V8 freeloaders billed [Archive]

View Full Version : V8 freeloaders billed

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 16:35

Laava

9th July 2009, 16:45

There is no way that they can be made to pay that. If they can afford to take the time to fight it in court, that is! This is fucken ridiculous, what next? Getting all the residents in Western Springs to pay for concert tickets when they overhear it?:mad:

Finn

9th July 2009, 16:48

That's it. Superfuckincity the Waikato.

When I read this earlier, I developed a twitch. Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.

klingon

9th July 2009, 16:51

Wow! So I'm not allowed to sit on my own roof now? I mean, I was only up there fixing a leak and happened to turn my head and catch a glimpse of some cars going past... repeatedly... really occifer! :whistle:

steve_t

9th July 2009, 16:56

The council is just trying to recoup the money it wasted on redeveloping Hood St. It spent $6m on a few crappy lights and the footpath!! I have no idea how it spent $6m but someone's lying on a beach somewhere laughing. The Hamilton City Council have lost the plot... the bureaucracy is out of control. $1500 for sitting on your own roof?? :mad: On the other hand, I guess they did tell people before the event that they weren't allowed to and would be fined if they did.

twotyred

9th July 2009, 17:03

nz is fuct...:wacko:

Laava

9th July 2009, 17:07

On the other hand, I guess they did tell people before the event that they weren't allowed to and would be fined if they did.
Do they really have the right to do that? I can't see it!

Mikkel

9th July 2009, 17:08

Yeah, it's a load of bullocks. If you want to sit on your roof together with your mates that's nobody's business. That is, unless you're charging a fee for strangers to sit on your roof...

been_there

9th July 2009, 17:14

Tell em to fook off

popelli

9th July 2009, 17:28

the householders could maintain that they were monitoring the noise levels from the racing and had to verify that the noise was in fact coming from the race track

without being able to physically view the racing their complaints would be mere speculation and not be taken seriuously by the council

they could alos justify the need to invite a few independant non residents along to verfiy that these complaints were bone fide

Deano

9th July 2009, 17:31

If the Council were concerned about safety they would have spoken to the 'culprits' then and there instead of taking photos for later use.

Str8 Jacket

9th July 2009, 17:34

I also wonder if the ticket even bothered to offer free tickets for the households concerned?

steve_t

9th July 2009, 17:45

If the Council were concerned about safety they would have spoken to the 'culprits' then and there instead of taking photos for later use.

Exactly! Revenue gathering... and need time to calculate that people could pay $1500... x11 = new light bulbs x3 in Hood St

I also wonder if the ticket even bothered to offer free tickets for the households concerned?

They did last year but decided they lost too much money so didn't this year. It's a joke. The business' and residents around the track get screwed for about 3 weeks and what do they get? Fined for sitting on their rooftops.

P38

9th July 2009, 17:45

Rayray401

9th July 2009, 18:01

Whats it got to do with the bloody council anyway?

They weren't selling the tickets.

What loss did they suffer as a result?

I'd ignore the pricks demands for payment and write a letter of complaint about the constant and sustained noise emminating from the event and the drunken unruley behaviour of members of the public.
I would argue for compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment suffered as a result.

Agreed. If they really wanted people not to watch the races so easily couldnt they have spent more preventing people from watching from the roofs?:whistle:

bane

9th July 2009, 18:03

Being fined under the building code apparently "unsafe use" - nothing to do with the race :whistle:

One dentist who owns a house in King St (i.e. on racetrack) is going to fight the fine - his kids are "always up on the roof", and "are representative rock climbers".

Councils response:
- he was given free tickets to attend the track
- there were up to 8 kids sitting on an unsecured couch on his roof

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 18:03

Whats it got to do with the bloody council anyway?

They weren't selling the tickets.

What loss did they suffer as a result?

I'd ignore the pricks demands for payment and write a letter of complaint about the constant and sustained noise emminating from the event and the drunken unruley behaviour of members of the public.
I would argue for compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment suffered as a result.

no loss to the council, it was a breech of the building code. BUT what it was is a deal with the promoter (who dont like it) and the council.............I would put money on that being the truth !

