I am not to blame if anything happens to you.

An article in the Sunday Times today made me wonder about a point of law:

'Firefighters planning to stage a 47-hour walkout on bonfire night say they will not be to blame if anyone dies as a result of their industrial action.

The Fire Brigades Union shrugged off the possibility of a fatal incident on November 5, when stations typically receive five times the normal number of emergency calls, saying it would be the fault of “unreasonable” bosses for failing to meet their demands'
Last year in Africa, during industrial action, a Deputy MD in the company I work with was told (in writing):

"We cannot be held responsible for anything that happens to you [if you carry on with rejecting our demands]."

Where does one differentiate (in British law) between actual threat ("I will kill you if you do that") and implied threat ("If you do that I will not be responsible for your murder")?

My personal view is that they are one and the same, but I'd appreciate the views of any 'legal eagle' types out there.

Similar threads

Latest Threads