Yes, of course because that would make such a difference.
Actually there have been several studies showing that clouting young children reduces the chances of them exploding, so....
Is personal responsibility a thing of the past?
- Thread starter Trifid
- Start date
Actually there have been several studies showing that clouting young children reduces the chances of them exploding, so....
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Actually there have been several studies showing that clouting young children reduces the chances of them exploding, so....
Unless they're coated in nitroglycerin, of course.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Castiel said:
Most people generally consider a 'kid' to be somebody younger than the age of 17, as you well know. Say 'kid' to somebody in the street and it conjures up images of happy, smiley, defenceless innocent children playing with Lego and telling Mum they don't want to go to school tomorrow because the teacher will make them do some homework.
To most people, that is what a kid is. You know this - and you also know that using the word 'kid' constantly in this context lends credence to your argument. It is entirely appropriate we protect kids from themselves - they are kids. They do stupid things not because they are stupid, malicious, have criminal intent or whatever, but because they are kids.
So, if you stop Mr Average and say 'Should extra steps be taken to stop children from finding detonators' then 99% of people will side with you and agree. As they should.
But these two were 17 years old. Mere months from the age of majority, they might legally count as 'minors' but society would not refer to them as kids. They can legally father children. They can drive motor vehicles. They can join the army. They can work full time. Many do all of these things.
I completely agree that firms have a level of responsibility to secure things. You don't leave a building site unlocked with the gate open and dangerous tools randomly strewn about. But behind locked doors? Really?
It's a bit like me breaking into your house late at night, tripping over your poorly discarded shoes in the dark and injuring myself on the carving knife you foolishly left in a stupid place on the edge of a table. Dumb place for a knife? Sure. But it was locked in your house, not on the side of the road. I wasn't supposed to be there - I was committing a criminal offence being there in the first place. Why should you have to take additional steps to protect people who may decide to break the law in order to be there? If these items were on the side at a railway station to which the public have access then fair enough, but this wasn't the case, was it?
Do we even know exactly where these items were? Given the only people who know for sure are the two cute little kiddies, oh wait no sorry 17 year old men, who stole them, how can we ever really know?
Tresspass on the railway is different to regular trespass. It is a criminal and not a civil offence. This is for good reason -the railway is a dangerous place, and trespassing on it is very dangerous. You don't trespass on the railway and then blame Network Rail when you get hurt.
Me and my sister never stepped out of line.Yes, of course because that would make such a difference.
You do something wrong and you get punished for it.
I see kids nowadays, they're swearing and shouting and god knows what at their parents and the parents are just saying "calm down little jimmy, we'll get you one when we get home" or something like that. My god, it's like these people are ****ing braindamaged, you don't let your kids behave that way.
[TW]Fox;22565290 said:
Nope, most people consider a kid to be someone who is precisely that, still legally a child. Just because you are trying to ascribe a higher level of responsibility and inherent maturity to support your argument doesn't mean anything. At 17 they are still legally children and the 15 year old particularly so. Joining the army, learning to drive are all immaterial....I could equally point to the fact that they cannot vote, or fight in combat or get married without parental consent (outside Scotland). They are the legal responsibility of their Parents until they are 18, they could quite easily be still in school and no amount of trying to redefine by using logical fallacies will change the fact that they are still legally children.
By definition they are kids, you might have a personal preconception as to what that implies, but I do not....to me kids is a generic term for people under the age of 18 and as so it is appropriate to use the term in reference to the people involved....it really is as simple as that.
As for the rest of your post , you are making a raft of assumptions that have no actual basis as the facts have not been assessed as yet.....what we know is that two 17 year old year olds and a 15 year old entered into what was supposed to be a secure depot (note, depot, not building) and found some railway detonators....they did this without any tools or bolt croppers and as such you have to ask how three adolescents gained access to such material without the need for such equipment.
And far be it from me to interrupt your ranting, but I haven't abrogated the kids from their respective responsibility or from being considered at fault for their actions.....what I am saying is that does not absolve Network Rail from their own obligations and responsibilities in ensuring their premises are secure and the dangerous materials kept within those premises are secured according to regulations. Something that is in question, particularly with regard the ease that three adolescents gained access to the property and the explosive material.
And no, it is nothing like someone breaking into my house and injuring themselves on something that I have no legal responsibility to secure in a particular way.....so your example is irrelevant.
There is HSE legislation for a reason, and if NR have been negligent then they should be held accountable, it is immaterial that the negligence was discovered by an act of criminal trespass or theft.
I find it amazing that people cannot see the difference between the respective responsibilities and the obligations of each.
Last edited:
And there is no need to let them behave that way but maybe just maybe 'clipping them around the ear' is not the best way to go about it and not the definitive answer. I am not anti-smacking just anti-retards who think it's the only way to get children to behave. I would suspect it's those sort of parents who do readily resort to violence rather than something a bit more successful.
Why, it is irrelevant to the discussion, aside from being part of Scottish Law and not English Law and therefore not directly applicable to English legal precedent ....no one is saying they are not responsible for the trespass or what happened to them.....I am saying that NR have an obligation to ensure that hazardous and dangerous materials are secured in accordance with the law, and that is in question with regards to the ease that three kids gained access to explosive material. There is an argument that under English Law, if what the boys, sorry young men say is true and NR rail are found to have not followed the legal obligations and duty of care they have to secure or dispose of dangerous material correctly then they may be liable for contributory negligence even when if they are not held accountable for the incident. (which they should not be as they had no reason to suspect trespass)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers'_Liability_Act_1984
Last edited:
Please don't tell me you actually support this view Castiel ?? Thats akin to having a view that a burglar who injures himself while climbing out of some poor mugs window because the frame had sharp obtrusions on it can sue the homeowner for damages ???