Rayray401

9th July 2009, 18:07

hmm..dont know about how the ticketing was done..but was it foreseeable enough that this kind of event would have encouraged people to watch the races from the rooftops?...id think so..if youre not offered a ticket..and tickets are all run out..so..wouldnt be possible that it was actually the councils fault or the promoters fault for indirectly encouraging this to happen?

scracha

9th July 2009, 18:12

Councils response:
- he was given free tickets to attend the track
- there were up to 8 kids sitting on an unsecured couch on his roof

"Sorry m'lud but I couldn't talk them back in off the roof. Watching V8's or watching the usual shite on telly...there was no contest. I'd have threatened them but I'm not allowed to smack my own kids anymore, never mind someone else's....plus there was a council guy filming me so I didn't want to get into any more trouble."

Laxi

9th July 2009, 18:15

WTF?? good luck to them trying to enforce that 1, cant see how thay would have a legal leg to stand on. When the old nissan mobile was on in wellington all the office blocks along the track were jammed full of people, they even had to let anyone who worked in buildings in side the spectator fences in for free

P38

9th July 2009, 18:15

no loss to the council, it was a breech of the building code. BUT what it was is a deal with the promoter (who dont like it) and the council.............I would put money on that being the truth !

Your probally very close to the truth there Quasi

Was there some construction going on that required a council permit?

What part of the building code did they breech?

Unsafe acts are usually investigated by OHS not council, unfortunately OHS are not responsible for private residence. You can be as unsafe as you like in your own home.

The Magna Carter took care of that for us all.

Your home is your castle.

I'd call them just to prove that point alone, let alone the breech of privacy that occured when council staff photographed his childern without proper permission while they were on private property.

The dentist will win hands down every day of the week.

CookMySock

9th July 2009, 18:17

11 households so far have been fined $1500 each for spectating with the "use of a building for a use for which it is not safe"LMAO!! Yeah right. Just screw that piece of paper up and throw it in the bin. Stupid fucking council is even dumber than than the pigs.

Steve

Str8 Jacket

9th July 2009, 18:18

So how many of these residents will protest about the use of there street the nexttime they want to run the V8's? Not very smart at all, if the promoters were smart they'd ask the council to drop it!

Laxi

9th July 2009, 18:22

So how many of these residents will protest about the use of there street the nexttime they want to run the V8's? Not very smart at all, if the promoters were smart they'd ask the council to drop it!

dosn't mater what the residents want, council has all the say, thats why the race left wellington for hamilton in the first place

Indiana_Jones

9th July 2009, 18:40

I'd sit on my roof with this cranking:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVI69_gsq_k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oVI69_gsq_k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Fuck the cunts.

Up their council cunt twat face cunt holes

-Indy

JimO

9th July 2009, 18:59

half the student flats in Dunedin have couches on the roof, some of them arnt even burning

shafty

9th July 2009, 19:08

A Hamilton family and 10 others have each been fined $1500 for viewing the V8s from rooftops or makeshift stands.

But Hamilton City Council says it will keep a hard line on the alleged Building Act infringements to "send a strong message."

City dentist Ron White, who owns a house on the King St part of the Frankton circuit, is outraged at the instant fine, which was mailed to him last week.

"It's just unbelievable and I suppose it's typical of the council, they just think they are more important than the people."

The Waikato Times this year visited the two-storey 1920s house during the Hamilton 400 event, where Mr White's children and friends sat on the roof watching the cars speed by. They did the same in 2008 and received no fine.

"It's unprincipled, the whole thing. I just want them to drop us and leave it alone and let us get along with our lives," Mr White said.

"This is an attack on the citizens of the city, this is just rotten."

Mr White said he had taken legal advice about the $1500 infringement notice, which the council said must be paid by August 7.

In an ironic twist, Mr White wasn't even in town during the V8s as he is not a fan of them. He called the notice "a huge slap in the face".

He was adamant he wouldn't pay.

Heather White, Mr White's former wife, was in the house during the racing and said she felt like a prisoner in her own home. She said the council was "being over-zealous over nothing".

"We bent over backwards for the V8s. They blocked us in, we couldn't even move our cars for days. If anything I think they owe us money."

But the council's building control manager Phil Saunders said he and his staff went to great lengths before the V8s to warn people what they could and couldn't do under the Building Act.

He said staff did a letter drop and even walked the track and communicated with all business owners, tenants and homeowners to let them know the rules.

"Our role is the health and safety of people and we take that quite seriously. We gave everyone the information, but there were people who didn't listen."

