Thread: 4wd to Forbes Hut - Clarence River

You can argue the rights and wrongs all day long, but in this case if you don't pay ya money, you dont go
Simple as that

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Always hear this from the lawyers! "Year sure you will win"!
Its not there money there putting in the game!
Come back with some cases law on the subject and we might have the answer. Till then health and saftey have you the farmer by the balls.

I never said that and no lawyer I know will ever guarantee a "win." Even highly competent people have bad days, and lawyers are specialist in covering their arses.

So frankly your talking horseshit...

Originally Posted by Padox

Ain't no farm boy mate and the fact u said use to b states that u are no longer up with the times regs have changed 3 times in last 2 years

I said that "I have been both" but I didn't say I had finished either, did I now chap? Given that there appears no evidence of legal capacity in yourself, with the struggling to read and not being no farm boy, one wonders at your value to either end of this discussion. So how about you show me the money mate... by the way the word you are looking for is legislation and/or case law, not regulation.

The case law is old... Berryman .. where the court determined the following...

(1) "Place of work" involves a degree of frequency in the activity and involves something more than working in a transitory sense. Therefore farm tracks and access ways will generally not be "places of work" for visitors.

Sort of what I said twernt it.....

The "workplace" has not been redefined by changes in legislation, nor by other case law so far as I am aware. Regulation is subject to legislation so unless the law has changed, or recent case law has specified that we change the way it is applied, then the definition of workplace is still the same as in Berryman.

Perhaps a more recent commentary via Duncan Cotterill will clarify the position that you argue as being incorrect... and this even extends to commercial operators on otherwise farmer owned land. The farmer is unaffected by the activities of other businesses unless the work that the farm carries out has direct effect on the incident in question.

http://https://duncancotterill.com/p...lth-and-safety

It also reinforces that the critical issue is always going to be whether the incident happens in the "workplace" which is clearly related to whether work is occurring in it at the time, or whether the work done has material effect on the incident.

Again the act of granting access with or, does not turn the whole farm into a place of work for those intending to use it for unsupervised personal recreational access. With or without a fee paid for such access. That interpretation is consistent with the opinion that I previously outlined..

But what the heck, its only the law and not some second hand anectdote from some distant neighbour of a cousin who actually merited responsibility because they actually had done something that caused the event in the course of their normal work..... and nothing to do with an access fee at all - and you would know the difference ... right?

Originally Posted by Edunn

Gidday there team.

Has anyone driven the 4wd track to forbes hut by the Clarence River?

Any tips and/or tricks much appreciated.

Elliott

Formerly called the Seymour Hut. No real problem getting into unless heavy rain occurs, the clay in places on the sticks to everything and clogs up the best of tyres, very slippery.Just keep your wits about you, it's a reasonable way down to the bottom in places if go over the side.

Originally Posted by Sidney

I said that "I have been both" but I didn't say I had finished either, did I now chap? Given that there appears no evidence of legal capacity in yourself, with the struggling to read and not being no farm boy, one wonders at your value to either end of this discussion. So how about you show me the money mate... by the way the word you are looking for is legislation and/or case law, not regulation.

The case law is old... Berryman .. where the court determined the following...

(1) "Place of work" involves a degree of frequency in the activity and involves something more than working in a transitory sense. Therefore farm tracks and access ways will generally not be "places of work" for visitors.

Sort of what I said twernt it.....

The "workplace" has not been redefined by changes in legislation, nor by other case law so far as I am aware. Regulation is subject to legislation so unless the law has changed, or recent case law has specified that we change the way it is applied, then the definition of workplace is still the same as in Berryman.

Perhaps a more recent commentary via Duncan Cotterill will clarify the position that you argue as being incorrect... and this even extends to commercial operators on otherwise farmer owned land. The farmer is unaffected by the activities of other businesses unless the work that the farm carries out has direct effect on the incident in question.

http://https://duncancotterill.com/p...lth-and-safety

It also reinforces that the critical issue is always going to be whether the incident happens in the "workplace" which is clearly related to whether work is occurring in it at the time, or whether the work done has material effect on the incident.

