Posts by beerandbiscuits

Re: OK, I will

It is highly unlikely that they are rock doves. There are only two areas that still have pure rock doves - the Outer Hebrides and some remote parts of western Ireland. In neither case are they likely to get close to humans.

The shitters here are most likely feral pigeons; bastard cross breeds of rock doves, stock doves, wood pigeons and the other various doves/pigeons that inhabit these islands. The only one that's not worth eating is the feral pigeon.

Re: Still I don't understand why Russian doesn't allow full tests.

It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the conspiracy theories. The people who believe them will see the full scientific evidence and still come up with some utterly lunatic explanation for how that evidence still supports the conspiracy.

Re: Statute of Westminster

@Diogenes; Statute of Westminster

Parliament could indeed repeal the statutes that give effective independence to the dominions. It can also legislate to make it an offence to smoke on the streets of Paris (as a famous constitutional lawyer once wrote), but that does not mean that it could enforce those statutes in either case. Canada, Australia, New Zealand et al might just refuse to implement them.

Re: Oh wouldn't it be loverly

As someone else who works in the legal sector, I agree entirely with Bc1609, including that everyone I know in the legal profession wants reform of the current paper system. I would also be delighted if the court service's ability to lose important documents and in some cases whole files was removed. One of the things that most people probably don't appreciate is how much of the paper simply disappears - at a hearing I had last month, both sides had submitted numerous documents to the court for consideration at the hearing. None of the documents from either side reached the judge, leading to a hearing intended to be 30 minutes going on well over an hour.

I do have concerns about how the online part is going to be implemented though. Presumably the software behind this will be written by the usual lowest bidders, and their understanding of the requirements of litigation is likely to be thin. Other public sector computer projects do not exactly inspire confidence.

@Credas I think most lawyers are all too aware of the problems caused to litigants in person by the complexity of the system. I know from experience that plenty of lawyers find it hard enough to navigate through the Civil Procedure Rules, and LIPs are not likely to find it easier. I for one make sure that I provide as much information as possible to opponent LIPs on the process (it usually cuts costs for my client in the long run) but not all lawyers think the same way. I have my doubts though that these reforms will make it any easier for LIPs; claims will still have to go through the same procedures as now, just in a different way.

Re: Also, does it matter ...

Ahh yes. That''ll be the kilogram that isn't a measure of weight.

But of course metric makes such perfect sense doesn't it.

Yes

His job is to represent his client's interests. The duty to the court covers things like putting forward a case which the barrister knows to be untrue. If you as his client say "I did it but I instruct you to say I didn't" the barrister would be embarrassed because if he continued he would have to breach either his duty to the court or his duty to the client. He would then have to stop acting for you.

Had he turned up at court and said "I am the man who owns Newsbin" he would have been fine. It was the deception that was the problem - you can't claim to be an independent representative with duties to the court when you are actually acting in your own interests.

There's also the small matter that the people who are in power when the contract is negotiated often know damn well that they won't be around to take the blame when it all goes tits up. So they leave the project parameters wide enough that they can say a. it is a marvellous thing that will provide all the answers to the world's problems and b. 10 years later, it would have worked fine if the other party hadn't buggered it up.

The truth is that what they care about when they commission these things is political advantage, and they don't give two hoots about whether it works or not.

I'd be interested to hear your evidence for brochs being burial related. The evidence AFAIK is for defensive structures.

And as for lumping great boulders around, you've never been to Callanish have you. Much more impressive if less well known than Stonehenge.

That's exactly what happens

with the bus stop boards in London. It's got nothing to do with where the bus actually is - it just tells you where it's timetabled to be. It's a complete waste of money.

Given the usual level of efficiency at tfl, I have no doubt that the same flaw will be included in any new system.

Fine

You can be in charge of killing all the sheep, cattle, deer, goats, hens &C &c that will be surplus to requirements and which no one will want to feed any more.