Mr Saunders said council staff spotted the alleged infringements during the racing and even took photographic evidence.

He said staff reported children being up on roofs and even a couch in one case.

"These set-ups put people at risk, we don't have much choice. It's rather good luck than good judgment that something didn't happen.

"Someone could have easily fallen from one of those roofs."

Mr Saunders said eight notices were sent out for people being on roofs, while three others were for makeshift stands.

Ad Feedback He said a number of people around the circuit followed the rules and legally set up stands.

Hamilton 400 event promoter Dean Calvert said what people did in or on their own homes during the V8s "was not our responsibility".

However, Mr Calvert did have concerns about safety and the possibility of people in elevated areas throwing things like glass bottles on the track.

"We are kind of caught in the middle, because it reflects on us if something happens, even if it's outside the circuit."

Mrs White said citing safety issues was a "smokescreen" by the council and V8 organisers. "They're just annoyed that we got a free view, it's as simple as that."

The infringement notice cited a clause of the Building Act that refers to using or permitting the "use of a building for a use for which it is not safe".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes my blood boil - bloody Councils treating people like the idiots they (The Council) are. What the hell next. We need to start a petition or major poll or chain e-mail or something and get this as a huge National debate - that'll be the way the Council will maybe see some perspective.

Its as bad as Dept of Labour Inspectors racing out at Easter to "bust" a shop open when it shouldn't be - bloody pathetic.

Phew.

Rant over (for now) :angry2:

Pedrostt500

9th July 2009, 19:56

Well next time ya might just happen to be painting the roof that weekend, you will need a few mates to help, and some thirst quencher, ( bugger its beer). and it will take all weekend.

Usarka

9th July 2009, 20:08

Painting on the roof is safe enough. Just don't sit down - it's really dangerous.

RT527

9th July 2009, 20:23

yeah and as a volunteer at the track i got a cap for my thanks oh and breakfast every morning, it cost me to work there and it galls me to think that they made oodles of money at the expense of volunteers, but then man was it an awesome experience and I guess thats why we do it, but to hit the members of public like that and like someone said if it was safety they should have been removed from the unsafe area immediately!.If someone had fallen and the council knew they were up there then they are, and can be, held equally responsible for anything that occurred as a result of falling from the roof.
Osh does this in the workplace , i would love to think they would charge there own bosses if something had happened.

hospitalfood

9th July 2009, 20:25

RantyDave

9th July 2009, 20:30

Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.
It seems obvious to me that Hamilton has just too much of a reputation as a nice place to live and that the council has resorted to extreme measures to keep the hoardes of potential Hamiltonians from moving there.

Either that or they're people with "geography teacher" leather patches on their elbows who've FORGOTTEN WHO THEY FUCKING WORK FOR.

Dave

steve_t

9th July 2009, 20:41

i hate councils doing this kind of thing. what happened to nz ?

the home owners cold hire scaffold and the council could do nothing about it, the home owners could probably even accept donations from people who decided to visit

They already said that anything like this would need a permit.... and they would decline all applications of this nature :mad:

NDORFN

9th July 2009, 20:59

Unbelievable :oi-grr:

Laava

9th July 2009, 21:39

I am looking to hire workers for my new roof renovation and testing company. We are based in Hamilton and work sporadically, often turning up with a large workforce. The emphasis is on a more laid back work environment, with a strong team building work ethic. I have a contract for the central Hamilton area around April next year. It would involve a days training in rooftop observance and multiple demonstrations of the arrangement of rooftop furniture. Sorry, I would be unable to pay you, so wouldn't be expectant of too much production.

Jantar

9th July 2009, 21:47

116 B. Offence to use building for use for which it is not safe or not sanitary, or if it has inadequate means of escape from fire(1) No person may—

(1) (a) use a building, or knowingly permit another person to use a building, for a use for which the building is not safe or not sanitary; or

(b) use a building, or knowingly permit another person to use a building, that has inadequate means of escape from fire.

(2) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.

Reading 116 B (1) (a), the council could also fine anyone who smokes in their own home unless the home is specifically designed for smoking.

The application of this part of the act for the purpose of preventing people from watching an event is going beyond the intent of the act and the council could find themselves in trouble if they don't apply the act evenly and consistantly.

sosman

9th July 2009, 22:01

That's it. Superfuckincity the Waikato.

