On 9/9/04 20:35, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Your first reply was a flat statement of fact for which you hold no
apparent qualifications. You wrote:

"The stamp manufacturer or supplier have no liability to him. The
flower show organisers may do but it will be very small. At most he
is entitled to value of his second-hand shirt which unless it is
something quite exceptional will be no more than £10 and probably
much less. He is not entitled to a new replacement."

The reply is a common sense one that is both accurate and appropriate. Yours
have simply shown a remarkable degree of stupidity and simply become a
series of personal attacks based on fantasy and you inability to read plain
English and comprehend it. Why should anyone consider your advice any better
than that given by others? Your own words show just amply illustrate your
hypocrisy and bigiotry, not to mention your contempt for anyone who
disagrees with you.


The stupidity is yours for trying to fool anyone into thinking you were able
to give advice. Contempt? For you, yes. Unlimited.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , Phil L
writes
Kay wrote:
:::
:: I don't buy that one! Someone tells me that if I want to enter a
:: show, I am going to have an ink stamp, which I don't want, on my
:: hand. And then I have to worry for the next several hours about
:: keeping my hand away from my clothing?
::
Not at all, if you don't want an ink stamp on your hand,
then you are
perfectly able to walk away without one,

But if I have, against my desire, accepted one as a condition of
entering (or re-entering) the show, I think I am reasonably entitled to
expect that it won't cause permanent damage to my clothing, and that I
should not need to take deliberate action to avoid damage.

it *was* *not* forced on him

Though it is not apparent that he could have got into (or back into) the
show without it, so it was not entirely voluntary.

- he
accepted it and then *he* got the ink onto his own shirt.

Well, that is not clear, is it? What he is saying was that the ink
transferred to his shirt. If it was through no deliberate action of his
own, I don't think you can say 'he got the ink onto his own shirt'.


:: If someone is going to insist I have my hand stamped, I reckon
:: they also have a duty to make sure a) that it is washable and I
:: don't have to wear the mark for days to come b) that it isn't
:: going to cause permanent damage to anything it comes in contact
:: with, such as clothing.

Or you could choose not to have the stamp in the first place?
- If you did *choose* to have the ink stamped onto your hand, you have then
accepted responsibility for that ink

But I haven't accepted responsibility for its damaging my clothing
unless I am aware that it is liable to rub off on to clothing and leave
a mark. And I think it is quite reasonable to expect that ink used for
this purpose should *not* rub off and leave a mark.

...how far can this idiotic compensation
culture go?

I'm entirely with you on the general principle. But I think this case is
different.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sacha wrote:

A lot that I agree with.

I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.


LIDL sold shirts the week before last for £4.99 each. Well, you did ask!

It looks as if this has turned into almost a private -very off topic- debate
which shouldn't be on this group.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

How strange, I have personal experience of being awarded
costs/expenses following a small claims court case which I 'won'. The
judge asked me if I wished to claim any, it wasn't my idea. I know
small claims court cases are not normally covered by the local press,
but they can still publish the outcome if it is brought to their
attention by a successful party wishing to twist the knife, and if
the story strikes them as interesting.

As for doing some research myself, that is exactly what I was doing,
researching what you meant by your 'improbable' remark, from the only
source able to shed light on it, i.e. you.

Take a look here for a detailed explanation of when costs may be allowed.
Note the this is discretionary not mandatory in many cases. The site also
gives a very useful explanation about small claims.



Did I say it was mandatory? No, I didn't, I said it was one of the things to
be taken into account in deciding whether or not to settle the case,
balanced against the cost of giving the guy some 'bugger off' money.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Take a look here for a detailed explanation of when costs may be
allowed.

Where?

Mea culpa! Apologies. Here is the link.

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/freeinfo...laims/smc.html




And very interesting too, thanks.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
| fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
| If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
| buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.
|
| LIDL sold shirts the week before last for £4.99 each. Well, you did ask!

(a) What's LIDL?

(b) DECENT shirts? Or pink plastic things? See my previous
qualifications.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
| fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
| If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
| buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.
|
| LIDL sold shirts the week before last for £4.99 each. Well, you did
ask!

(a) What's LIDL?

