In alt.home.repair on Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:26:11 +0100 "gandalf"
posted:


"Terry" wrote in message
...
Do it your selfers/home repairers please help.
Six swings in local school yard suspended by chains. Good strong
commercially built equipment, built of galvanized tubing set into
the ground. Overall structure is fine.
Some teens deliberately swing seats up and over and around etc.
and tangle the chains them so swings become unusable.
Haven't we all done it, or tried, at some time? :-) Yeah, for
sure. You did so!
-----------

Parish is right. I was well-behaved too, and for that matter, I went
to public schools for 12 years in two cities and never even saw a
fight. Or vandalism. Or teasing. Admittedly this was the 50' and
60's but I don't think things have changed at either school. And we
had one girl who stuttered, and two who never knew the answer, and we
all sat their patiently until the teachers decided they had had enough
time to answer. Even though in the fifth grade I had heard the saying
"Children can be so cruel", I never saw it.

Presumably these teens do this outside of the school's normal hours. That being

But kids use playgrounds all weekend and after school too.

I think the school should hide snipers nearby and when the teenagers
have clearly started to do this, shoot 'em.

The rubber hose idea is good, assuming they don't slit the hose, and
most won't. But it should be done on both chains of a swing.
Normally the chain is straight during swinging (although you might
want to take some slow-motion video to confirm this, and save it for
the lawsuit), but even a small change that is applied to only one side
could set the swing to rolling sideways and knocking someone off.

Do one swing and see if the hose is stiff enough to keep.... it will
probably work the second time, but I'm not sure it will work the first
time and if it doesn't, it won't help

the case you could disable the swings and stop their 'fun' by threading a bar
through all the seats and then fixing that, at either end, to the galvanised
frame using motorbike locks.

OK I don't really expect you to shoot them. Maybe catch them.

Should work, should be cheap and reasonably easy to fit and remove, for those
with keys that is.

The integrity of the swing is not affected and neither is the playground surface
so you should avoid the very real problems regarding insurance and liability as
described by parish.





Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Mark wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:41:44 -0400, meirman
wrote:

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:26:11 +0100 "gandalf"
posted:


"Terry" wrote in message
...
Do it your selfers/home repairers please help.
Six swings in local school yard suspended by chains. Good strong
commercially built equipment, built of galvanized tubing set into
the ground. Overall structure is fine.
Some teens deliberately swing seats up and over and around etc.
and tangle the chains them so swings become unusable.
Haven't we all done it, or tried, at some time? :-) Yeah, for
sure. You did so!
-----------

Parish is right. I was well-behaved too, and for that matter, I went
to public schools for 12 years in two cities and never even saw a
fight. Or vandalism. Or teasing. Admittedly this was the 50' and
60's but I don't think things have changed at either school. And we
had one girl who stuttered, and two who never knew the answer, and we
all sat their patiently until the teachers decided they had had enough
time to answer. Even though in the fifth grade I had heard the saying
"Children can be so cruel", I never saw it.

Presumably these teens do this outside of the school's normal hours. That being

But kids use playgrounds all weekend and after school too.

I think the school should hide snipers nearby and when the teenagers
have clearly started to do this, shoot 'em.

The rubber hose idea is good, assuming they don't slit the hose, and
most won't. But it should be done on both chains of a swing.
Normally the chain is straight during swinging (although you might
want to take some slow-motion video to confirm this, and save it for
the lawsuit), but even a small change that is applied to only one side
could set the swing to rolling sideways and knocking someone off.

Do one swing and see if the hose is stiff enough to keep.... it will
probably work the second time, but I'm not sure it will work the first
time and if it doesn't, it won't help

the case you could disable the swings and stop their 'fun' by threading a bar
through all the seats and then fixing that, at either end, to the galvanised
frame using motorbike locks.

OK I don't really expect you to shoot them. Maybe catch them.

Should work, should be cheap and reasonably easy to fit and remove, for those
with keys that is.