When I read this earlier, I developed a twitch. Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.

Yep wot he said!:mad:

shafty

9th July 2009, 22:44

Reading 116 B (1) (a), the council could also fine anyone who smokes in their own home unless the home is specifically designed for smoking.

The application of this part of the act for the purpose of preventing people from watching an event is going beyond the intent of the act and the council could find themselves in trouble if they don't apply the act evenly and consistantly.

You tell 'em Jantar - you're bloody well right. :2thumbsup

vifferman

10th July 2009, 09:22

In my (tiny, befuddled) mind, it would be understandable for the council to fine people in incidents where someone did fall from a roof and hurt themselves, but this is a bit like fining someone for speeding because their vehicle is capable of going faster than the speed limit, or of crashing and injuring somebody.
It's fairly obvious it has nothing to do with looking out for people's safety, and everything to do with rampant bureaucracy and the council worrying about the race promoters bleating about people not paying to watch the races.
Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

Quasievil

10th July 2009, 09:26

Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

That was beautifully put mate, but we all know the answer in this modern world eh

steve_t

10th July 2009, 09:49

... this is a bit like fining someone for speeding because their vehicle is capable of going faster than the speed limit

Ummm.... you do know that they do this right? :bleh::msn-wink:

CookMySock

10th July 2009, 10:02

LOL they should all throw the infringement notice in the bin. The ONLY way councils (or the police) make this sort of shit stick, is get everyone going to meetings and getting all paniccy about it.

Don't play their game. Throw the document in the bin. Go back to the interesting thing you were doing. Don't discuss. Don't talk to them at all. It's all a head game designed for them to win, and for you to lose. Sharpen up!

Steve

Deano

10th July 2009, 10:04

Surely the council are employees of the ratepayers, not the rulers of them?

That was beautifully put mate, but we all know the answer in this modern world eh

I work for a Council, but am not 'The Council', or even an elected representative.

I don't agree with what Hamiltron Council have done, but conversely, if a ratepayer uses that old chestnut on me, I totally switch off. I am employed by the CEO of the Council, not the ratepayers.

I reckon I provide a pretty good service in my role, but we do get a lot of nutters ringing in with frivolous and vexatious complaints about their neighbours - when they don't get the result they want and claim "but you work for me" -they can go take a running jump.

Then they write to the Mayor, who often panders to their frivolous demands.

I could go on and on about office politics and shite, but I must get back to work hassling some more ratepayes :devil2: :rofl:

p.s. I don't agree with what Hamiltron Council have done

tri boy

10th July 2009, 10:07

"Dr White, Councilor Smith is here for his root canal"
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-bOtMizMQ6oM/little_shop_of_horrors_dentist_song/

SS90

10th July 2009, 10:17

Hmmm,

Call me cynical but I think the Council have really thought this through and will get their money.

Why?

$1500.

To get a lawer to write a letter will cost MINIMUM $350 (plus the one hour consultation....... $350)

PLUS the one hour it takes to research the building code (and precidences)

ANOTHER $350

$1050

Plus the stamp and the envelope ($5)

$1055

For a bloody letter.

Any good lawyer will tell you this (most won't) and, as such it is simply not worth the fight.

I don't agree with it in the slightest, but, hey this is the world we live in.

It's revenue gathering and nothing else.

It's along the same lines of continuous vehicle licencing (and sending you to Baycorp if you let your car rego laps)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

sad sad times.

Chasing after ratepayers for $1500 extra "for dangerous use"

Did any of the V8 racers get fines for dangerous use of a motor vehicle?

God, imagine if one did a burn out.............

aff-man

10th July 2009, 11:02

plus you can't try tell me the 95bd or whatever it is limit for racing was not breached.

Someone should send these little discrepancies to Mr White as well as the promoters. I'm pretty sure 8 $1500 fines would pale in significance to the ensuing lawsuit or getting the races cancelled..

Thinking how much trouble western springs had when the residents got a bit grumpy.

pzkpfw

10th July 2009, 12:22

"D" FZ1

10th July 2009, 12:36

I would like to see them tell me I can't sit on my own roof on my own fkn property that I pay them rates for. Tossas !!!!! :tugger:

slofox

10th July 2009, 13:23

Actually guys, there is a good reason for these fines being dished out...the councillors voted themselves a pay rise not so long ago...they HAVE to have this money to pay themselves with...'sobvious, innit?