It's a retail chain. Very cheap. Probably illegal in Cambridge.


(b) DECENT shirts? Or pink plastic things? See my previous
qualifications.



No plastic, 100% cotton, denim type things, great for gardening (I imagine).

On 10/9/04 11:02, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:25:11 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:


If people won't take deliberate action to avoid damage to themselves,the
govt really needs to consider banning flower shows altogether.

Did you mention a nasty allergy caused by stray pollen?

And a taste-ectomy after being frightened by a concrete gnome?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| (a) What's LIDL?
|
| It's a retail chain. Very cheap. Probably illegal in Cambridge.

Probably - it's getting harder and harder to buy anything useful
here.

| (b) DECENT shirts? Or pink plastic things? See my previous
| qualifications.
|
| No plastic, 100% cotton, denim type things, great for gardening (I imagine).

Ah. Thanks. I am visiting in October, and will take a look if I
bump into a LIDL.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/9/04 12:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:28:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 10/9/04 11:02, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:25:11 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:


If people won't take deliberate action to avoid damage to themselves,the
govt really needs to consider banning flower shows altogether.

Did you mention a nasty allergy caused by stray pollen?

And a taste-ectomy after being frightened by a concrete gnome?

LOL were they selling Dutch C More Bum Kabouters

Whatever it is, I don't want any!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Janet Baraclough.. wrote:
:: The message
:: from Kay contains these words:
::
::
::: But if I have, against my desire, accepted one as a condition of
::: entering (or re-entering) the show, I think I am reasonably
::: entitled to expect that it won't cause permanent damage to my
::: clothing, and that I should not need to take deliberate action to
::: avoid damage.
::
:: But flower shows are full of deadly risks, Kay. Sensible people
:: are constantly on their guard. At any moment,one could sustain a
:: nasty paper cut from the show programme, get stung by a
:: gatecrashing bee, trip over those dangerous rope guys on the
:: flower tent, scald oneself with tea or choke on a crumb from a
:: scone. I don't expect the organisers to provide gloves, epipens, a
:: guide dog or a tracheotomy set; it's my responsibility to stay
:: alert, take sensible precautions and get out of that hellhole
:: alive.
::
:: If people won't take deliberate action to avoid damage to
:: themselves,the govt really needs to consider banning flower shows
:: altogether.

This is the point I was trying to make...I can't see it any different than
ordering a rum and blackcurrant in a pub then attempting to blame the pub
boss because you've got a stain from it....if this goes ahead, every pasta
restuarant in the country will close down!

Did I say it was mandatory? No, I didn't, I said it was one of the
things to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to settle
the case, balanced against the cost of giving the guy some 'bugger
off' money.

No I was simply pointing out the fact without comment. BTW I still can't
believe that anyone would be stupid enough to litigate such a trivial
matter. Just the compensation culture gone even more crazy than usual.

On 10/9/04 18:56, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:31:33 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 10/9/04 12:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:28:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 10/9/04 11:02, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:25:11 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:


If people won't take deliberate action to avoid damage to themselves,the
govt really needs to consider banning flower shows altogether.

Did you mention a nasty allergy caused by stray pollen?

And a taste-ectomy after being frightened by a concrete gnome?

LOL were they selling Dutch C More Bum Kabouters

Whatever it is, I don't want any!

a kabouter is a gnome

http://home.iae.nl/users/floraweb/fl...s/kabouter.jpg

http://home01.wxs.nl/~wenne188/artwe...inkabouter.jpg

The response remains unchanged. ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Did I say it was mandatory? No, I didn't, I said it was one of the
things to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to settle
the case, balanced against the cost of giving the guy some 'bugger
off' money.

No I was simply pointing out the fact without comment. BTW I still can't
believe that anyone would be stupid enough to litigate such a trivial
matter. Just the compensation culture gone even more crazy than usual.



I agree it would seem stupid for someone to sue over an alleged ink stain on
a shirt. However, the world is full of people who react emotionally to a
situation, rather than logically. There are people who, if they feel
slighted or, worse, that the dispute has become a 'matter of principle',
will be prepared to pursue things as far and as hard as they can, almost
regardless of the costs/benefits involved.

I'm sure I can't be the only one who has encountered such folk :-)