On 8/9/04 18:31, in article ,
"Rod" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:58:34 +0100, Sacha
wrote:


With respect to all other skills, how would amateur gardeners be in a
position to give you a definitive answer to such a question?

It won't stop 'em trying - just watch :~}

=================================================

I have been. And I'm right. ;-(
The OP's best bet is the CAB - not just for this event but for any that
follow. Find out the parameters of legal responsibility there and if need
be, consult a friendly lawyer. If this scheme operates for a charity, see
if a lawyer will agree to offer advice to that charity branch free of charge
in exchange for a 'blurb' on any programme or printed publicity. I've
managed to organise this in the past for a charity of which I was chairman
and the lawyer, who had strong and sympathetic views on legal aid, was a
star about giving us free advice for charity events.

This is an increasingly litigious age and the people who make it so are - I
hope - going to inhabit a special circle of hell. Slight exaggeration there
but the canceling of a pancake race for schoolchildren, the taking down of
hanging baskets in case someone gets hurt (they never have been) the threat
of felling chestnut trees in case someone gets hurt by a falling conker
(never happened, ever) etc. etc. makes me think that not only have I missed
making a fortune as a lawyer or a wimpy litigant, there must be many hoping
to emulate being employed by a modern day Aeschylus!

Above all, in terms of present and future events, do NOT take the advice of
net lawyers. Not. You have no idea of their credentials, many have an axe
to grind, many think they 'know' because they've made a thorough-going
nuisance of themselves (and probably utter idiots, too) I have known people
on the Internet claim to be doctors and lawyers (both qualis) who turned out
to be school assistants and others who have claimed to be Professors of
English who were car salesmen.
I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging than believing such
specialised advice from the net. DON'T DO IT!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

This is an increasingly litigious age and the people who make it so
are - I hope - going to inhabit a special circle of hell. Slight
exaggeration there but the canceling of a pancake race for
schoolchildren, the taking down of hanging baskets in case someone
gets hurt (they never have been) the threat of felling chestnut trees
in case someone gets hurt by a falling conker (never happened, ever)
etc. etc. makes me think that not only have I missed making a
fortune as a lawyer or a wimpy litigant, there must be many hoping to
emulate being employed by a modern day Aeschylus!

Above all, in terms of present and future events, do NOT take the
advice of net lawyers. Not. You have no idea of their credentials,
many have an axe to grind, many think they 'know' because they've
made a thorough-going nuisance of themselves (and probably utter
idiots, too) I have known people on the Internet claim to be doctors
and lawyers (both qualis) who turned out to be school assistants and
others who have claimed to be Professors of English who were car
salesmen.
I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging than believing
such specialised advice from the net. DON'T DO IT!

That is a very sweeping statement Sacha and somewhat cynical. Of course with
any advice given here it needs to be taken with considerable care and should
not be considered definitive. Having said that I agree that many of the
answers given have been littered with errors and omissions. That does not
mean to say that all the points are worthless. Are we to assume that all the
gardening answers are to be treated as perfect? There are plenty of dangers
in the garden if people take flawed advice!

On 8/9/04 19:59, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:
snip
I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging than believing
such specialised advice from the net. DON'T DO IT!

That is a very sweeping statement Sacha and somewhat cynical.

You bet.

Of course with
any advice given here it needs to be taken with considerable care and should
not be considered definitive.

Which is what I said.

Having said that I agree that many of the
answers given have been littered with errors and omissions. That does not
mean to say that all the points are worthless. Are we to assume that all the
gardening answers are to be treated as perfect? There are plenty of dangers
in the garden if people take flawed advice!


Precisely. Are you a lawyer, qualified to give an opinion that will stand
up in a court of law? How do we know that you are correct that the answers
given are littered with errors and omissions? You do not include your own
in that, presumably? If you don't, why not? Are you a lawyer, qualified
to give such advice?

Perhaps you would be good enough to post your qualis and the name of your
firm here, so that anyone wishing to follow your advice may check your
ability to give it.

I post our point of contact always (except when I have a memory lapse). That
means people can choose to trust me or not - when I don't know an answer and
consult my husband or stepson, I say so. You show me *your* qualis because
I've shown you mine. ;-)

What I am doing is emphasising Caveat lector. What are you doing?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote in news:BD651C93.3221%
:

Are you a lawyer, qualified
to give such advice?

Sacha has a point. Even lawyers may not be qualified to advise: lawyers
come in lots of flavours, most of them specialists in a particular area.

When I set up my small company, a qualified practicing lawyer who usually
deals with rather larger companies gave me incorrect information about Data
Protection Act registration.

(At least, I'm assuming he was wrong, as the govt helpline and website both
said he was. I'm not sure how they decide these things, but I'm hoping
that some sort of duel inside a big wire cage may be involved. With spears
or something. ;-) )

Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--

In article ,
Victoria Clare wrote:
Sacha wrote in news:BD651C93.3221%
:

Are you a lawyer, qualified
to give such advice?

Sacha has a point. Even lawyers may not be qualified to advise: lawyers
come in lots of flavours, most of them specialists in a particular area.

When I set up my small company, a qualified practicing lawyer who usually
deals with rather larger companies gave me incorrect information about Data
Protection Act registration.

(At least, I'm assuming he was wrong, as the govt helpline and website both
said he was. I'm not sure how they decide these things, but I'm hoping
that some sort of duel inside a big wire cage may be involved. With spears
or something. ;-) )

As someone who has had to become a partial expert as part of my job,
I am qualified to say that few lawyers have a clue what it means,
the official 'clarifications' conflict with it, the successive
Data Registrars have expressed bafflement and frustration over its
wording, there was one House of Lords case where 2 out of 3 judges
interpreted it to mean the converse of what the English said (using
the 'intent of Parliament' concept) and there is at least one
circumstance where it creates a criminal offence but explicitly
forbids anyone to prosecute the culprit. The last two apply to the
old Act - I would need to recheck for the current one.