BMWST?

10th July 2009, 13:32

Your probally very close to the truth there Quasi

Was there some construction going on that required a council permit?

What part of the building code did they breech?

.

roof(s) loads to not cater for groups of people congrgating on a roof.It allows for a small temporary load only for mainteneance

slofox

10th July 2009, 13:47

roof(s) loads to not cater for groups of people congrgating on a roof.It allows for a small temporary load only for mainteneance

Rooves also have to be able to withstand gale force winds etc etc....can't tell me they're that weak...try getting a building permit for a weak roofed building...

Drogen Omen

10th July 2009, 14:04

The way i see it is... my property, my house, i paid for it... FUCK you Hamilton city council...

Would like to see when those rules were made up and where the found the fine from...

Must have plucked the $1500 out of their ass's...

I would have set up my own grand stand and charged people to see it from my property... Whats that you say Hamilton City Council? i'm not allowed to do that either... but i was just throwing a party at my place, its not my fault the V8's just happened to go past my back yard...

SpankMe

10th July 2009, 14:07

How many here voted in their last council elections? Add a poll.

oldrider

10th July 2009, 14:13

Saw in the Waikato times today that all those freeloaders who got onto their rooftops to get a free view of the V8 racing in Hamilton(some very elaborately couches etc) will be receiving a nice big bill, 11 households so far have been fined $1500 each for spectating with the "use of a building for a use for which it is not safe" so the council is using the building act to sought out the freeloaders or are they genuinely concerned about people on the roofs and the danger that could ensue??

As far as Im concerned good on them for getting a free view thay had to put up with enough shit during the construction and the event itself !

yup all council lead surprise surprise !

That's it. Superfuckincity the Waikato.

When I read this earlier, I developed a twitch. Someone needs to sort these cardigan wearing motherfuckers out.

Wow! So I'm not allowed to sit on my own roof now? I mean, I was only up there fixing a leak and happened to turn my head and catch a glimpse of some cars going past... repeatedly... really occifer! :whistle:

Bloody socialist pricks..........less government, more individual freedom PLEASE! It was their own property FFS! :spanking:

p.dath

10th July 2009, 14:44

I don't think the council is going to win themselves any friends. The council has to remember that it exists to represent the people.

I think watching something from your roof is fine. It's not a decision the council needs to be involved in.

JimO

10th July 2009, 16:52

get up on your roof now, fall off, limp inside and call your local council. Do you think they will care, doubt it, i was talking to a building inspector on a new house today and i arxed him about this he said he didnt give a fat rats arse wether people fell of their roofs

ckai

10th July 2009, 17:30

I know the particular house in question reasonably well...it's dodgy to say the least. I used to see the kids jump off the roof in the back into a green pool. The house would move every time.

The majority of people that didn't get fined, applied for consents and put up scaffolding. Promoters didn't care...it was their land. For one place in particular it only cost each person $5. The "freeloaders" got nailed for not playing nice. There was also shit thrown onto the track from "around certain illegal watchers".

The first year the race ran, they warned everyone to play by the rules next year or you'll be done.

The last thing the council and promoters want is a headline all around the world reading

"11 people killed when 2-story roof collapsed at street-race"

Because we are a nanny state, the council and promoters would be sued for allowing it to go ahead unnoticed, by the "poor grieving family". (Case in point is the family suing the police for the car chase where his son was killed).

Council is covering their asses. If an infringement notice is served (and not paid) and people die doing what that said not too, they can't be held responsible. But I guarantee if the shit hits the fan, some dick head will still blame them.

People need to take responsibilty for their own screw ups.

Look at the big picture and not the money.

RON SOAK

10th July 2009, 17:51

Breech of the building code my aunt fannys cock!

If a house is so unsafe its in danger of collapsing because of some people on the roof, the council should be looking rather more seriously at the buildings in its patch!

not use a piss poor excuse for getting at people on there own property - what next - ban all people from roofs unless you've got (an expensive) safety lisence, or something!

Cocks!

Ixion

10th July 2009, 17:59

The Hamilton City Council has this afternoon backed downed over fines issued to people watching the Hamilton 400 V8 motor race from the roofs of houses. Dentist Ron White and ten others who own properties within the race circuit will now not have to pay the $1500 fine. Hamilton's mayor Bob Simcock told the Waikato Times this afternoon the council had decided to waive the fines, after seeking legal advice.

