What are our responsibilities and liabilities with regard to trespassers?

PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/06/2021 15:13, Peter Able wrote:

What are our responsibilities and liabilities with regard to trespassers?

The normal duty of care. You have to take reasonable steps to protect,
them, e.g. notices and child proof fences. It's the same as the
cellular operators and taxi firms. The law hasn't really changed in
this respect. It is just that you now have to put your assumptions in
writing.

TINLA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10 Jun 2021 at 21:47:53 BST, "David Woolley" <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

On 10/06/2021 15:13, Peter Able wrote:

What are our responsibilities and liabilities with regard to trespassers?

The normal duty of care. You have to take reasonable steps to protect,
them, e.g. notices and child proof fences. It's the same as the
cellular operators and taxi firms. The law hasn't really changed in
this respect. It is just that you now have to put your assumptions in writing.

TINLA

Agreed. But to sue you they would have to show some damage, electric shock,
RF burn, tripping injury from hidden wires or perhaps an aerial falling on their head. They couldn't sue you just for being exposed to a higher field intensity than the very conservative regulations allow, because they could not prove damage.

So I don't think that's changed, though IANAL either.

--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/06/2021 21:47, David Woolley wrote:

On 10/06/2021 15:13, Peter Able wrote:

What are our responsibilities and liabilities with regard to trespassers?

The normal duty of care.  You have to take reasonable steps to protect, them, e.g. notices and child proof fences.  It's the same as the
cellular operators and taxi firms.  The law hasn't really changed in
this respect.  It is just that you now have to put your assumptions in writing.

TINLA

TINLA, indeed.

How many notices - and in how many languages? What's a child-proof fence
and what is its relevance to adult trespassers?

It seems to me that, in these litigious times, this opens up a huge can
of worms.

"The duty of care to trespassers arises only when the occupier is aware
of a danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists, knows
or has reasonable grounds to believe that a trespasser may be, or come
into the vicinity of danger and, in all the circumstances of the case,
the risk of a trespasser coming into the vicinity of the danger is one
against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection".

The EMF regulations mean that now, we are aware.

PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2021 00:18, Peter Able wrote:

The EMF regulations mean that now, we are aware.

Note (e) to schedule 1 of the licence before the changes already makes
you aware of this:

"in all frequency bands, high intensities of radio frequency radiation
may be harmful and safety precautions should be taken. Advice
concerning safe levels of exposure to radio frequency radiation is
provided by Public Health England."

This is even included in the version sent out in January 2007.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2021 08:17, Roger Hayter wrote:

Agreed. But to sue you they would have to show some damage, electric shock, RF burn, tripping injury from hidden wires or perhaps an aerial falling on their head. They couldn't sue you just for being exposed to a higher field intensity than the very conservative regulations allow, because they could not
prove damage.

There is a big industry in asbestos exposure compensation claims and I
don't think that any one case of mesothelioma can be definitely
attributed to asbestos, let alone to asbestos from one source. I don't
see that is in principle particularly different.

Civil cases are decided on the basis of balance of probability, and the neighbour's child's brain tumour and your unwillingness to take steps to prevent their exposure must go quite a long way towards allocating the
blame to you.

Even if they lose the case, there could be a lot of bad publicity for
you and for a slightly risky hobby which is no longer really necessary
to maintain a pool of wireless operator reserves or to benefit the
engineering industry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2021 13:40, David Woolley wrote:

On 11/06/2021 08:17, Roger Hayter wrote:

Agreed.  But to sue you they would have to show some damage, electric
shock,
RF burn, tripping injury from hidden wires or perhaps an aerial
falling on
their head.   They couldn't sue you just for being exposed to a higher
field
intensity than the very conservative regulations allow, because they
could not
prove damage.

There is a big industry in asbestos exposure compensation claims and I
don't think that any one case of mesothelioma can be definitely
attributed to asbestos, let alone to asbestos from one source.  I don't
see that is in principle particularly different.

Civil cases are decided on the basis of balance of probability, and the neighbour's child's brain tumour and your unwillingness to take steps to prevent their exposure must go quite a long way towards allocating the
blame to you.

Even if they lose the case, there could be a lot of bad publicity for
you and for a slightly risky hobby which is no longer really necessary
to maintain a pool of wireless operator reserves or to benefit the engineering industry.

ha ha spot on...the hobby is of no use to society these days hammy mens
are just playing radio....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2021 12:42, David Woolley wrote:

On 11/06/2021 00:18, Peter Able wrote:

The EMF regulations mean that now, we are aware.

Note (e) to schedule 1 of the licence before the changes already makes
you aware of this:

"in all frequency bands, high intensities of radio frequency radiation
may be harmful and safety precautions should be taken.  Advice
concerning safe levels of exposure to radio frequency radiation is
provided by Public Health England."

This is even included in the version sent out in January 2007.

Its been there far longer than that; it was in BR68, with early versions
saying The National Radiological Protection Board in place of Public
Health England.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)