Beyond that, it is doubtless a marvel of modern legislation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Dear oh dear. Touched a nerve have I? 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. 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.

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)

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.


And you still fail to give your qualifications or the name of the
legal firm for which you work as a lawyer.

Have you actually read the paragraph above? It does not appear so!

I quote

"Neither I, nor anyone else involved in the discussion, has made any claim
to have a formal legal qualification."

I have never claimed to have any major legal qualification though I do have
some forty years experience of dealing with a wide variety of legal problems
all but one of which I have been able to resolve successfully without
recourse to professional help. That includes two legal actions against the
Inland Revenue and a private prosecution for careless driving against
someone. In all the other cases it was possible to resolve matters
informally. Just for the record I did study law to A level and HNC level but
I don't claim to know it all, but the matter under discussion really is so
trivial that it should not even be considered as matter for litigation.
Don't take my word for it but almost any lawyer will tell that litigation
should be the very last resort. Unfortunately the common attitude to day is
sue first and consider later.

It seems to be entirely a product of your imagination that any of the people
who reply have are practicing lawyers. You make the assumption that only
those in legal practice or with a formal legal qualifications have any
knowledge of the law. If you go to the CAB you will almost certainly be
advised in the first instance by someone who does not have a formal legal
qualification but you are quite happy to recommend people go their.
Furthermore you had the effrontery to pour scorn on other people's advice
even before it had been given. I don't seem to remember you querying the
credentials of the many people giving advice on gardening. That seems
somewhat bigoted and hypocritical to me.

On 9/9/04 14:27, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

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.


And you still fail to give your qualifications or the name of the
legal firm for which you work as a lawyer.

Have you actually read the paragraph above? It does not appear so!

I quote

"Neither I, nor anyone else involved in the discussion, has made any claim
to have a formal legal qualification."

snip

You appear to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm
really not interested in that nonsense.
I too have experience of the law in varying, personal degrees, including
lawyers in my family but do not think it gives me the necessary clout to
advise people on legal matters. That is why, knowing that when this sort of
question is asked, umpteen 'experts' come out of the woodwork with bad
advice and conflicting opinions, confusing the OP, I suggested that this one
ignores people like you. I still do. In fact, given your recent posts, I
would word that recommendation even more strongly.
As to peoples' opinions on gardening, it is a gardening group and I know
quite a few of the regulars personally. I don't know any - personally - who
pretend to be legal experts.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 8/9/04 22:32, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

snip
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.

If a person does hold him or herself out to be a lawyer, and provides legal
advice, the courts have held that he/she owes the same duty of care to the
recipient of the advice as would a qualified lawyer. Hence it is probably
equally risky for a barrack room lawyer to dispense free legal advice as it
is for the recipient to follow it.

However, I haven't noticed anybody offering legal advice in this case,
merely practical observations on how to deal with circumstances which might
give rise to a claim for compensation.

On 9/9/04 14:44, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

However, I haven't noticed anybody offering legal advice in this case,
merely practical observations on how to deal with circumstances which might
give rise to a claim for compensation.


Admission of responsibility has been suggested and that is possibly not a
wise route to follow, bearing future such shows in mind, because this might
not be a one off. That is why CAB or a lawyer could give a simple answer,
putting the matter to rest, once and for all and I really cannot see why
that idea is so hurtful to all the 'would-be' lawyers that flock to these
queries.
At present, this is a small and insignificant claim but if the claimant
isn't genuine but is 'trying it on' and succeeds and tells others of his ilk
that he has succeeded, then future years could see an increase in those
making such claims. And that would be to the detriment of the organisers of
the show, especially if they have to then use their public liability
insurance. That is why I suggested the very simple idea of contacting a
body qualified to give a simple but definitive answer, rather than relying
on a gardening group to provide it.
We have to carry large public liability insurance here as do others, I'm
sure. But if I wanted advice on how to use it/not use it/avoid future
occurrences, I probably wouldn't seek it here.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

I have been. And I'm right. ;-(

You are indeed.

The OP's best bet is the CAB - not just for this event but for any that
follow. Find out the parameters of legal responsibility there and if need
be, consult a friendly lawyer. ...

And, for heaven's sake, do NOT make an insulting offer! Better no
offer at all than that - it will merely increase the risk of the
claimant getting annoyed and following the matter through.

Also, the "without prejudice" exemption is conditional. If it is
used inappropriately (and there is an incredible amount of legal
gobbledegook about what that means), it is not merely void, the
contents of the communication can be used as evidence against the
person who wrote it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 8/9/04 20:59, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

I have been. And I'm right. ;-(

You are indeed.

The OP's best bet is the CAB - not just for this event but for any that
follow. Find out the parameters of legal responsibility there and if need
be, consult a friendly lawyer. ...

And, for heaven's sake, do NOT make an insulting offer! snip

Make NO offer, I think, don't you? Offers mean negotiations are opened and
without a lawyer's advice that shouldn't occur. Make no offer in case it
admits responsibility. Talk to the CAB or a lawyer.

Talk to the CAB - find a friendly freebie lawyer. This is not just over
this blasted shirt, of course but all future events the OP plans. And I
cannot repeat too often - except for those who don't like it - do not take
advice of this nature over the Internet unless it is backed up with a name,
a company name and a telephone number, all of which imply a willingness to
take responsibility for the professional advice proffered. *Everyone's* a
potential expert in cyberspace!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)