correct. It was debated at length before the Act was passed as
landowners were understandably concerned that a right of access might
leave them liable if people had accidents. The Access Code stresses that
those taking access should "take personal responsibility for your own
actions" and do this by:

"caring for your own safety by recognising that the outdoors is a
working environment and by taking account of natural hazards"

"taking special care if you are responsible for children as a parent,
teacher or guide to ensure that they enjoy the outdoors responsibly and
safely".

Quoted message said:

However, that doesn't alter what I'm suggesting, that if landowners
invite the public on to their land and make a material gain out of
doing, so either directly or indirectly, they should ensure the safety
is paramount - just as any other business would have to on other
property.

No they shouldn't when the land in question is natural and unspoiled.

Jim Ford said:

Nah, 'The Slough of Despair' was considered a danger to the public long
ago. It's been drained, tarmacked over and is now the carpark of a Tescos!

It just seems a pity that that was done when Angus wasn't in it.

R

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Nothing of interest, just pursuing his tired vendetta against
conservation organisations.

--
Malcolm