Catholic priests believes in more stupidity

[the_bob_delusion]

"Many Catholic priests take a flexible approach to celibacy, tolerated by church leaders, and some believe sex with children or men does not count, a former Melbourne priest said on Wednesday."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/child-sex-abuse-link-to-celibacy-20130123-2d7ch.html#ixzz2ItULwubd

Let's just throw these kiddie fiddlers in gaol. I don't care if they think it's right by their religion. Using their own stupid logic, throwing them in gaol isn't violating their religious right it's merely throwing out trash:)

[cueperkins]

lol ken....it goes it goes it goes, it just goes.....lol

"Yes, you are even responsible for a licensed tradesperson.   Its worth familiarising yourself with what your responsibilities are" 

Meep, I'm an owner builder & you're talking two different animals.  When I organise for a tradie to do work on my premises (invited), I have a duty of care to ensure that any obvious risk is identified and mitigated.  e.g. the dogs would be locked down the back & any likely obstructions taken care of.  Similarly tradies have a obligation to work safely & let me know if they identify any safety hazard...it isn't a one way street this liability stuff.

A better example might be....If I were to invite you over for a drink and you fell off my balcony because the railing was faulty...then I would indeed be responsible for breaching my duty of care & you could indeed sue me if your injuries supported a damages claim. 

We were talking uninvited entry...where I would be unable to foresee any risk to you in advance.  Just saying.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Well that might have been the case prior to the Civil Liability Act being changed, but unless my dog causes whole person impairment over 15%, no-one can sue anyone.

Same could be said if you entered my premises uninvited, fell over and broke your leg.  What negligence would I possibly have in that if you weren't invited onto the property in the first place?  Any self respecting insurer would wipe the floor with such a claim.

Furthermore, if the dog is behind closed gates and someone fails to consider the likelihood of being bitten if they enter uninvited, then a 'civil' court would no doubt find that they caused their own injury by failing to consider the obvious risk.

Insurance companies don't pay out civil liability claims lightly...the plaintiff would need to prove negligence on my part, which of course there wouldn't be if I'm just minding my own business.  They'd also need to be 15% WPI or it's game over.

When it comes to Trespass, I can erect a sign saying that entry is by permission only.  Anyone Can = It's a constitutional right.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Try again .....

Same could be said if you entered my premises uninvited, fell over and broke your leg.  What negligence would I possibly have in that if you weren't invited onto the property in the first place? Your negligence would be that you dug a hole and had not covered it or fenced it off, or had cracked concrete that caused the fall. Why do you think Councils get sued all the time when a piece of roadway / curb is faulty?

Furthermore, if the dog is behind closed gates and someone fails to consider the likelihood of being bitten if they enter uninvited, then a 'civil' court would no doubt find that they caused their own injury by failing to consider the obvious risk. This would be over-ridden by the fact that you must allow safe access to your front door during daylight hours

When it comes to Trespass, I can erect a sign saying that entry is by permission only.  Anyone Can = It's a constitutional right. I am not sure about this part. It would seem reasonable?  I know that eg when you are having building work done, a pool put in etc - if you don't specifically have a sign on all accesses to the property 'building in progress - do not enter" or whatever the local council requires then you are STILL liable. I would think that you would also have to have a pool hole fenced off to stop kids animals etc from falling in.

[cueperkins]

"Why do you think Councils get sued all the time when a piece of roadway / curb is faulty?"

You're talking public space vs private.  BTW, Councils (& all other Govt based organisations) don't get sued anymore, even if negligent.  Bob Carr Changed the Civil Liability Act in 2003 giving immunity to all Govt based organisations.   For the average punter it's a totally different story.  A person might  be able to claim medical expenses in such an incident but they can't sue a Govt agency easily if at all.

A recent case involving the 2003 Canberra Fires is a great example: 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/bushfire-compensation-bid-fails/4431396

"Despite the finding of negligence, Chief Justice Higgins found in favour of NSW because a state law exempts the Government of liability if its actions or those of its firefighters were done in good faith"

The Plaintiff is appealing on the basis that the NSW Govt. failed to demonstrate what that 'good faith' entailed......evenso, he won't win as the deck is stacked against him.

[**meep**]

When it comes to Trespass, I can erect a sign saying that entry is by permission only.  Anyone Can = It's a constitutional right.

I am not actually sure to what extent the right of entry acts vary but i am pretty sure that utilities employees have the power to enter your property without your approval. 

This is all i could find so far: (NSW)

INCLOSED LANDS PROTECTION ACT 1901 - SECT 4

Unlawful entry on inclosed lands (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding: (a) 10 penalty units in the case of prescribed premises, or (b) 5 penalty units in any other case.

Whad does "lawful excuse" mean?

 Would that come under Statutory Rights of Access?  (NSW)

[cueperkins]

I'm not sure that Statute applies to Endeavour Energy or they wouldn't bother having a self read scheme as a contingency. 

When it comes to a bushfire or any other emergency, you're 100% correct...I have to grant access to all fire fighting or police services if they need to use it as a strategic fire fighting position or defend it. Life is complicated isn't it?...lol

[**meep**]

Well that might have been the case prior to the Civil Liability Act being changed, but unless my dog causes whole person impairment over 15%, no-one can sue anyone.

I think you will find that the 15% whole body impairment pertains to future economic loss.  You can still sue for medical costs and loss of earnings caused by the injury.

[cueperkins]

Yes, also Pain & Suffering & Gratuitous care costs.  I've just had a bit of a squiz and an amendment occurred in June 2012 that apparently lowers WPI to 11%...about time it got fairer.

The issue of course is that it's usually a Defendant Medico who has the power over determining that WPI, and you'd be amazed how much they can vary from one doctor to another and from Defendant to Plaintiff.  There shouldn't seriously be any discrepancy when it's worked on a scale of impairment as it is, but that's where most of the cost in W/Comp for instance, ends up being spent = in disputes.

In Liability claims against Govt Depts though, you can't sue them full stop, as they have immunity & will argue 'good faith'.

Another unknown 'immunity' they also have is in under-resourcing Public Service Workforces.  Where once it was an OH&S breach to under budget police, firies, ambos, nurses etc, they gave themselves immunity from that too.  So, if the State Govt shortsheet police budgets for instance & police get injured as a result, they can't hold their employer accountable.  It's crazy, but there tis.

BTW, on the topic itself...this Gaynor bloke looks bewildered over the backlash...lol

"A Senate hopeful who was suspended from Bob Katter's Australian Party yesterday says he plans to fight the ban.

Mr Gaynor says other candidates and nominees have expressed personal opinions without being suspended".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/gaynor-vows-to-fight-katter-party-suspension/4484744

[**meep**]

Yes, also Pain & Suffering & Gratuitous care costs.  I've just had a bit of a squiz and an amendment occurred in June 2012 that apparently lowers WPI to 11%...about time it got fairer.

You think it is fairer?  😮  😮 😮

Have you or anyone you know been injured at work since the new NSW Workers Compensation Scheme??  

[**meep**]

The issue of course is that it's usually a Defendant Medico who has the power over determining that WPI

That is actually NOT the case.