Stupid Acts of Parliament.

[Diasi]

There's a very deep pool from which to choose but this one never fails to both amaze & enrage me.

The Occupier's Liability Act 1957 & 1984.

The 1957 Act legislated to ensure that invited persons, visitors or basically anyone with a legal reason to be on any land or premises were given reasonable protection from coming to harm.

The 1984 amendment of the Act, brought in by some clown called Lord Hailsham, extended the legislation to give the same protection to people who had no right to be on the land or premises which, of course, included burglars & other intruders.

For the purposes of the Act the occupier is the person who has control of the land / premises & if a person who is on the land / premises sustains an injury the occupier can be sued for damages unless they can show that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent any injuries.

Warning signs about any potential harmful risks being part of complying with the Act.

I, therefore, have to display signs warning that our fences have anti-climb spikes, so the signs are really there to tell a burglar that they need to wear gloves & be extra careful when illegally entering our property. 

I have heard the argument that persons who are authorised to be on the premises need to be warned but to date none of our visitors have ever been required to clamber over our fence so don't need to be warned about the spikes.

We let them use the door or, for our window cleaner etc, we unlock the gate.

[klondike]

Does shouting "Sod off or you'll get a butt full of buckshot" count? If so maybe the home defence argument changes.

[Diasi]

Does shouting "Sod off or you'll get a butt full of buckshot" count? If so maybe the home defence argument changes.

Yes, that should comply as you've given them a warning. 

[muddy]

I wouldnt t bet the boat on it .

[klondike]

 me neither

[JBR]

For the purposes of the Act the occupier is the person who has control of the land / premises & if a person who is on the land / premises sustains an injury the occupier can be sued for damages unless they can show that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent any injuries.

Warning signs about any potential harmful risks being part of complying with the Act.

Simple.  Use anti-climb paint, which of course never dries.
Then put up a sign saying 'WET PAINT', and leave it there permanently.

The thick vandals will see it, wait a couple of days for the paint to dry, then clamber up!

[dextrous63]

Does shouting "Sod off or you'll get a butt full of buckshot" count? If so maybe the home defence argument changes.

Such threatening language may upset them.  

[Diasi]

Simple.  Use anti-climb paint, which of course never dries.
Then put up a sign saying 'WET PAINT', and leave it there permanently.

The thick vandals will see it, wait a couple of days for the paint to dry, then clamber up!

Which takes us back to the stupidity of this Act because if you didn't display a sign saying Anti-Climb Paint & the intruder slipped & fell you could be sued for damages.

Interesting, but even more stupid, is the fact that if the intruders clothing was damaged they couldn't claim for it as they shouldn't have been climbing into your premises

You couldn't make this Act up, until some idiot did.