This I agree with. This whole country has gone to pot, the whole notion of self responsibility has been choked out due to 13 years of Labour's benefit bribery scams...
I've allready agreed, that if that happened they are negligent.
How do random people have access to a secured building? And most of them would be allowed access too them anyway. Pbasically anyone in a depot with access to these places will be allowed access as they are needed for the job.
It is my post so obviously it is my view. And as I have explained over and again in this thread, there is a huge difference between private and commercial premises and the relevant liabilities incurred on the owners, even with regard to trespass.
There is no doubt that the boys are responsible for their own actions, but NR also have a legal duty of care (yes, even to trespassers) and if they are found to have been negligent in that duty then they should be held accountable to the relevant authorities and punished. This doesn't absolve the kids of their personal responsibility.
Not all people with access to a depot will have access to every part of that depot or have the clearance to use every piece of equipment or to be responsible for the safekeeping and accountability of hazardous and dangerous materials. The very nature of the legislation on storing explosives means that they cannot be stored in a building simply by placing them on a shelf accessible to everyone or in the vicinity of other common items such as pressurised gas etc..therefore they are kept within separate storage within any given building and accounted for and tracked, usually in cages or storage cupboards/lockers. It was no different in the company I worked for (which included rail depots).
Are you telling me that if you asked 100 random people in a high street to describe a kid, there would be an equal number of responses describing a kid as a 17 year old as there would a much younger child?
I wonder why more kids TV isn't aimed at the discerning 17 year old
No not usually in cages, no where in the law does it say cage. It just has to be stored. And no not every building is accessible to Poole who walk of the street, but said building can and is accesabe to everyone who works there, as it's part of every day standard equipment. Of you work on line you will have detonators with you.
Didn't your ok in delivery company? Which will hale far more diverse stuff and as suh have far beefier systems, as they'll be used for what ever comes in, which could be far more controlled explosives.
Didn't your ok in delivery company? Which will hale far more diverse stuff and as suh have far beefier systems, as they'll be used for what ever comes in, which could be far more controlled explosives.
Where exactly were the detonators in this story stored?
[TW]Fox;22565759 said:Are you telling me that if you asked 100 random people in a high street to describe a kid, there would be an equal number of responses describing a kid as a 17 year old as there would a much younger child?
I wonder why more kids TV isn't aimed at the discerning 17 year old
To be honest, you are just being silly. The definition is clear and the term is used to to refer to children of all ages, including 17 year olds. The use is informal and refers to children and young people...and a 17 year old is, by any definition, a young person.
Hold as many random high street questionnaires as you like, the response will almost certainly be predicated by the age of the respondent, with the younger referring to kids as younger children, and the elder having a broader perception of the term.
In any case, the use of the term kids in reference to a 17 and 15 year old is perfectly acceptable and I am not going to stop doing it so you might as well stop banging on about it.
Last edited:
No, I was the Operations Director for a Public transport company, which included Rail.
I have given the relevant regulations and the storage of them...which included the use of storage lockers/cupboards/cages or however you wish to refer to them. Cages were simply the most common form of storage as it is the cheapest, some firms may use steel locked storage cupboards, others may use a secure dedicated room or a combination of all.
You seem overly hung up on the type of storage rather than the requirement that the explosives are kept in their original marked containers (or stored in ammunition boxes/steel boxes) and then stored in a secure storage according the various legislative obligations laid out earlier in the thread. There are other rules regarding transportation and daily use...again as laid out earlier in the thread.
If three boys got hold of these detonators without at least the use of a pair of decent bolt croppers then I suspect that NR are negligent in the way they are storing their materials, and if they found them in a skip then they will probably be prosecuted.
No I'm hung up on you overstating the security on purpose to push your point, it doesn't matter that your company had a vault, the law is clear on what is needed and it does not require a cage or the worlds best safe cracker to gain access, or how ever you worded it.
They need to be in a "ammunition case" in a secured building. The legislation even says you can put them on a shelf in said secured building.
That is my issue, I don't know why you keep coming back to your last paragraph. I agreed with that about a decade ago.
No cabinet, no mega safe. A secured building. Yes there's other rules, about flammable stuff, quality and lots of other stuff, but that isn't relevant. To you massively overstating, to make it look good for the kids, as I've said before we will have to wait and see, someone lost their eye, so it will be investigated.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;22565771 said:
According to the boys, in an open skip. So far no-one has come out and said anything different and if NR are found to have followed all the relevant procedures and legal obligations regarding the storage and disposal of such material then they will not have anything to worry about...if not, then they have a case to answer to.
It seems difficult to see how three boys, even 17 year old car-owing, job holding, army veterans could easily obtain access to properly secured explosive material. If they did then fair enough, if however they found them lying about in the depot then NR have to answer for that.
It has no bearing on the responsibility that the boys have or the punishment they should receive if found guilty of trespass and theft.
Neither has any article even say NR is under investigation.
Glad nothing's changed, you're as bad as TheDM in this case. Pretty much everyone of your posts is heavily propagendered in favor of the "kids". Why? And isn't age of criminal responsability more important that the word kid/minor.
Last edited:
It compeltely changes the tone of your argument.
'Network Rail should do more to protect hapless kids' is fair and reasonable
'Network rail should do more to protect 17 year old criminals' is not.
Hence why I take issue with you portraying them as fluffy carefree children with your constant use of the word 'kids' which most people use to describe much younger minors.
If they were 18 and 1 day you'd be phrasing your posts differently even though fundamentally not much has changed. They were not 12 years old.