Of fuck off stupid 10 chars

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 18:06

Deano

10th July 2009, 19:25

I agree that the Council should be told what to do, however, dumb idea to let people / kids sit on sofa's on roofs (assuming not flat of course).....someone could have fallen off, hurt themselves, maybe someone else in the process....but what does it matter ACC covers...hey ho

And you also subscribe to the theory that all trees and climbing equipment should be removed from playcentres ?

I'm sure the Council concern was the structural integrity of the roof, not people falling off.

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don't need no Council let the MF burn....

Flatcap

10th July 2009, 19:38

I'm sure the Council concern was the structural integrtiy of the roof, not people falling off

Which is why you need to put a sofa up there to spread the load

JimO

10th July 2009, 19:39

i know a buisness that gets a bigfuckoff truck trailor with a massive container in their carpark when the Dunedin Road Races are on they have seating and food up there to watch the races all on private property , fukkall the council cn do about it

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 21:34

And you also subscribe to the theory that all trees and climbing equipment should be removed from playcentres ?

I'm sure the Council concern was the structural integrity of the roof, not people falling off.

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. We don't need no Council let the MF burn....

Play Centers are supervised and have soft landing areas...taking a sofa on to a roof and sitting on it is slightly different.....only soft part is the human body...

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 21:35

Deano

10th July 2009, 21:36

Play Centers are supervised and have soft landing areas...taking a sofa on to a roof and sitting on it is slightly different.....only soft part is the human body...

Or people could just HTFU.

How many generations have done ok thank you very nicely before the fun Police stepped in.

Darwin's theory should prevail.

Deano

10th July 2009, 21:38

It's flat so slightly safer than an angled roof

Did anyone fall ?

If so, they'd be on you tube and we'd all be laughing or saying what dicks.......but we're not.

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 21:39

Did anyone fall ?

If so, they'd be on you tube and we'd all be laughing or saying what dicks.......but we're not.

Arh...that old approach...it must be safe because no one fell..............this time

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 21:40

Or people could just HTFU.

How many generations have done ok thank you very nicely before the fun Police stepped in.

Darwin's theory should prevail.

Aye..when I were a lade we lived in 'ole in t'ground with lit'l 'ole for t'toilet...them days were 'ard.....but then we didn't have V8 racing in'd them days....

Deano

10th July 2009, 21:49

Play Centers are supervised and have soft landing areas...

Yes and still, some are removing anything over a metre high FFS.

Arh...that old approach...it must be safe because no one fell..............this time

Keep it real.

There is risk in everything we do. The world would be really fun with absolutely no risk eh.

.....but then we didn't have V8 racing in'd them days....

I did. It was great.

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 21:52

Yes and still, some are removing anything over a metre high FFS.

Keep it real.

This is real....

There is risk in everything we do. The world would be really fun with absolutely no risk eh.

There are risks and there are risks dude....some are just dumb stupid...I have done risky things but sorry a sofa on a roof is dumb

Deano

10th July 2009, 21:57

There are risks and there are risks dude....some are just dumb stupid...I have done risky things but sorry a sofa on a roof is dumb

Did you see the tie downs and rope across the back of the roof ?

Ixion

10th July 2009, 21:58

So, if someone *had* fallen form the roof. What business is that of the council? I have a very tall tree on my property. If I climb to the top of it and fall out of it (which I probably would) , what business is that of any council?

Councils are elected and officials appointed to carry out the *business* of the community. To collect the rubbish, repair the roads etc.

Not to set themselves up as grand noseyparkers and nannies, taking charge of everybodies lives.

What people do on their own property, is their own business. If they elect to do something risky that is their own business. Not the council's.

Sex is risky , too. You can put your back out, catch an STD, get pregnant. Will we next see the Waikato council demanding to monitor peoples' bedroom activities "in case they injure themselves'

If people were climbing on the roof of a *public* building, fair enough. Private house , piss off noseyparker snooping nanny, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 22:00

Did you see the tie downs and rope across the back of the roof ?

