full story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/27/nhamp27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/27/ixhome.html)


a group of winter swimmers have won a battle with the london corporation (pretty similar to a city council) about their right to swim in a pond on winter mornings. The corporation said that it was dangerous and that they could no longer do this (after >100 years of swimming) on health and safety grounds.
The court ruled that the swimmers are adults and have the right to take risks if they wish.

I say, good call that judge.

Yeah and when em' dies they will be the first to try and take the London Corporation to Court claiming it was unsafe to swim..

Nutters everywhere :loopy:

Originally posted by Deejay
Yeah and when em' dies they will be the first to try and take the London Corporation to Court claiming it was unsafe to swim..

Nutters everywhere :loopy:

I doubt it, firstly they are unlikely to get anywhere given that the judge made it clear that they swim at their own risk, and secondly, why would they?

Originally posted by Cyclone
why would they?

Because that's how pathetic our society has come.. Point the blame elsewhere and see if we can get some money in the process..

Originally posted by Deejay
Because that's how pathetic our society has come.. Point the blame elsewhere and see if we can get some money in the process..

It appears that these people are happy to accept the risk of their activity and they have said that they are happy to sign a disclosure or waiver that indicates such.

So they are saying in advance that they waive any right (which doesn't exist anyway) to blame anyone but themselves for the outcome of their behaviour.
The corporation wasn't satisfied with that though and forced the swimmers group to take the issue to court.
This is an example of the nanny state, not of litigation culture (which is also deplorable).

Well said , Cyclone.

The freedom-lovers are beginning to fight back [Hope it's not too late , though ! ]

I never once disagreed with what he said..

Well done to them for winning the case etc but they'll be the first to complain if something goes wrong..

Originally posted by Fareast
Well said , Cyclone.

The freedom-lovers are beginning to fight back [Hope it's not too late , though ! ]

The funny thing is I suspect that some of you have me pegged as a "liberal do-gooder". Which is nearly an oximoron. I'm completely in favour of individual rights, just so long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's rights.
The difficulty comes in balancing those two. Personally i've settled on giving favour to whichever right is passive. I'll give an example (a silly one, extremes make things clearer).

I should have the right to fire a crossbow (i said it was silly). Someone else has to right not to be stuck with a crossbow bolt.

Not being stuck is passive, ie that person has a right for something not to happen to them. Whereas firing a crossbow is active, ie I have a right to take a specific action.
So in that case, the right of the person not to be stuck with a crossbow bolt outweighs my right to fire the crossbow.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...a group of winter swimmers have won a battle with the london corporation (pretty similar to a city council) about their right to swim in a pond on winter mornings. The corporation said that it was dangerous...
While I agree with you that this is indeed a sensible decision, which is to be applauded, I feel that the subject of your criticism is somewhat unfounded.

The "corporation" in question were not "trying to stop" the swimmers, and the "battle" was not with them, but with the threat of legal action the "corporation" felt they were under from the HSE.

It is the legal system in this country, and the HSE that are forcing these decisions to be taken, the article acknowledges this quite clearly.

…Members of the Corporation had been advised that they faced prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive if an accident occurred when no lifeguard was present…

…Mary Cane, the chairman of the winter swimming club, said: "This is great news for the club and for public bodies like the corporation.
"The judge has clarified the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the corporation, freed from the threat of prosecution, can now grant the club the permission it has been seeking for two years.
"This represents another successful attack by ordinary citizens on the 'nanny state' and the government-sponsored cult of 'health and safety'."
Source Telegraph, link:
full story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/27/nhamp27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/27/ixhome.html)

This threat of legal action by the HSE is stifling many actions of public and private bodies across the country, and the enjoyment of private citizens wishing to go about their chosen pastimes, the decision is therefore to be applauded, but lets not try to blame the wrong people.

Originally posted by Deejay
Yeah and when em' dies they will be the first to try and take the London Corporation to Court claiming it was unsafe to swim..

Nutters everywhere :loopy:


how can they sue if they are dead? and what would be the point? could just haunt them from the afterlife - would be much better revenge.

seriously though i think its a great decison and about time we got back to being able to live life and have fun and not hide behind the fear of rules and regulations.

same link that I provided at the top.
It wasn't quite how they came across when interviewed on radio 4 though. It sounded more like they were using the HSE as an excuse. They had apparently tried to contact the HSE and had no response and took that to mean that they would be liable if someone were injured, which sounds like a perverse course of reasoning to me.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
While I agree with you that this is indeed a sensible decision, which is to be applauded, I feel that the subject of your criticism is somewhat unfounded.

The "corporation" in question were not "trying to stop" the swimmers, and the "battle" was not with them, but with the threat of legal action the "corporation" felt they were under from the HSE.

It is the legal system in this country, and the HSE that are forcing these decisions to be taken, the article acknowledges this quite clearly.


Source Telegraph, link:
full story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/27/nhamp27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/27/ixhome.html)

This threat of legal action by the HSE is stifling many actions of public and private bodies across the country, and the enjoyment of private citizens wishing to go about their chosen pastimes, the decision is therefore to be applauded, but lets not try to blame the wrong people.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...They had apparently tried to contact the HSE and had no response and took that to mean that they would be liable if someone were injured, which sounds like a perverse course of reasoning to me.
It sounds reasonable to me, the corporation in question had attempted to clarify the decision with the HSE, in order to allow the swimming to continue without the threat of legal action.

With no clarification forthcoming, what are the decision makers left to do, potentially leave themselves open to action by "taking a flyer", that's not how large responsible companies/corporations work.

If the HSE had fulfilled it's role, this case needn’t have gone to court, but they avoided taking the decision and left it to others to settle in court.

I still reserve my criticism for them, as I say, this behaviour isn't reserved for the “corporations” of London, we are all affected by the shadow of the HSE, it's gone too far, and decisions like these are a good thing for us all.

:)