While I object to the amount of clearing of undergrowth that is carried on,
I cannot let Michael's comments go unanswered. Before he assumes that the
liability claims are simply an excuse, he should look into the matter.
Some insurance companies are even claiming diminished liability if you make
your home easier to burgle by planting trees and shrubs between the road and
the house. It stops neighbours and people passing by from seeing illegal
activities. I have ignored the warning and have started growing trees and
shrubs to block out all my neighbours and encourage the birds.
In Queensland the law states that if you place a sign warning of a dog and
someone ignores the sign and is bitten, the sign means that you knew the dog
was dangerous and you will be held liable.
As an employer, if a staff members complains that the walk to the car park
is unsafe and you ignore the complaint, and the predicted occurs, you, the
employer, are deemed to be negligent. Some hospitals employ armed guards to
accompany nurses to their cars to avoid being sued. I guess that the safety
of the nurses is also a concern but it is not the main reason for the
escort. All this makes the claims of the University look to be in their
best interests.
The fault does not lie with those doing the clearing, but with a society
that refuses to take any responsibility for their own actions and will sue
for anything.
Finished on the soapbox!
Terry Pacey
Toowoomba Qld
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
