Removing snow outside your house

I've been hearing and reading about this a lot lately with our snowy weather and wonder what people think. In the UK, it seems to be taken for granted that if you clear the pavements outside your house you are liable to be sued if anyone slips and falls. I think that's absolutely crazy! The people at the BBC have obviously noticed this discussion on forums and twitter too because they've got an article about it in BBC News Magazine: Is it your civic duty to clear snow? Local authorities in the UK are responsible for gritting and salting public roads and pavements, but what about your own path and the pavement in front of your home? Is it your civic duty to keep them clear for others? In fact, you are taking a theoretical legal risk if you clear the pavement in front of your home. It's worth noting a glimmer of sense in the article: But, Paul Kitson, a partner with leading personal injury solicitors Russell Jones & Walker, explains that a claimant would have to show you had acted either maliciously or carelessly, and that such a case would often be tricky in practice. So there you have it. It seems like a crazy country if people have to be afraid to clear their pavements (sidewalks) in front of their property in case they are sued. I just don't understand this mentality at all. As the BBC article points out, it's your legal duty to clear your sidewalks in Minneapolis (Minnesota). So if you live in the UK, what do you do? Do you go ahead and clear the pavement in front of your house, even though there is a theoretical legal risk? Or do you leave the snow and ice there? What about where you live? What are the laws regarding snow removal outside your property? Update: Edited to add a link to an article in The Telegraph on Saturday 9 Jan, 2010 Healthy and safety experts warn: don't clear icy pavements, you could get sued Pavements are being left covered in ice because of “ludicrous” laws that put home owners and businesses at risk of being sued if they try to clear them.

British Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity

I twittered (posted on Twitter) the link to this story in the Guardian yesterday: Publish and be named: Police blogger NightJack loses anonymity High court says detective constable had 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' in landmark ruling for bloggers I thought for sure there would be a debate on Twitter about the repercussions of this case but I was disappointed at the lack of response about it. Perhaps people don't realize the implications. Personally, I prefer to blog anonymously just because I don't think it's necessary for everyone to know my full name but if I did have to reveal my identity it wouldn't be any big deal. However, there are many other bloggers who are posting about their professions and are servng as vital whistleblowers when they expose injustices and wrong-doings. If these bloggers no longer have a right to privacy and feel threatened, I would expect many such blogs will suddenly disappear. In fact it should come as no surprise to learn that the NightJack blog has now been deleted. What are your thoughts about this case? Do you agree with the ruling? Do you blog anonymously? Would you continue blogging if you had to reveal your identity?

Foreign drivers in UK face £900 roadside fines

Foreign drivers face £900 roadside fines to halt rise in crashes Foreign drivers will have to pay on-the-spot fines of up to £900 for flouting traffic laws under new legislation to be introduced next month. If they do not have enough cash or a working credit card their vehicles will be clamped until they pay — and they will face an additional £80 release fee. (link timesonline.co.uk) I think it's about time foreign drivers be held accountable for their driving offences in the UK! Currently, drivers from outside the UK are rarely prosecuted because police cannot pursue them if they don't respond to a summons. Why should foreign drivers be able to break British laws (and potentially put other motorists and pedestrians in danger) and get away with it? I hope this new law will be used vigourously. What are your thoughts about the new law?

DNA of four million on UK DNA database: biggest in world

This is depressing news: UK DNA database biggest in world (link via itpro.co.uk) The DNA of some four million UK citizens is held on a database, making it the biggest per capita in the world, according to a new report by a policing agency. The first annual report from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) has shown that as of March 2007 some 3.8 million people have a record on the DNA database, following a record jump in the number of new samples. Some 722,000 were added last year. Nearly 80 per cent of the records are for men, with 41 per cent aged 15-24. Even kids are in the mix, with eight per cent of the records for people aged under 14, the report showed. And I wish the people who believe in and support the DNA database would pay attention to this: While the report admitted that DNA doesn’t actually solve that many crimes, it stressed it is a “powerful contributor” when it can be used.

Authors unite against plans for 42-day detention

Authors Philip Pullman, Julian Barnes and Ian Rankin attack Labour over 42-day detention Forty two renowned British writers have joined forces to attack the Government over its plans to allow the detention of terror suspects without charge for up to 42 days. (link via telegraph.co.uk) 42 WRITERS FOR LIBERTY: part of Liberty’s urgent campaign, Charge or Release. The campaign opposes the Government’s current proposals to extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases from 28 to 42 days.