Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Top story in the Argus

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    bigneacy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭bigneacy


    BettePorter wrote: »
    PS what diff would it being a fence rather than a gate make ?

    thats what I was just thinking... they're both security structures designed to keep undesirables out, so how is spikes on a fence any different from spikes on a gate? :confused:


  • Options
    #63
    Long Term Louth
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Long Term Louth


    BettePorter wrote: »
    Personally i've never seen the gate. but i think oakland park is facing the carpark of dunnes (may be totally wrong here).
    Next time i'm down that way i must have a nose.

    PS what diff would it being a fence rather than a gate make ?


    IMO, a serious difference in relation to any claim, spikes on top of a fence are there to prevent entry, a gate on the other hand is an access and egress point, a risk assessment by the Council should indicate no spikes necessary on the gate.

    This would in my opinion impinge upon any claim, thus making it extremely more difficult to win.


    So hopefully it is a fence and if so, this should be pointed out to the Argus and a correction in thier headline should be pursued.


  • Options
    #64
    BettePorter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭BettePorter


    Long Term Louth wrote: »
    IMO, a serious difference in relation to any claim, spikes on top of a fence are there to prevent entry, a gate on the other hand is an access and egress point, a risk assessment by the Council should indicate no spikes necessary on the gate.

    This would in my opinion impinge upon any claim, thus making it extremely more difficult to win.


    So hopefully it is a fence and if so, this should be pointed out to the Argus and a correction in thier headline should be pursued.


    Well from what i read in the argus , it is definitely a gate.i think at one point the parent gives out about he fact that they are never closed so questions why they are there at all ! (well not to double as your kids jungle jim missus !)

    But i disagree on your opinion that they are not required on a gate rather than a fence. what would be the point for instance in have a property surrounded by spiked pallisade fencing and the then when you got to the gate.....it's just flat (for easy access and to ensure mr trespasser doesn't hurt his handies !!!);):p


  • Options
    #65
    Long Term Louth
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Long Term Louth


    BettePorter wrote: »
    Well from what i read in the argus , it is definitely a gate.i think at one point the parent gives out about he fact that they are never closed so questions why they are there at all ! (well not to double as your kids jungle jim missus !)

    But i disagree on your opinion that they are not required on a gate rather than a fence. what would be the point for instance in have a property surrounded by spiked pallisade fencing and the then when you got to the gate.....it's just flat (for easy access and to ensure mr trespasser doesn't hurt his handies !!!);):p



    Health and safety legislation about gates would influence my opinion, there are all sorts of recommendations that the Council should be aware of.

    A gate accessing your home or private dwelling, however would merit spikes.


  • Options
    #66
    bigneacy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭bigneacy


    A fence with spikes on top and then a gate with no spikes on top in order to protect something doesn't sound very intelligent...

    Kind of like air holes on a submarine... defeats the purpose...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Long Term Louth
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Long Term Louth


    Youll probably see this on most building sites, have a look next time.

    Its a pity we probably will never see what will transpire, still no conformation if there are in fact gates there at all.


  • Options
    #68
    BettePorter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭BettePorter


    Long Term Louth wrote: »
    Youll probably see this on most building sites, have a look next time.

    Its a pity we probably will never see what will transpire, still no conformation if there are in fact gates there at all.

    What do you mean ? it's never been under question if there were gates there are not. A gate is a gate is a gate. and even if the gate were open or closed it is not there for the purpose of climbing. that should be taken as read. and if kids do climb them (as kids will) and they get hurt......then at some point there has to be someone with common sense, in this case not the mother but hopefully the judge, who will say, ' well you'll not climb them again will ya son '! But i won't hold my breath !


  • Options
    #69
    Long Term Louth
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Long Term Louth


    BettePorter wrote: »
    What do you mean ? it's never been under question if there were gates there are not. A gate is a gate is a gate. and even if the gate were open or closed it is not there for the purpose of climbing. that should be taken as read. and if kids do climb them (as kids will) and they get hurt......then at some point there has to be someone with common sense, in this case not the mother but hopefully the judge, who will say, ' well you'll not climb them again will ya son '! But i won't hold my breath !


    It has been by me.

    Unfortunately, this will never reach a judge.


  • Options
    #70
    NightStrike
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭NightStrike


    Just read the article. Can't believe this made the front page, can't believe it made any page in fact. It's like a thief calling up the paper and saying, I was breaking into this house and fell and broke my leg, its a disgrace they didn't leave the door open.

    Kids will be kids but at the end of the day this child shouldn't have been there. Its a parents responsibility to keep an eye on their child and this mother obviously wasn't keeping an eye on hers. Would it have been the council's fault too if he had wandered out on to a road and got knocked down?

    I'm no fan of the council but they don't deserve flak for this. And the headline was ridiculous, he could have been killed? It didn't look that bad from the picture, sore I'd imagine but hardly on life support!

    Absolute crap.... its what I've come to expect though from The Argus. Journalistic standards there have been slipping for ages but people still buy it to find out who was at all the 21st/30ths etc at the weekend.


  • Options
    #71
    Jet Set
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭Jet Set


    Like you said when you were 9 you did things you should'nt have but I bet if and when you were caught you were up the creak without a boat! I know if that happened to me when I was nine, I would have been reluctant to tell my perants the truth of the matter for fear of getting into worse trouble!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Jet Set
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭Jet Set


    I'd love to hear her reply to this thread!!! Any chance of sending her a link via the Argus?


  • Options
    #73
    BettePorter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭BettePorter


    Jet Set wrote: »
    I'd love to hear her reply to this thread!!! Any chance of sending her a link via the Argus?

    oh i'm sure she's already seen it !...........and forwarded it to her solicitor ! Ching Ching !!!!!$$$$$$$$$$


  • Options
    #74
    peewee_44
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭peewee_44


    BettePorter wrote: »
    oh i'm sure she's already seen it !...........and forwarded it to her solicitor ! Ching Ching !!!!!$$$$$$$$$$

    haha your prob spot on there


Advertisement