The Weather

rolo wrote: Bob Hoskins wrote: Why are schools across the country closed tomorrow? Cos the schools haven't had a chance yet to assess the damage, to see if the buildings are structurally safe, to see if they have power and water. Plus some of the roads are going to be blocked by felled trees, and so on.

deise316 wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Charged with what though? About 340 Volts of A/C should do the trick.

darmack wrote: If you were drunk on a Saturday night and stumbling all over the place wouldn't they take you away as you would be a danger to yourself?

Edited by Trap junior - 16 Oct 2017 at 6:27pm

SuperDave84 wrote: Trap junior wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Charged with what though? Liberal Dave out in force again.  There should be a law banning any of these activities during weather alert periods. That's not what you said. You said they should be charged and fined and when you were pulled up on it you changed the subject and said there should be a law against it, along with a bit of snide name calling. Typical bullsh*t.

Edited by rolo - 16 Oct 2017 at 6:33pm

(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence who intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

Yeah, possibly. I think that is stretching it though, the way that charge has been interpreted in the past.

"For the purpose of an endangerment count under s. 13 based on recklessness an accused would have consciously had to disregard a risk not of just causing harm but of causing serious injury or death."

That's how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I also think it would have to be a *direct* risk; that is, things like very dangerous driving or things like that. I doubt it would cover indirect stuff like this.

The Supreme Court didn't want to make it a broad offence, anyway:

"In the first place, this appears to be the first case where the offence created by s. 13 has been fully considered by the appellate courts. It will be seen that the offence itself is general in scope and not specific, so that it may be applied after the event to events which are not obviously criminal in themselves and whose legality or otherwise cannot be accurately assessed in advance. For example, would the terms of the statute extend to an omission to assist an individual in circumstances which, perhaps, would involve some risk to an intervener? Does it extend to actions done with the alleged victim's consent, as in the context of extreme sports? These are important questions and the fact that the answers to them are not immediately apparent indicates just how radically the law has (or, at least, may have been) altered by s. 13."

"prior to the beginning of the Victorian era, a commission in the former United Kingdom recommended the creation of a general offence such as that created here by s. 13. This is a factor of great historical interest: it must however be balanced against the fact that this advice was not taken and that the Victorian legislatures instead preferred to rely on a great number of highly specific offences, such as the provision of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which prohibits (on pain of life imprisonment) the throwing of stones or other implements at moving trains. Indeed, to this day there is in the United Kingdom no such general offence as that provided in this jurisdiction by s. 13. Any conclusion about why people long since dead acted as they did is of necessity speculative but, having regard to the terms of the report of the Law Reform Commission itself, it seems quite likely that the Victorian legislators were careful not "unduly to extend the scope of a criminal law" and not to create a criminal offence whose parameters were uncertain so that they could not be predicted in advance and might lead to the criminalisation of an activity which the legislature had not decided to criminalise and might have decided not to criminalise. It is one of the glories of the common law tradition of civil liberties that in general it is safe to proceed on the basis that what is not prohibited is allowed (nullum crimen sine lege ); this situation can only be preserved by taking care that the criminal law is 'certain and specific'"

So there's all of that. I think it would be very tricky to get a conviction for endangerment for something like these idiots.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 16 Oct 2017 at 6:43pm

SuperDave84 wrote: rolo wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Trap junior wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Charged with what though? Liberal Dave out in force again.  There should be a law banning any of these activities during weather alert periods. That's not what you said. You said they should be charged and fined and when you were pulled up on it you changed the subject and said there should be a law against it, along with a bit of snide name calling. Typical bullsh*t. How do you not see that these people were acting like ****s going into the water today. Putting the lives of rescue personnel at risk. There should be a charge for that, some sort of amendment to some act or other. Or else a law saying people who go swimming and pricking about during a code red are not entitled to rescue services if needed. Stupid pricks. I didn't say there shouldn't be a law against it. I just asked what they should be charged with on the current law, because that is what was called for by some. Very different. I certainly never denied they were acting like selfish pricks.

"There is a danger of 'unduly extending the scope of the criminal law'. But the offence has been enacted and the legislature's decision in that regard must be respected. There is however a possibility that the section might be interpreted over broadly so as to cover circumstances which the legislature had not considered, and to criminalise certain things which are not and were not intended to be the subject of prohibition."

"From a legal and constitutional point of view, it is a fundamental value that a citizen should know, or at least be able to find out, with some considerable measure of certainty, what precisely is prohibited and what is lawful."

"Nevertheless the obvious potential for conflict with the fundamental value that crimes must be defined with precision and without ambiguity so that the criminal law is 'certain and specific' require that this notably open ended section be carefully, and indeed strictly, construed in accordance with fundamental principles of law and of construction."

That's another couple of quotes from the Supreme Court on section 13 endangerment.

I don't think such a charge would hold up.

Jeez Dave can ya f**k off with your professional bullsh*t and let us had a chat about what we'd like to see 

Edited by Shedite - 16 Oct 2017 at 7:29pm

Any employer that only made a call on staying open today based on how many staff showed up for work should be outed, fined and ridden raw in the media.
Forcing some people to travel long distances and then to send them home almost immediately is effectively a spit in the face.

Luckily I was off today anyway but my own employers did this today and know of people who traveled for more than hour because of the conditions. Made it in and were sent home after 15 mins cause numbers were low.

It shows how undervalued many multi nationals value their staff. Dicks