[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

[/B]

Certainly, put his own life at risk,no problem with that but not other peoples and not childrens.
Plenty farms existed where I was brought up and we played on the land,never at any threat from farmers or farm workers either.

Do you,with full respect, take this same line as to people in their own homes with their own gardens and having a dog, who if someone comes into the garden uninvited,then gets attacked by the dog,and is injured or killed, then the dog gets put down and the owner could go to prison.
Is that not private land too.

No worker over the limit as to alcohol in their blood should even be in the workplace at all, never mind driving anything or operating any machinery.
That is not being an armchair lawyer but it is usually overall a company and legal policy.

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

This man was not sober, and he was in charge of a very dangerous piece of equipment at work.. where does the law stand on that?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

I think you have misunderstood my post Livia, I was using the example of the new law where if someone comes into my garden,on my private land and my dog were to injure or kill them, then I myself would likely end up in prison and the dog be put down.
Despite that person coming uninvited on to my private land.

Of course I am responsible for what my dog does in public places and on others private but now it seems I have to also put up with others coming onto my private land 'uninvited' and even possibly 'unwelcome',and in fact land which is my pets territory too but would then have to pay the heavy consequences for whatever tragic incident may happen because of that.

I still stand by that in any workplace for the protection of others,or in fact equipment, no one who has been drinking and is over a legal limit, should be driving anywhere or operating any machinery.
To me that is wrong and if I were a employer anyone I found doing so would be dismissed,for the simple fact of protection of my possessions and equipment, for mine and the safety of my family and for the protection of others.

Someone who has been drinking and is over the limit, will have reduced reaction time and also not the wisest reaction decisions to events either, on private land or otherwise.
This was,in addition to being private land also a workplace, which means to me at any rate, any worker needs to be in full control of himself and not under the influence of any drink or drugs while working on same land and operating or driving any machinery.

The law as we both know can be manipulated by powerful beings and really good lawyers,the law does not always get things right at all and I do not and will never subscribe to a view that a loss of life of a child in any circumstances, should not have some consequences,the fact the person that killed the child,yes killed the child, had been drinking for hours before and even then still into the early hours of his work day too,makes it even worse for me.
The law needs badly changing and it can be since the example I show of how the law has now changed as to dogs on their own private land has,this needs to apply to anyone in any environment so that they are held responsible for what occurs.

This is a loophole that badly needs scrapping as to law,I could understand it a little more had he been totally sober with no other issues, the fact he had been drinking should have removed that loophole for me and either he or the Farmer who employed him should be responsible.

As I said, as a child I regularly played on farms,the Farmers did not mind,nor the workers.
It wouldn't matter how careful you may have been, if you have been drinking and are over the limit, your senses will naturally be impaired.

No, a hard line from me on this one, he was,in my opinion, responsible for the death of that child and someone should have to answer for same.
Parents should know where their children are and instruct them more but there is little you can do if they come across people who are not in any way responsible and make sure they are in full control of themselves in any workplace.
This is a very bad loophole and one of the many things needing changing in law.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Livia

With respect, Joey... if your dog goes on to private land you are liable because your dog should be under your control. The same with minor children... they should be under the control of their parents. Farms are dangerous places with lots of heavy machinery, it's not all pastoral ideal, as you know. Allowing a child free-reign to play on farm land is like allowing your child to play on a building site, both places have heavy machinery.

General company policy would only apply here if it was policy on that farm, which it obviously was not. That is the fault of the owner, so if their child was killed they would bear some of the responsibility. There are plenty of cases of people being killed on farms by machinery operated by other people who are sober. Like, I said, farms are dangerous places.

If you're going to change the law so that people cannot be drunk in charge on private land, are we going to get to the point where people not being able to drink in their own garden and do something dangerous? Light a barbecue or a bonfire, for instance?

It's a very sad case, but the parents must bear some of the responsibility for letting such a young child play on the farm's land.

The law's quite clear, my learned friend. Otherwise the man involved would be in jail.

I disagree , this private land is this workers place of work and as such must be treated with the same rules as anyone's place of work. That includes not turning up drunk and operating machinery which has resulted in the accidental death of a child.

No clearly this man is at fault and must answer for his actions....

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I disagree , this private land is this workers place of work and as such must be treated with the same rules as anyone's place of work. That includes not turning up drunk and operating machinery which has resulted in the accidental death of a child.

No clearly this man is at fault and must answer for his actions....

I refer you to the last line of my quote that you posted.