dark light

RobAnt

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 1,792 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1370103
    RobAnt
    Participant

    See above, edited. Anyway – the word Patronising is “the way”.

    You are making it seem that intelligent, thinking, adult human beings, are incapable of assessing risk when presented with communication and eduction to explain that risk.

    in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1370173
    RobAnt
    Participant

    I am sorry, RadarActive, but I find your post extraordinarily patronising. You are merely making a case for disregarding common sense, and applying one rule for all, without exception. That’s just plain wrong, in my view.

    in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1370211
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Thing is with disclaimers they are not valid in law, I know people get other to sign em all the time but you cant waive responsibility for death or personal injury by negilience (Lawyer head on)

    Negligence would constitute not telling me, if you are in a position, or should reasonably be in a position, to know of risk.

    So long as I am warned, properly, in writing and verbally, then I am responsible for myself if I make my mark to that effect.

    (common sense hat on)

    in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1370237
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Apparently living in Edinburgh puts you over the acceptable levels of long term radiation exposure just from the rock it is built on. Let’s make access t Edinburgh impossible on health grounds.

    Ditto in Cornwall. Radon Gas,

    in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1370941
    RobAnt
    Participant

    as far as I know it’s simply not possible for a member of the public to simply ‘sign your life’ away as I imagine many aviation fans would

    Surely it is a matter of the individual taking responsibility for themselves, based on the fact that there is a known hazard, of which that individual is being warned. I can see no reason why I should be patronised on the basis that someone else thinks it is good for me. If I am willing to take the “risk”, and I am willing to forgoe my right to litigation, then that is my affair.

    That kind of attitude, frankly, makes me mad. If someone else is smoking, and causing an unnecessary hazard to me, without my agreement, then I would, quite rightly, be quite annoyed. But as long as I am being warned about the possible hazard, I believe I have the right to take responsibility for myself.

    in reply to: Visit To BBMF Hangar #1371524
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Look, I’m at the back end of this – please stop bumping me up the behind. I’m not like that.

    😉

    in reply to: "We should name a town after our spitfire inventor" #1371528
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Money, moolah, smackeroonies. That’s what it takes these days, and football seems have more than it’s fair share.

    in reply to: Health and Safety strikes again… #1371532
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Exactly how much exposure to a luminous dial would one need to suffer any kind of permanent, serious, damage?

    Many WWII pilots, and civil pilots over a much great period of time, live(d) well into their eighties without significant health problems caused by this – but were those pilots that live(d) to ripe old ages people who only few for less than 1 hour (the typical length of time endured by a visitor). Somehow I think not! They couldn’t have even learned how to start the engine – let alone fly the things. This particular rule/law is patronising and requires urgent review. A simple indemnity form should suffice anyway.

    If the RULE is there to protect the supervisory staff, then an “hours accumulated in the presence of” system would, I am sure, allay (if that’s the word I want) many fears.

    in reply to: Visit To BBMF Hangar #1372513
    RobAnt
    Participant

    oh if only we lived in lincolnshire and not swindon i would definately go what a great opputunity for a teenager.
    rob:p

    Well, I guess you’re pretty much enroute from Plymouth – I could offer a lift (it’s only a 2 seater Honda CRX – so no room for more passengers).

    in reply to: "We should name a town after our spitfire inventor" #1373415
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Nice idea but I’m sure we can do better than that.

    Sounds like the sort of kid who’d enjoy sitting in a Spitfire to me. We have enough connections to arrange a selection for him to sit in, do we not?

    Well how about it BBMF – you’ve got a do on for some of us forumites in March/April – I’m sure we’d all contribute towards getting him and a parent to visit at the same time.

    Sorry I didn’t see this thread earlier, though.

    in reply to: Visit To BBMF Hangar #1373427
    RobAnt
    Participant

    PM and email sent – hope I’m not too late !!

    in reply to: Readers Letters #1374157
    RobAnt
    Participant

    He can go suck a spitfire then!!!! Very “lemon like” I don’t think.

    in reply to: What can I do in historic aviation? #1374162
    RobAnt
    Participant

    hear hear 🙂

    or is that

    here here 🙂

    or maybe

    ear ear!

    in reply to: What can I do in historic aviation? #1374177
    RobAnt
    Participant

    And a craving for Cornish Pasties…;)

    Flood

    The smell of sweaty armpits (pasties) haunts me daily 🙁

    Frankly, I’d love to give up my job (in Plymouth’s Pannier Market – selling computer networks) to do something (anything except cleaning loos) on an active airfield – especially where there are historic planes around – too.

    The only problem is, I would need to be paid 🙁 in order to finance my terribly destitute lifestyle, but enormous debts.

    in reply to: Wednesday:- Duxford whos coming? #1375678
    RobAnt
    Participant

    Could do with a day off, but sadly can’t make it 🙁

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 1,792 total)