Again the act of granting access with or, does not turn the whole farm into a place of work for those intending to use it for unsupervised personal recreational access. With or without a fee paid for such access. That interpretation is consistent with the opinion that I previously outlined..

But what the heck, its only the law and not some second hand anectdote from some distant neighbour of a cousin who actually merited responsibility because they actually had done something that caused the event in the course of their normal work..... and nothing to do with an access fee at all - and you would know the difference ... right?

What's ur address il send u the 6" thick h&s book on my desk so what ur saying is I should b locking gates round here and charging for the track to get to the Doc walking tracks

@Sidney. All the time I’ve seen your handle pop up, it seems you’re anti rural, or just anti (insert appropriate issue)
I’ll take a page out of your book, and make a wild assumption and make it a fact. You were jilted at the alter by a rich farmers solo daughter and been anti farmer since.
We banged heads in the other pub many moons ago. You were spouting BS about a subject with quotes and your own opinion. I bantered for abit, and many times had quotes which totally contradicted your “facts”. Before I posted, I remembered a saying my late grandfather used to say, and then deleted the posts.

Never argue with idiots, they’ll only drag you down to their level.

When money changes hands for a service or any such thing, a contract is entered, and a whole new set of rules and regs come into play.
While the farmer may technically be in the right, if something happens, someone’s arse is going to get nailed. The crown have a much bigger piggy bank than the average person, so right or wrong they normally win.
The property we recently sold had a creek running through it. We had a number of people walking across private property and doing whatever they did in amongst the trees at all hours of the day and night. I asked Worksafe what are the consequences if something happened, even though they were trespassing. I was liable, so should put a big fence up to stop them. A word with my lawyer about it and he said off the record if I found anyone there dispose of the body or remove from property.
Another quote from my grandfather which is probably appropriate here as well.

When discussing something you’re not 100% sure about, it’s better to keep mouth shut, and be thought an idiot.
Rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt.

Interesting conflicting debate ?

Who is responsible if there is a accident on this road if money changes hands ?

Jeez fellas - sounds like you need to get out for a hunt. Preferably somewhere you don't have to pay for vehicle access.

I was pretty keen to hear about that track. For the most part, I did. Sounds like it's a goer as long as there isn't too much rain. Of course, I'll be taking chains in case. Thanks to all those who have provided advice - has definitely helped.

I'll try my best to not fall off the track so we don't have to find out who of @Padox and @Sidney is correct.

Oh looks like your the one talking horse shit now chap

Why so anti? I only ask for you to back up your point with some case law and you come out with me talking horse shit?
Touch a nerve? Think so chap

Originally Posted by Edunn

Jeez fellas - sounds like you need to get out for a hunt. Preferably somewhere you don't have to pay for vehicle access.

I was pretty keen to hear about that track. For the most part, I did. Sounds like it's a goer as long as there isn't too much rain. Of course, I'll be taking chains in case. Thanks to all those who have provided advice - has definitely helped.

I'll try my best to not fall off the track so we don't have to find out who of @Padox and @Sidney is correct.

Enjoy your trip. Admire the scenery that is on offer while crossing over, as its a great drive. The trip down the river to the Clarence has a few huts worth stopping at, especially the Poplars. You sound well prepared and clever enough not to get yourself in the shit

Originally Posted by oraki

@Sidney. All the time I’ve seen your handle pop up, it seems you’re anti rural, or just anti (insert appropriate issue)
I’ll take a page out of your book, and make a wild assumption and make it a fact. You were jilted at the alter by a rich farmers solo daughter and been anti farmer since.
We banged heads in the other pub many moons ago. You were spouting BS about a subject with quotes and your own opinion. I bantered for abit, and many times had quotes which totally contradicted your “facts”. Before I posted, I remembered a saying my late grandfather used to say, and then deleted the posts.

Never argue with idiots, they’ll only drag you down to their level.

When money changes hands for a service or any such thing, a contract is entered, and a whole new set of rules and regs come into play.
While the farmer may technically be in the right, if something happens, someone’s arse is going to get nailed. The crown have a much bigger piggy bank than the average person, so right or wrong they normally win.
The property we recently sold had a creek running through it. We had a number of people walking across private property and doing whatever they did in amongst the trees at all hours of the day and night. I asked Worksafe what are the consequences if something happened, even though they were trespassing. I was liable, so should put a big fence up to stop them. A word with my lawyer about it and he said off the record if I found anyone there dispose of the body or remove from property.
Another quote from my grandfather which is probably appropriate here as well.

