r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	WeNeedVices000
Comment	An argument ensues. It's unclear who throws the first punch, but during the scuffle, both people hit one another to the head and body with close fist punches. Both have similar markings as a result of the fight. The fight occurred over a spilt drink - both were intoxicated and had no prior criminal offences, behaviour similar to this, or issues with one another. Better? You can't just say sea. Were there witnesses, what's the context to the drowning. I'm messing. The LA is generally responsible for beaches and low water marks. Most (I can't say all), but most locally, I am aware of having a warning about the risks of swimming local to said area and often online. There are legal requirements around beach safety from the UK Gov; however, I am not committed enough to read them in detail. My assumption and from a quick Google is that the requirement is not to secure the beach from entry by the public, which is different from a construction site? The neighbours roof analogy is pretty similar. One legally stipulates that it needs to be secure and the other does not. Side note - a better example is in the UK, which is the right to roam, Countryside & Right Of Way Act. This allows access paths to hills, mountains, moors, etc, via private land. If someone owns the private land but was to put signs up warning of danger from low hanging wires which were clearly unsafe or dangerous equipment lying around unsecured. The individual has the right to enter legally, but they have been warned of the dangers. Does that omit the owner of the land of responsibility for not securing low hanging live wires or unsecured equipment? It is very unlikely to omit the owner despite the clear signs warning of dangerous equipment clearly being unsecured, etc. (It does depend on the level of risk - a tree at risk of falling and being notified about this with no action would be similar - negligent).
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/189x8vk/shea_ryan_mother_to_sue_firm_over_boys_manhole/kbxnuup/
Created	Mon 4th Dec 2023 9:35am
Status	normal ()

An argument ensues. It's unclear who throws the first punch, but during the scuffle, both people hit one another to the head and body with close fist punches. Both have similar markings as a result of the fight. The fight occurred over a spilt drink - both were intoxicated and had no prior criminal offences, behaviour similar to this, or issues with one another. Better?

You can't just say sea. Were there witnesses, what's the context to the drowning. I'm messing. The LA is generally responsible for beaches and low water marks. Most (I can't say all), but most locally, I am aware of having a warning about the risks of swimming local to said area and often online. There are legal requirements around beach safety from the UK Gov; however, I am not committed enough to read them in detail.

My assumption and from a quick Google is that the requirement is not to secure the beach from entry by the public, which is different from a construction site? The neighbours roof analogy is pretty similar. One legally stipulates that it needs to be secure and the other does not.

Side note - a better example is in the UK, which is the right to roam, Countryside & Right Of Way Act. This allows access paths to hills, mountains, moors, etc, via private land. If someone owns the private land but was to put signs up warning of danger from low hanging wires which were clearly unsafe or dangerous equipment lying around unsecured. The individual has the right to enter legally, but they have been warned of the dangers. Does that omit the owner of the land of responsibility for not securing low hanging live wires or unsecured equipment? It is very unlikely to omit the owner despite the clear signs warning of dangerous equipment clearly being unsecured, etc. (It does depend on the level of risk - a tree at risk of falling and being notified about this with no action would be similar - negligent).