The integrity of the swing is not affected and neither is the playground surface
so you should avoid the very real problems regarding insurance and liability as
described by parish.

Meirman

Save the hose to use on the teenagers? ;-)

Mark S.


Thanks for the replies. As I feared there is a lot of
apprehension about liability. Enough to discourage anyone from
doing anything! Although at my age my overall reputation is
either already made or already ruined!
{Just a moment officer, please ......} So I don't care as much
about that as I once did! But would be bloody nuisance to have
sell the house to pay a lawyer since I was a) Going to live in it
for a while yet and b) Give it to my son (if it's any use to
him).

For info; the swings are in an area open 24 hours, there are no
teaching staff after around 4.00 PM even when school is in
session. At this time of year even the maintenance staff are
doing repairs at various other schools or are on vacation! There
is no security staffing at all! There is a sign that says "Use at
own risk".

Oh, by the way there was a very interesting and, precedent
setting AFIK, legal case in Labrador-Newfoundland, Canada
recently, where the judge ordered the parents of a teenager
responsible for deliberate damage to a school to pay $7000 for
repairs. Right on!

While glad to hear/see everyone were such 'goody, goody two
shoes' while at school maybe some 'hell raiser' could reply with
some swinging suggestions?

Thanks everyone, so far anyway. Terry.

Mark wrote:

Save the hose to use on the teenagers? ;-)


alt.sex.rubberhose is down the hall on the right ;-)

Mark S.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:04:34 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com
wrote:

alt.sex.rubberhose is down the hall on the right ;-)

.......

Where'd everyone go all of a sudden?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

Terry wrote:

Hello Terry

T| Do it your selfers/home repairers please help.
T| Six swings in local school yard suspended by chains. Good
T| strong commercially built equipment, built of galvanized
T| tubing set into the ground. Overall structure is fine. Some
T| teens deliberately swing seats up and over and around
T| etc. and tangle the chains them so swings become
T| unusable. Haven't we all done it, or tried, at some time?

Not me!

(Didn't see me, can't prove anything)

T| :-) Yeah, for sure. You did so! Seeking suggestions as how
T| to make that very difficult and to do it easily without
T| major modifications, if possible? One idea so far is to put
T| something rigid within the links of the chain in the top few

Think of bike securing chains. They're encased in a plastic tube which
prevents tangling. I'd guess a thickish hose slid over the links would
still give enough flexibility to be usable, but prevent such tangling.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK
uk.d-i-y FAQ: http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/

"Terry" wrote
[galdalf wrote, up the thread]
| the case you could disable the swings and stop their 'fun' by threading a
bar
| through all the seats and then fixing that, at either end, to the
galvanised
| frame using motorbike locks.
| The integrity of the swing is not affected and neither is the playground
surface
| so you should avoid the very real problems regarding insurance and
liability as
| described by parish.

aol I agree /

| For info; the swings are in an area open 24 hours, there are no
| teaching staff after around 4.00 PM even when school is in
| session. At this time of year even the maintenance staff are
| doing repairs at various other schools or are on vacation! There
| is no security staffing at all!

It's probably only a few delinquents doing this regularly. If it is possible
to put in a temporary CCTV camera with video recording, it may be possible
to identify them and 'have a word'.

| There is a sign that says "Use at own risk".

Unfortunately (certainly in British law) you cannot limit or exclude
liability for death or injury.

Owain

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents, they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.
Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on this
ruling.
It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and nobody
wins.
Neil

Neil wrote:

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents, they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.

The same thing in the article in the paper; the guy featured had lots of
parents supporting him but only a few supporting the school.

Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on this
ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we live in a democracy where the
wishes of the majority prevail? Maybe the definition of democracy has
changed to be "the majority defer to the minority for fear of being sued".

Anyway, wouldn't the few parents of those who don't wish their children
to appear in photos/videos have to sue (or obtain an injunction against)
those taking the pictures?

It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and nobody
wins.