When discussing something you’re not 100% sure about, it’s better to keep mouth shut, and be thought an idiot.
Rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt.

The idiots are coming out...

The existence of a contract does not change the normal nature of work for a workplace farm or not. The normal nature of work for a farm is not to recieve income for grant permission to access.

I don't spend anytime in pubs mate, so never talked to you and unlikely to given I don't bother with idiots who can't read or understand...

Your advice was substandard, not comprehensive and no-one in this country has been prosecuted in this country for granting recreational access, fee or not.

Worksafe are the last people to ask for opinions, tantamount to asking police for their interpretation of firearms law.

Originally Posted by Huntfisheat

"I said that "I have been both" but I didn't say I had finished either, did I now chap?'
"Been both chap"

Both quotes from Sidney.
So, if you haven't finished either, you have never been a lawyer, as you have to qualify to earn that title. You are, however, as evidenced by your own words, a fully qualified bullshitter, clearly and obviously. Congratulations. Shot yourself in the foot again. With that record, I do hope you're not currently in possession of an FAL.

Now this is just funny...

I'll write this slowly so you can keep up....

"Been both" is past tense, if "having been" then clearly there is no justification for stating that I never was. The sentence may appear ambiguous to you when it continues "but I didn't say I had finished either" but that is in reference to "having been" not "having been qualified" so clearly you are not capable of reading words and understanding them.

Having been, does not indicate that I am not presently, so you cannot assume what I am currently.... and seeing as the competence of the critic that comes to play, seems to like bad cliches.... best not make an ass of yourself by assuming.

Unlike yourself and the other highly competants, I am actually qualified so wind yourself backwards, and go away until you can actually understand the discussion.

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Oh looks like your the one talking horse shit now chap

Why so anti? I only ask for you to back up your point with some case law and you come out with me talking horse shit?
Touch a nerve? Think so chap

No you didn't you spent some time stating what lawyers do and say, and plainly you don't know what you are talking about. By any definition that is horseshit. It you want legislative and or case law clarification it is perfectly possible to just ask for that without the wanking on that accompanied it.

Originally Posted by Padox

What's ur address il send u the 6" thick h&s book on my desk so what ur saying is I should b locking gates round here and charging for the track to get to the Doc walking tracks

That would be the manual created by yourselves and your consultant to mitigate risk, perceived or imaginary, rather than a definitive legal opinion?

Seriously mate?

Look what you and others are not understanding is the when the average joe asks for a legal opinion, he is actually asking for a pragmatic solution.

I have given you a legal opinion, (that none of you are entitled to rely on) on the position that the courts would tend to apply given a set of facts involving a simple fee to gain access for unsupervised recreation access, without other complicating factors.

Now that is the position but other facts always play a part, and collecting a fee can be another fact that has bearing on whether or not the farm would be considered a workplace for people other than employees entering.

To avoid risk, people take your position - but that does not mean that your legal application is correct. Nor theirs.

It appears to me that when the average punter asks for legal advice, he should first seek to understand the law, and then apply the law in an appropriate manner according to his level of risk tolerance. You appear to be trying to argue the law from your position of pragmatic response but frankly you are incorrect.

But one thing we all agree on, is that to make the argument is stressful, costly and time consuming.

Originally Posted by Edunn

Jeez fellas - sounds like you need to get out for a hunt. Preferably somewhere you don't have to pay for vehicle access.

I was pretty keen to hear about that track. For the most part, I did. Sounds like it's a goer as long as there isn't too much rain. Of course, I'll be taking chains in case. Thanks to all those who have provided advice - has definitely helped.

I'll try my best to not fall off the track so we don't have to find out who of @Padox and @Sidney is correct.

You'll be fine as long as you don't get a torrential downpour, which is highly unlikely. Throw a shovel in with your chains.
Used to be a lot of pigs in the Elliot before it got poisoned but I daresay there's still a few hanging around and I've shot Chamois on the clockface above Quail flat. Have a great trip