I've been to Watergate.... A disappointing office building .....though the water feature under the arch at the back, hence the name, was quite nice..
He's a young work experience lad at our place. I told him to do it for the cause or I'd tell everyone he was really a WS fan.
I heard he had his left buttock torn off, and his right arm, broke his nose, lost his front teeth and had one of thumbs stuck up his arse. yet remarkably he was still fit enough to make his way, unaided to Claims R Us.
Instead of the SMC calling an ambulance and offering first aid they should have called the police and had the toerag done for trespassing.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 The 1984 Act deals with trespassers on your land and in your home, but only applies to personal injury (unlike the 1957 Act that also includes damage and loss to the visitor’s property). A ‘trespasser’ has a wide meaning and can be a thief about to burgle your home, but could be a child attempting to retrieve his ball. Occupiers' Liability Act Section 1 clause (3) states the following: Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors (3) An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) above if — (a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists; (b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not); and (c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection. Importantly clause (5) of the Act states: (5) Any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may, in an appropriate case, be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk. Therefore clear signage warning of an injurious topping on your wall or fence will limit your liability providing that signage is specific to the risk, e.g. ‘Danger of Injury Do not climb over spikes’ and the danger can be seen. It therefore follows that you should not put injurious toppings on the inside face of a fence or wall (such as carpet gripper) or otherwise hide them, even if you have put up warning signs. It is largely due to the Occupiers’ Liability Acts that residents tend to use prickly shrubs to deter fence climbing as these naturally growing defenders are outside the legislation. Finally, don’t lay man-traps as they are almost certainly going to be illegal! not sure if the old man put any signs on the gate, if not, I hope the young lad sues the assem off him
There are plenty of signs so if this idiot chose not to read them then attempts to climb a locked gate then he should suffer the consequences. No sympathy.
Maybe he was a bit late, as young people often are when their heads are clouded with teenage thoughts , and thought to climb the fence would save him the 15 minute detour.
please log in to view this image I can't see any warning signs, Allam's going to get ****ed over on this one
If it's to remain locked it has to be locked at both sides of the walkway (ie Argyle St and the stadium). Some poor unfortunate is going to get done - It's a mugger's paradise having just one side closed.
The SMC has taken down the signage that HCC put up at the stadium end... please log in to view this image
I know a fair bit about trespass and signage etc and it's a minefield. Sometimes you have something very dangerous and a tiny little sign full of jibberish and a judge says it's the trespasser's fault. Other times I've seen something not dangerous at all and the warning signs have been huge and numerous and the owners have been done. Doesn't seem to be any consistency in the rulings on these things.