I've got a big freezer - keep in touch.

Strange

The lawyers have told no one how to do their jobs. It's the politicians that brought the law in, not the lawyers.

As for the DEA conflicting with EU law, the whole point of the decision was that it doesn't. Not yet at least.

It's not as straightforward as it sounds

It may well be that the people ACSL represented had no legitimate claim, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the file sharers can undo a payment made in settlement. A settlement of a claim (even before it is brought before a court) is a contract equivalent to "in exchange for you not suing me, I will pay you £x". Whether the proceedings would ultimately succeed is neither here nor there - you pay them off to stop them bringing the claim in the first place.

I am not aware that there is any suggestion that ACSL did not have instructions from a client. My understanding is that it has now been shown in the proceedings that that client has no claim against the defendants, suggesting that he did have instructions. In any event, it is improbable that any of us will ever see them because they are privileged.

Btw, the £300,000 figure probably means that there were far more than 600 who paid up. It is highly unlikely that ACSL would have kept the whole £500. Much more likely that they were entitled to keep a percentage on a contingency basis, with the remainder going to the client.

@ Loyal Commenter

Strangely enough, that's exactly my point.

@ Naughtyhorse

At the moment, no, but that is what the proposed reforms want to bring in.

As matters stand, you don't cover the costs at all, unless you are the person who is successfully sued. Your solicitor receives nothing from you in any event (bar perhaps a small amount of the fee (usually no more than 4%) which for reasons that are too complicated to go into here are not recoverable from the loser). If you lose the case, the solicitor gets nothing. If you win, in the vast majority of cases, the costs, including the success fee, are paid by the losing party.

One of the things that is being proposed now is exactly what you say. The proposal is that the success fee is paid out of any damages you recover, i.e. you do have to pay for the lack of success on another case. I agree that this is fundamentally wrong.

Experts

In total the court heard from 4 expert witnesses. At trial, a Mr Fisher for O’Shea and Dr Type for the prosecution. The jury heard both side’s experts before convicting.

On appeal, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Dr Sharples, and O’Shea on a Mr Bates. Bates’s evidence was the only evidence found by O’Shea in the years since his conviction to support his defence of fraud. Aside from the fact that Bates’s theories do not add up, it is not entirely surprising that the court would prefer any other expert’s view over his given the following passage from the judgment:

“Quite apart from other reasons, in our view his denial to us of having signed a confidentiality agreement in the case of Grout was a deliberate lie, maintained until his signed agreement was produced to him. It is also relevant that he has been convicted of perjury as a result of his misrepresenting his qualifications when giving evidence.”

There is no question of the court ignoring expert evidence. The court considered the evidence of both experts on the appeal, and decided not to follow the one whose theories did not stack up and who was a proven liar.

I can’t see anything wrong with that.

Deliberate

Otherwise whose ip address are they going to publish?

Examples in judgments nearly always avoid using real details.

@ Davidoff

A nice enough summation of the general law on contract in this area, but there are exceptions. If you buy a ticket for e.g. a railway journey, it is subject to the rules of carriage, even though you may not have seen them. The courts will create new exceptions if they are needed, and in the UK, that usually means where there is commercial justification for it. The fact that for the last 20 odd years nearly every piece of software has been sold with a EULA would very likely be taken as evidence that everyone knows that they are buying no more than the right to use.

What is perhaps more interesting is the concept of consideration i.e. the price, in contract law. Generally, if there is no consideration for something then there is no contract. If you have contracted with the retailer to acquire the medium, what consideration has passed from you to the manufacturer? Absent consideration, there is no contract.

As to Sale of Goods Act cases mentioned elsewhere, these are not really relevant to this. It might (subject to what I have said above) give you a remedy against the retailer for not selling you what they said you were getting, but it would be unlikely to afford a defence against a claim by the manufacturer.

I suspect that the dearth of cases on this subject in the higher courts in the UK is because the manufacturers have no wish to face these arguments, and they will settle rather than risk having the points decided against them.

