Posted By Jim Walker Sorry I'm a bit vague on details, someone else will come along in a moment: There was a case a while ago where someone injured themselves diving into a pond in a park or something. Resultant case decided that the "owner" had no responsibility to this person - I'd assume therefore your organisation has no responsibility to these yobs.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze The case Jim refers to is Tomlinson v Congleton BC. A summary of the appeal appears here: http://www.bailii.org/cg...ery=Congleton&method=all

Posted By Jeffrey Watt Jan I hate these cases. I think you are doing the right thing by going through the sensible options. I would probably ask myself if the pits can be boarded over at night, would that be reasonable in the circumstances, knowing we have an ongoing problem with trespassers. Extra lighting at night has a cost (money and pollution)but could discourage drink/drug taking in the area. Are there secluded areas caused by vegetation that could be made more open to natural surveillance by topping hedges etc. Google "Secure by design" to get a few free guides on deterring nocturnal visitors of the non Bill Oddie variety. Kind regards, hope that kicks off other possibilities for you. Jeff

Posted By Gerry Lapington Jan Yesterday I and a colleague visited a historic castle and other sites in North Wales to advise our country side staff on H&S controls (we are employed by a local authority). We faced similar issues to those you describe i.e. low walls that are the remnants of high buildings, moat trench, steep inclines, possibility of people climbing and falling, potential for falling masonry despite it being professionally restored and secured, nocturnal visitors\vandals etc. These sites are open access and generally unmanned. The advice we gave is similar to what you are describing and based on actions that we consider to be reasonable, we also have to consider the restraints imposed by CADW and National Heritage. We advised signage (pictogram's) on the way posts, info boards and on some structures telling people not to climb the structures. These signs are discreet, vandal resistant and fit in with the general atmosphere of the place but are clear and obvious enough to present a message. At the formal entrances to the sites we advise notices that recognise our ownership and control, that we have identified hazards and controlled them so far as is reasonably practicable, that some risk remains and it is for the visitor to take reasonable care and supervise children. The sites concerned cannot be accidentally accessed, it requires some determination to get there so unaccompanied young children are unlikely to be there. We advised against fencing due to control and maintenance issues plus they invite climbing if not well designed and design is a major issue when putting anything into historic sites. Part of our thought process was to look at the accident\history for the sites, since there was no record of any incidents including press reports we felt it reasonable to take the low probability position in our R.A. We have previously run this advice past our insurers and legal team who are comfortable with the actions. If the worst happens we have a position that we can defend because of the thought process that has been followed and recorded. Hope this helps. Gerry

Posted By Jim Walker Damn! - The spiel chuck altered Slatey to salty!

Posted By Jan Moore Thanks for all your help. Gerry, we seem to have a mirror image situation. I have contacted the LA Youth Service for that particular area to see whether there are any activities that would keep these b****s occupied. I can see these little scallywags use hammers and chisels because of the neat breaking of stonework and carvings such as "Wayne luvs Kylie" (which I don't think is a remnant of a medieval love affair). Thanks again Jan