You are correct, but pictures (still or motion) of things like Sports
Days are a record of your child's life and something that many (most?)
parents would treasure.

When my father died recently I inherited reels and reels of 8mm cine
film (and the videos he'd had them transferred to) of my, and my
sister's, childhood - holidays, Sports Days, village fetes, etc.
Priceless IMO (my kids think they're hilarious). Why should any parent
be denied these memories?

Neil

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Neil wrote:

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual
Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for
all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents,
they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.

The same thing in the article in the paper; the guy featured had lots of
parents supporting him but only a few supporting the school.

Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on
this
ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we live in a democracy where the
wishes of the majority prevail? Maybe the definition of democracy has
changed to be "the majority defer to the minority for fear of being sued".

Anyway, wouldn't the few parents of those who don't wish their children
to appear in photos/videos have to sue (or obtain an injunction against)
those taking the pictures?

It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to
court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and
nobody
wins.

You are correct, but pictures (still or motion) of things like Sports
Days are a record of your child's life and something that many (most?)
parents would treasure.

When my father died recently I inherited reels and reels of 8mm cine
film (and the videos he'd had them transferred to) of my, and my
sister's, childhood - holidays, Sports Days, village fetes, etc.
Priceless IMO (my kids think they're hilarious). Why should any parent
be denied these memories?

Neil
I agree entirely. We have many treasured photos of our children taken over
the years, including some at school.
As you say, it's the majority deferring to the hysteria of the vocal
minority.
Perhaps parents who want to take pictures should (although I couldn't
possibly suggest ) take the photos / films regardless, and in any parent
objects just say they'll crop any pictures of their child ... or "sue me"
....
No doubt the school would step back, say "we said what we wanted" and let
the parents sort it out.
ho hum, such is (sometimes stoopid) life.
Neil

Neil wrote:

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Neil wrote:

"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual
Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for
all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents,
they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.

The same thing in the article in the paper; the guy featured had lots of
parents supporting him but only a few supporting the school.

Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on
this
ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we live in a democracy where the
wishes of the majority prevail? Maybe the definition of democracy has
changed to be "the majority defer to the minority for fear of being sued".

Anyway, wouldn't the few parents of those who don't wish their children
to appear in photos/videos have to sue (or obtain an injunction against)
those taking the pictures?

It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to
court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and
nobody
wins.

You are correct, but pictures (still or motion) of things like Sports
Days are a record of your child's life and something that many (most?)
parents would treasure.

When my father died recently I inherited reels and reels of 8mm cine
film (and the videos he'd had them transferred to) of my, and my
sister's, childhood - holidays, Sports Days, village fetes, etc.
Priceless IMO (my kids think they're hilarious). Why should any parent
be denied these memories?

Neil
I agree entirely. We have many treasured photos of our children taken over
the years, including some at school.
As you say, it's the majority deferring to the hysteria of the vocal
minority.
Perhaps parents who want to take pictures should (although I couldn't
possibly suggest ) take the photos / films regardless, and in any parent
objects just say they'll crop any pictures of their child ... or "sue me"

Of course the correct way to address this, assuming the objectors *are*
the minority, is for the school to allow those parents to withdraw their
children from the event(s). Of course I no doubt that these parents
would start bleating about their childrens' right to take part in the
activity.

I am of the firm belief that this country, if not the whole world, is
going bloody mad :-(

...
No doubt the school would step back, say "we said what we wanted" and let
the parents sort it out.
ho hum, such is (sometimes stoopid) life.
Neil

In alt.home.repair on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:29:06 +0100 "Neil"
posted:


"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
t...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents, they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.
Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on this
ruling.

I don't get it. Are they afraid the film will be used in Funniest
Home Videos? Or kiddie porn? Or what?


If they can't have cameras at some student sports events, what's this
I hear about there being a million video cameras in London (or
England?) at intersections, banks, public sidewalks, lobbies, halls,
etc?


It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and nobody
wins.
Neil




Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

In alt.home.repair on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:13:14 +0100 "Owain"
posted:

| There is a sign that says "Use at own risk".

