New precedent on Gov liability.

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:28:51 GMT

Note that I have started a thread specifically to talk about Coonowrin status

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:55:49 GMT

Thanks, will let you know.
I have made progress and will report something asap, I assure you.
Rob

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (Mark Gamble) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:58:19 GMT

Thanks Rob, excellent initiative.

If I can help or lend my voice as support in some way, let me know.

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:41:46 GMT

Hi, quick update. (Always hard to find time to fit in any non-work non-home-life things.)
I agree that (at this stage) there's no immediate reason to think "conspiracy". I'm thinking - overworked, underfunded, legal-liability-phobic.
I got a copy of the original Geo report on the way from the GH EPA ranger at Sun' Coast (which I will figure out how to make available once I see it) ... contacts as follows (for info):
Shamus Conway
A/District Manager,...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (thisrod) — Thu, 31 May 2007 16:15:20 GMT

Of course, again I'm only speculating here, and everything I say must be viewed as just that...speculations

Terry, I assumed Crookneck was a stuff-up rather than a conspiracy. The hints you're dropping about collusion between a mining company, the local council, farmers and the state government sound like a 4 Corners episode. Have you thought about making some freedom of information requests to get evidence of all this?

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Thu, 31 May 2007 15:36:01 GMT

Just letting you know that I have had some useful feedback from the Dept, including some legal and history notes and an offer of a copy of the actual Geo report - not sure what the most practical way to share that is? I'll mail again as soon as I can about what was said and what I'm doing next.

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Sat, 19 May 2007 12:46:12 GMT

Wombby,
I'll answer in the "Meet the Memebers" forum sometime in the next few days. I've got kid-minding tricks to perform at present.
Rob [surname removed].
Climbed at a moderate level (21+-), mostly KP and GH, never outside SEQ, since high school in 1981, no deeds or public profile of any note. Elaborate more later in MtM.

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Sat, 19 May 2007 12:31:07 GMT

Terry S, your precis of Crookneck usage patterns is what I also think to be so. Some ideas about political lobby groups is probably also accurate.
My approach to the Dept at present is that I am purely looking at what the specific problems are with accessing the area, attmpting to define them clearly, and then using an administrative/management/engineering approach to resolving the problems.
"Simon" seemed prepared to listen to this approach and work with it. He also...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (TerryS) — Sat, 19 May 2007 11:49:44 GMT

Don't you guys get it? Crookneck was probably never closed for reasons sited (i.e. liability issues do to unstable rock). The issue is way more political than that, and at present everyone up and around Crookneck is very happy with the no-go zone except for a minority of climbers and bushwalkers. Let's face it, Crookneck is not for everyone. I dare say 90% of QLD climbers would never venture to Crookneck for climbing except maybe once for the easiest of routes, and the same goes for...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (wombby) — Sat, 19 May 2007 11:19:35 GMT

The recent court case is actually not a new precedent. About 2yrs ago there was a landmark decision in this sort of area - outdoor recreation.

A chap who had become quadra/para-plegic tried to sue the Bondi City Council on the basis that their signage at Bondi beach was at fault. He had dived in to the surf outside of the flags marking safe zones, and hit a sandbank and broke his neck.

His case was rejected on the same basis: ultimately it was his responsibility and not that...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (wombby) — Sat, 19 May 2007 10:54:57 GMT

Ribmanq,

Mind if I ask who you (Rob) are? You're cutting your Qurank teeth on this thread, but your posts are anything but that of a newbie.

Cheers
Mark

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:31:16 GMT

"Simon" initially did not know why it had been closed and asked if it might have been to do with Aboriginal sacredness. I believe that some areas in NSW are closed due to this. I would not be trying to pull on any sort of "stunt" to legitimate access other than to claim that it is reasonable use of a public space, that it is harmful to no-one or nothing, other than a marginal chance of one's self, and that managing personal accidental self-harm of well-informed users is...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (Pt Zell) — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:59:11 GMT

Hmmm

Anyone remember the huge debacle about 12 years ago over the macca tribe seeking and gaining land rights over a section on Fraser Island?? They applied for and were granted the area until someone found out they were a "Mc Donald" family who had been visiting and camping on the island since the great grandfathers days. Twice a year for feasts and rituals.. It caused such a stir and they got into some trouble but it highlighted flaws in the government...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:05:04 GMT

Out of general frustration with the duration of this closure and with no prospect of an unprovoked reopening, I've asked "Simon" at the MP's office this morning to look into whether the Townsville diving case sets a strong enough precedent to alleviate their concerns about liability.
In his conversation I noted that climbers were not big on political lobbying by nature and he noted that he can't recall ever being lobbied by climbers, or a group of, over access issues.
He did...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (thisrod) — Fri, 18 May 2007 11:38:42 GMT

ribmanq:
Does anyone think there's any new possibility in this precedent for lobbying for a re-think on access, or am I on my own?

It's a hook for you to write a letter to your MP. The idea that the government would be liable for loose rock hitting a climber is fantastic, and I'm sure no one in power has ever taken it seriously. It is a convenient excuse, particularly when the town has one newspaper and you've had a decade to...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (TerryS) — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:10:03 GMT

Brat

I have a distinct feeling that actually was a good comment, but I can't for the life of me make any sense of it. Could you try again for us a bit slow off the mark

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (brat) — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:05:57 GMT

Why are surfers allowed to surf dangerous breaks and climbers get banned in a wink, think about all those beard stroking traddies and their "ethics", then take a step back and imagine the same narrow mindedness embodied in a conservationist, they're only tree huggers without balls!

They haven't figured out how to ban people from the water on asthetic grounds.....yet!

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:50:47 GMT

Appreciate the comment.
A comment passed to me at the time of closure was that the sequence of events was:
1/ Local residents complain to Gov about quarrying at Beerwah , esp blasting shaking their houses.
2/ Some bright spark decides to say that the blasting shakes Crookneck increasing damage to the WORLD HERITAGE mountain.
3/ Gov (in the pocket of the Mining Co, as all Gov is) commissions Geo report.
4/ Geo report (also in the pocket etc) says "blasting doesn't...

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (TerryS) — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:29:58 GMT

ribmanq

Probably not as long as the 'mine' is operative. I don't believe for a second that Crookneck was closed for "public safety".

note! my comments are purely 'speculative'

sure

Re: New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:15:17 GMT

Does anyone think there's any new possibility in this precedent for lobbying for a re-think on access, or am I on my own? (and perhaps kidding myself that this makes a difference?)
I thought it might have some traction ... ?

New precedent on Gov liability.

feeds@yuku.com (ribmanq) — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:04:23 GMT

I hope this means we can start a new round of lobbying to re-open access to cliffs closed due to injury-suit concerns.
My special hope: Crookneck.

=========
couriermail.news.com.au/s...public_rss
=========

State not liable for dive injury
=====================

Mark Oberhardt

May 16, 2007...