On 8/9/04 22:32, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Dear oh dear. Touched a nerve have I?

I'd say the boot is on the other foot, judging by your reaction.

What I was emphasising was to not
over-react to what is essentially, in legal terms, a trivial matter that
nobody with a reasonable amount of common sense would dream of litigating.
On the one hand you suggest a totally over the top reaction of going to the
CAB or a solicitor over a matter that should have been dealt without the
need for recourse to either.

Read what I wrote - they need to know where they stand in the light of
future events, too.

Neither I, nor anyone else involved in the
discussion, has made any claim to have a formal legal qualification. That
does not mean to say that none of us are ignorant of the law. You on the
other hand have made wild assumptions without any basis for them at all.
Furthermore you seem to think you are the only one entitled to an opinion
and that anybody else's opinion is worthless. More than a bit arrogant and
hypocritical I would say.


And you still fail to give your qualifications or the name of the legal firm
for which you work as a lawyer.
I'd say handing out legal advice without proof that you're qualified to do
so is more than arrogant, it's potentially dangerous for anyone who might
naively act upon it. Free advice from barrackroom lawyers is usually worth
exactly what you pay for it.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)