Unfortunately (certainly in British law) you cannot limit or exclude
liability for death or injury.

Wouldn't work in the US either with children (below a certain age?)

Even when kids are trespassing, such as at your backyard swimming
pool. It's called an attractive nuisance. Insurance companies and
homeowners with any sense and any chance of a kid arriving insist on
fences around pools or around the yard the pool is in.

Owain



Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

In uk.d-i-y parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote:

ROFL. But that means you'd have to have an adult on the swing for the
video and would probably fall foul of some bye-law that says no-one over
the age of 10 can use the swings :-^

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

I thought it was a brilliant idea, it might mean that the parents
actually watched their children rather than spending vast amounts of
time and effort recording them for posterity and annoying everyone
else into the bargain. Video recorders at school events are a pain
in the backside.

--
Chris Green )

meirman wrote:

In alt.home.repair on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:29:06 +0100 "Neil"
posted:


"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
et...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents, they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.
Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on this
ruling.

I don't get it. Are they afraid the film will be used in Funniest
Home Videos? Or kiddie porn? Or what?


Certainly in the newspaper story I read there was no explicit reason
given but I would assume that paedophiles are the fear.


If they can't have cameras at some student sports events, what's this
I hear about there being a million video cameras in London (or
England?) at intersections, banks, public sidewalks, lobbies, halls,
etc?


And increasing all the time. Big brother is watching us.

The crazy thing is that the schools that have these bans almost
certainly still do official class/team/school photos and then offer them
for sale to the parents; so, if one of the parents is a paedo then they
get the pictures of the kids anyway, but the school makes some money
from it so I guess that makes it alright.


It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and nobody
wins.
Neil




Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

garden hose, or some type of hose thread chain through it.

Now, why didn't I think of that?

- Figmo

In alt.home.repair on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:14:47 +0000 parish
parish_AT_ntlworld.com posted:

meirman wrote:

In alt.home.repair on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:29:06 +0100 "Neil"
posted:


"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message
. net...
Stuart wrote:

Talking of videoing/filming kids there was a large article in our local
rag this week about a school whose governors had decreed that parents
weren't allowed to film (still or video) their kids at the annual Sports
Day. The article featured a guy who'd hidden in the bushes to film his
child.

If my kids school every imposes such a ban they had better damn well
have a High Court injunction to back it up.

Sad to say, the school my wife teaches at also has a similar ban - for all
activities.
Basically, to protect themselves against being sued by (idiot) parents, they
asked "if anyone objects please tell us".
A couple of parents did. So to be safe the blanket ban was issued.
Don't blame the school, or the head, blame the parents who insist on this
ruling.

I don't get it. Are they afraid the film will be used in Funniest
Home Videos? Or kiddie porn? Or what?


Certainly in the newspaper story I read there was no explicit reason
given but I would assume that paedophiles are the fear.


If they can't have cameras at some student sports events, what's this
I hear about there being a million video cameras in London (or
England?) at intersections, banks, public sidewalks, lobbies, halls,
etc?


And increasing all the time. Big brother is watching us.

So there are a million cameras in London?

The crazy thing is that the schools that have these bans almost
certainly still do official class/team/school photos and then offer them
for sale to the parents; so, if one of the parents is a paedo then they
get the pictures of the kids anyway, but the school makes some money
from it so I guess that makes it alright.

Yeah, I guess so. I"m sure your right (even if I asked Chris if s/he
were serious) but I don't quite get it.

Do they want videos of kids they don't know to use at home privately
(with no risk to the kid) or do they want to review the kids in detail
by video and come back to get one the following week?

When there was a group of girls years ago, I didn't need to take
movies and review them to decide which one I wanted to talk to.

It causes more trouble for the school than it does for the parents.
As regards High Court injunctions, please don't drag the school to court.
It just syphons money from the school to the lawyer's pockets, and nobody
wins.
Neil




Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.


Meirman

If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.

Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.