I was not worried about the sofa falling off....more the people...2001 stats

Coroners’ reports of 1035 deaths possibly related to building features were examined to assess their usefulness in identifying the cause of slip, trip and fall (STF) fatalities. Of the total, falls accounted for over 80%. Of the STF deaths, 61.4% related to falls on stairs, 6.7% to falls from steps or ladders, and 5.5% to falls from windows or roofs. About 60% of total fall fatalities involved infirm persons; alcohol was involved in 60% of the falls in the un

Funny cause the roof was fixed to the walls of the house so you would think that being on the roof would be safe eh?

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 22:02

Deano

10th July 2009, 22:09

I was not worried about the sofa falling off....more the people...2001 stats

Ooooohhhhhh think of the people.....if you are going to take notice of stats would you ride a motorcycle ?:bleh:

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 22:18

Ooooohhhhhh think of the people.....if you are going to take notice of stats would you ride a motorcycle ?:bleh:

Yes you would because there are more deaths from roof accidents than motorcycles :bleh: and one more cause you walked into that one :bleh:

Deano

10th July 2009, 22:22

Yes you would because there are more deaths from roof accidents than motorcycles :bleh: and one more cause you walked into that one :bleh:

If anything that just proves Darwin's theory - your average M/C is more clever than your average couch surfing roofer.........

I've walked into worse :bleh:

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 22:24

If anything that just proves Darwin's theory - your average M/C is more clever than your average couch surfing roofer.........

I've walked into worse :bleh:

"more clever"....mmmmm.........."know wa't I mean guv"...lol

All good fun...........:clap:

Jantar

10th July 2009, 22:24

I was not worried about the sofa falling off....more the people...2001 stats

Coroners’ reports of 1035 deaths possibly related to building features were examined to assess their usefulness in identifying the cause of slip, trip and fall (STF) fatalities. Of the total, falls accounted for over 80%. Of the STF deaths, 61.4% related to falls on stairs, 6.7% to falls from steps or ladders, and 5.5% to falls from windows or roofs. About 60% of total fall fatalities involved infirm persons; alcohol was involved in 60% of the falls in the un

Funny cause the roof was fixed to the walls of the house so you would think that being on the roof would be safe eh?

A bit ingenious though as these stats are from UK. They include suicides, falls through thatched rooves etc, but I can find no mention of anyone falling from a roof while using it for spectating.

Grahameeboy

10th July 2009, 22:27

A bit ingenious though as these stats are from UK. They include suicides, falls through thatched rooves etc, but I can find no mention of anyone falling from a roof while using it for spectating.

Hey it was quick and easy.............but in the UK at the same time 609 motorcyclist were killed so still safer..keep up..

Well if someone fell of a roof they were not spectating at the time surely

Deano

10th July 2009, 22:27

"more clever"....mmmmm.........."know wa't I mean guv"...lol

All good fun...........:clap:

Although, I should have said roof surfing coucher, or couch roofing surfer.......:rolleyes:

Deano

10th July 2009, 22:31

falls through thatched rooves etc

Do they still have many thatched rooves in the old country ?

Jantar

10th July 2009, 22:36

Hey it was quick and easy............. It would have been quicker and easier if you had also left in the last sentence. "Information in coroners’ reports is generally insufficient to link building features to injuries; better approaches to data collection are required."

but in the UK at the same time 609 motorcyclist were killed so still safer..keep up.. So 57 people (5.5% of 1035) died from falls from rooves and windows compared to 609 who died while riding motorcycles. Which is safer?

Well if someone fell of a roof they were not spectating at the time surely
Exactly. So what is unsafe about spectating from a roof?

Jantar

10th July 2009, 22:38

Do they still have many thatched rooves in the old country ? As they are included I guess there must still be some. Never having been there I can't comment from personal knowledge. Maybe Grahameeboy can?

Deano

10th July 2009, 22:47

Feck I'm so out of rep for people.

Grahameeboy

11th July 2009, 09:12

As they are included I guess there must still be some. Never having been there I can't comment from personal knowledge. Maybe Grahameeboy can?

They do in odd places but thatchers is a dying are. The roofs last longer than tin roofs...

Grahameeboy

11th July 2009, 09:12

It would have been quicker and easier if you had also left in the last sentence. "Information in coroners’ reports is generally insufficient to link building features to injuries; better approaches to data collection are required."

So 57 people (5.5% of 1035) died from falls from rooves and windows compared to 609 who died while riding motorcycles. Which is safer?

Exactly. So what is unsafe about spectating from a roof?

Well I had a good run eh....:msn-wink: