|
‘Caring’ council isn’t particularly bright
 You
really could not make up this nonsense and stupidity if you sat down and
tried your hardest.
Picture the scene if you will.
A listed building, owned by the council, has been lying empty since 2003
and has to be protected.
Who pays for this you would be entitled to ask?
The taxpayer does of course you muppet — who else?
Then why don’t they sell it might be your next question?
They claim that they have been trying (for four years) and say that they
are now close to an agreement with Wimpey Homes.
The building in question is a former high school in Midlothian and the
council have spent around £13,000 on security and lighting. This
is where it becomes a joke.
The reason that the lights are left on is because the council does not
want intruders to injure themselves if they manage to break in.
I don’t blame you if you read that bit again.
Now bear in mind that the ground floor windows are boarded up and a burglar
alarm is in operation.
Also remember that daily inspections are carried out.
The Green Party who are up-in-arms say it is absurd for lights to be left
on for intruders and the money would be far better spent providing lighting
for the streets to make them safer.
A not unreasonable viewpoint as I am sure you would agree.
The council say they have ‘a duty of care’ to protect intruders
from hazards.
This set me thinking. You can follow this ‘duty of care’ point
to its daft conclusion and apply it to some other interesting situations.
For example, should we leave the lights on in our houses at night in case
a burglar gets injured breaking in?
If we don’t then do we leave ourselves open to be sued if the poor
dear hurts himself or herself — this is of course an equal opportunities
criminal occupation after all?
Perhaps it might be safer for them if we did not lock our doors at all.
Should we leave the keys in our cars to prevent car thieves having to
break a window thus exposing themselves to risk of injury from broken
glass?
Should we also make sure that we have open insurance to cover car thieves
just in case they crash the car causing serious injury to themselves or
others?
Would you be responsible because it is your car?
If you own a motorbike should you be forced to leave a helmet with it
just in case the bike is stolen?
You really would not want a thief to be riding around without a crash
helmet — would you?
It is too dangerous.
How long before a car or motorbike thief sues an owner under a ‘duty
of care’?
What happens if the vehicle was proved to be defective?
Sharp intake of breath — you are in big trouble then boyo.
These may be extreme examples of possible situations and I am just poking
a bit of fun at the whole crazy notion.
There must be a film to be made sometime perhaps called Carry On At The
Council.
A quick look through their files would give enough ideas without the need
for any highly-paid scriptwriters.
|
