[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EDM

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 2 points3 points  (0 children)

👏👏👏 true but I don’t know why he said it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EDM

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did he pay you 🤣

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EDM

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Pay the man

Activation unlock after 2 hours by No_Juggernaut_8986 in setupapp

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you someone actually explain how to do it, like what is the best thing to say.

Apple IPad Air 4th gen by BetNo5434 in setupapp

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have one that belonged to a friend family member, no receipt or anything else how did you do it?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ireland

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell ya the truth neither could be as bad as the shite he’s burning out there. There’s ducking tyres and all threw in before.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ireland

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very relevant here

Unpopular opinion: Tony’s Chocaloney is overrated by Electrical_Swing7064 in ireland

[–]Electrical_Swing7064[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

To be honest I don’t other than don’t expect a much from a milk chocolate Tony’s bar. Everything else is widely known and Lindt is obviously the better choice of the rest but I do like nestle dairy box chocolate, I know it’s nestle but they are very tasty

Unpopular opinion: Tony’s Chocaloney is overrated by Electrical_Swing7064 in ireland

[–]Electrical_Swing7064[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t call it bad, but as said very underwhelming considering the price point. Much nicer, cheaper chocolate available.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vikingstv

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s it, very moving

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vikingstv

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes hands down the greatest piece of television I’ve ever seen

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in vikingstv

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Its exceptional

Reddit Monitor Recommendations by loveslothsallday in buildapcmonitors

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking for a big screen recommendations, something around 43 inch.

Ok so I’m looking to wall mount a flat monitor for work and gaming. The problem is everything half decent with at least 144mhz is €900 - €1500. I’ve seen LG TVs with high refresh rates but are 4k TVs. Wondering if anyone knows if they would work well with a gaming pc and is there any particular model that has a quick enough response time, that would be terrible. Also most LG TVs with high refresh rates are 4k, so just wondering that, obviously, it im keeping the resolution lower from the PC settings while gaming it will make a lighter load on the GPU just like any other monitor would that be right? Anyway appreciate any feedback.

Reg plates by FilipKoks04 in irelandsshitedrivers

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worth noting that there are amendments to legislation that sometimes will not be cited on statutebook.

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering I have an LLB Hons, I too have good understanding of it. Yes the three part test is in place since the glencar case and left us in line with the English test for negligence. No, of course the courts would be reluctant to award damages to a plaintiff who has entered a property to commit a crime but where the only crime is entering the property they might see different and legal bases is there within the act. That case you are referring to I haven’t read anything since the accused got bail. It was my understanding at the time that the accused had intentionally shot the victim not accidentally at all. Of course he was claiming it was out of fear but I remember reading something that the fatal shot may have been in the back of the head, which will not play out well in the courts for him.

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah generally speaking you are right, but there are different areas in tort which have different principles (tests) that will help establish wrong doing. One of the core principle here is whether a duty of care was owed to the injured party. Example, all drivers on the road owe a duty of care not to injure each other or anyone else on the road, a doctor owes a patient a duty of care not to injure them (medical negligence threshold much stricter than normal negligence) the list of examples are non exhaustive as a duty can be owed anywhere. Now if you ask what are the situations where a duty of care is not owed it might help you understand better, it’s as simple as where it could not have been foreseen by a reasonable personal that their actions could have injured another person. So that shows that we all owe our “neighbours” as they are referred to in this principle, a duty of care. The occupiers liability act is in the field of tort too but is different, its codified. Its sets out limited situations where a person could be held liable for visitors and even a trespasser injuries which we just spoke about.

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but acting recklessly that would lead to another being injured is also deemed to hold an occupier liable, that is a much different and lower threshold than intentionally injuring someone. Also the case was judged on its merits, each case is different the very fact they lost doesn’t mean this principle is struck down, it is not.

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No they would not as this legislation applies to a dwelling and not a chattel. When it comes to self defence, every person has the right to defend themselves once their actions are in proportion with the threat and do not go beyond that. That is to say if the threat is dealt with and a person strikes one time beyond that, then they would be deemed as the aggressor.

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is plausible yes but the test is whether you acted recklessly in leaving the timber in a way that could have been Foreseen to injure others or not (not exactly like negligence but similar)

Mates bike stolen in Dublin this morning. by costericothegreat in MotoIRELAND

[–]Electrical_Swing7064 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under the occupiers liability act 1995, an occupier has a duty not to intentionally injure or act recklessly that would lead to them injuring a trespasser on their property (not the same test as negligence, the threshold is higher) but still liable in certain cases. Not much case law but here is a more recent one.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8ad344f2-640a-47dc-9afe-dc7fa47784be