Did you know Palm Trees are as dangerous as tigers?

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
This week's sign the apocalypse is upon us. . . ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/10/npalm10.xml

"Colin Charlwood, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: "The truth is that, like everything else, health and safety regulations mean we have to be mindful that palm trees could be dangerous.

"What if one of those leaves caught a child in the eye, for example? It is a little bit like keeping tigers: they are beautiful to look at but you wouldn't want them wandering the streets. What is being suggested is not that we don't have them, but that they need to be placed out of harm's way." Mr Excell said the trees were vital to the resort's identity."
 

Masterphil

DRN's Resident Lunatic
Member
Aug 3, 2004
1,003
0
This is bull**** if Ive ever heard it!
Maybe we should pump the oceans into space so people stop being drowned by them. Gotta love how passive voice puts blame to the trees...
 

FruDaddy

Member
Aug 21, 2005
2,854
0
OK, round up all the palm trees, and get the pines while you are at it, and put them in that cage over there. Then go get the rose bushes and put them in the other one. Then they can't hurt anybody else. :ahhh:
I'm sorry, if it has a point, it can poke somebody. If you don't see the point, it could be you.
 

gargamel

Member
Nov 18, 2005
40
0
WOW and I thought the USA was screwed up. I guess the dumbness is worldwide :coocoo:

What's next, everyone wear protective gear just to go outside LOL
 

rickyd

Hot Sauce
Oct 28, 2001
3,447
0
My parents neighbor has a big palm tree, about 65' i would guess.. The dead palms never get trimmed and sometimes fall during some decent wind.. I wouldnt want too see a kid get hit by one..
 

rickyd

Hot Sauce
Oct 28, 2001
3,447
0
I guess a kid cant play out in front when the leaves land in your driveway, on your roof, in the side yard, backyard etc..
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Maybe kids should stop climbing trees to, because that evil gravity might make them fall.

I wonder how many board feet are in an average Palm tree, and if the lumber is marketable. If profitable we should clear cut all the palms in order to save the children :whoa:

The madness to think that the natives hundreds of years ago might have thatched roofs with those leaves, my God the horror those kids must have felt living in such an unhealthy environment. I bet they all needed Ridalin :coocoo:
 

rickyd

Hot Sauce
Oct 28, 2001
3,447
0
I just worry about my Niece when shes at her Granparents, she dont climb trees.. Yhe tree isnt so bad, its that it never gets all the dead palms trimmed.. Plus, it probably was planted there, not native..

At one time i can remember reading that palm trees got a decent dollar amount for areas like business parks, they would pay you for the tree and remove it from your yard and re-plant it somewhere
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
robwbright said:
It's always for the kids . . .
Apparently they don't have parents anymore.

Oh yeah - I forgot - the government can always cite the legal doctrine of parens patriae to do whatever they want to "protect" your children.

The government's interpretation of what is within its authority under this legal doctrine has been expanding at a rather high rate of speed in recent times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

"In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to usurp the rights of the natural parent, legal guardian or informal carer, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection, such as a child whose parents are unable or unwilling to take care of him or her, or an incapacitated and dependent individual."

For those that are interested in the fact that Court's have held that the government has sovereign power over your children:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/6e.htm

"The 1840 case Mercein v. People produced a stunning opinion by Connecticut’s Justice Paige—a strain of radical strong-state faith straight out of Hegel:

"The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of the government. . . with the coming of civil society the father’s sovereign power passed to the chief or government of the nation."

A part of this power was then transferred back to both parents for the convenience of the State. But their guardianship was limited to the legal duty of maintenance and education, while absolute sovereignty remained with the State."

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

"Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in his decision in the Gault case:

The idea of crime and punishment was to be abandoned. The child was to be “treated” and “rehabilitated and the procedures, from apprehension through institutionalization, were to be “clinical” rather than punitive.

These results were to be achieved, without coming to conceptual and constitutional grief, by insisting that the proceedings were not adversary, but that the State was proceeding as parens patriae (the State as parent). The Latin phrase proved to be a great help to those who sought to rationalize the exclusion of juveniles from the constitutional scheme; but its meaning is murky and its historical credentials are of dubious relevance.

. . . The right of the State, as parens patriae, to deny the child procedural rights available to his elders was elaborated by the assertion that a child, unlike an adult, has a right “not to liberty but to custody.” . . . If his parents default in effectively performing their custodial functions—that is if the child is “delinquent”—the state may interfere. In doing so, it does not deprive the child of any rights, because he has none. It merely provides the “custody” to which the child is entitled. On this basis, proceedings involving juveniles were described as “civil” not “criminal” and therefore not subject to the requirements which restrict the State when it seeks to deprive a person of his liberty."

http://www.familycourtreform.org/id9.html

"Under the English common law, the father was entitled to the custody of his children by legal right."

"The Illinois Supreme Court, in a sweeping judgement, ruled in 1882:

It is the unquestioned right and imperative duty of every enlightened government, in its character of parens patriae, to protect and provide for the comfort and well-being of such of it's citizens as, by reason of infancy, defective understanding, or other misfortune or infirmity, are unable to take care of themselves. The performance of this duty is justly regarded as one of the most important of governmental functions, and all constitutional limitations must be so understood and construed so as not to interfere with --- its proper and legitimate exercise. (6).

With the Constitutional floodgates down and the family legally disarmed, the welfare state began seeping in."

And also - an interesting take on the development of the law . . .

http://usa-the-republic.com/emergency powers/Who Is Running America_files/parensp.html
 
Top Bottom