Not quite

s1 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977; "Detinue is abolished."

They could however apply for an order for delivery up of the material, but the police would claim PACE in defence as their entitlement to retain it.

You are possibly right that the question could be one of the basis of the seizure but also its reaonableness. Is there evidence that the attempted to obtain the details of the cameraman so that the material could be obtained later? If not, what was the basis on which they thought it would be unavailable at a later time?

There is also a technical argument over s23 and whether a "place" would include the street once the ejusdem generis rule is applied.

I am not aware that these arguments have been tested though, so the police will undoubtedly argue away to their heart's content unless and until someone goes to court to find out.

As any fule kno

you can reverse the polarity of a neutron flow, so what's the problem?

Yes - but that's only one model

Doorstep delivery is not part and parcel of reuse - you can take bottles back to the shop instead.

Holiday

The opening days are mostly dictated by the fact that CAMRA's festivals are run by volunteers, who have to take a week's holiday from their ordinary jobs to run them. If you add the weekends either side, you get 9 days straight to run through. 3 days to set up, and 1 to take down is roughly how it works, so that fits in with most people being able to take a week off to staff the event.

If you open on Thurs to Sun, that means a one day shorter festival, which can't happen because of venue costs (in the case of the larger 5 day events), so you're talking about Weds to Sun or Thur to Mon, in either case meaning the whole of the first week to allow for set up. The staff would then need to take an extra one or two days' holiday, which most people just can't do.

In any case, the amount of beer ordered at the festivals you mention is such that it is rare for even the popular beers to run out before Friday. In the case of the Great British BF at Earls Court, the really popular beers i.e. champion beer of Britain competition winners, have additional orders placed to make sure that they don't run out. And the chances of you not being able to find a few you like in the 200+ that are normally left at GBBF by Saturday are, I think, slender.

As for the benefits of CAMRA membership, how about cheap entry to beer festivals, cheap beer books (including the Good Beer Guide), monthly mag with details of new beers and good pubs. And of course the fact that you are helping to promote good decent beer.

I should declare an interest - I will be running the Nelson Bar at this year's GBBF from 3 to 7 August. Coincidentally, that means I will be serving the Doom Bar and Black Prince, although Skinners will have Betty Stogs and Cornish Blonde. See you there.

Except that nearly all of the Act has been repealed.

See the statute law database link above.

This law is used frequently against pavement cyclists, so it's no surprise that they're extending it to another menace.

OK

I am a lawyer. This is English law, so does not apply elsewhere. It is not advice and should not be relied on without consultation with a solicitor on your own circumstances.

At law, there is usually nothing wrong with bidding on your own auction provided that you make it clear in the auction conditions that your right to bid on your own item is reserved. The right is specifically reserved in land transactions by the Sale of Land by Auction Act 1867, but is of general application.

In this case though, there cannot be a reservation because it is against the auctioneer's rules to bid on your own item. In that case, as mentioned above, the Fraud Act comes into play. For what it's worth it would have been unlawful at common law prior to the Fraud Act coming into force, but that's not relevant to this situation. Section 1(1) provides that "A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2)." Section 2(1) states "A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss."

A bid is a representation to the auctioneer and to other bidders, and therefore the bid is a fraud under the Act. There are other ways that this behaviour could be fraudulent too.

As for making offers on property in writing and getting written acceptance, that can amount to a contract, but I would not advise any buyer to do this. At the time of the offer, there will usually have been no investigation of title, or searches to ensure that the property is one you relly want to buy. So you might find that you are contractually bound to buy a property with subsidence, next to a planned 6 lane motorway and the seller doesn't have absolute title to the land.

Just the same as here then

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999 say pretty much the same thing, as did the 1994 regs that preceded them. The reason being of course, that Spain adopted the same rules as the rest of the EU, when they were told they had to by Directive 93/13.