Safe Speed Forums

Lucy,

please wind your neck in.

If you must persist in 'outing' fisherman then post your evidence to a mod.

I value your contribution, I value the debate between you and fisherman. It adds to the forum but all this personal rubbish unwelcome noise.

If someone claims to be from a profession and another poster has reason to doubt that....and it actually matters whether the claim is true or not ......then deal with it with discretion.

I would take huge offence to having my professional qualifications questioned in a public forum but you can debate my views, my opionions and judgement to your heart's content.

In this instance I think there is a case for both of you to satisfy the mods of your credentials so that we can put this to bed.

I am sick of the noise when i enter the forum.

Well you know how I feel. Research the history as see who started it. I have frequently said the least said the sooner healed, but someone else starts on every new thread with slurrs from previous threads. If I dont challenge them, there is no point in me commeting - is that what you want, everyone bullied off who doesn't agree with the old school?

Seriously.

Please stop.

I have absolutely no intention of looking at 'who started it'

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT LUCY W IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST.

THE POSTS ARE A SELECTIVE EXTRACTION FROM ANOTHER POST AND HAVE NOW LOST THEIR CONTEXT AND MEANING.

SAFE SPEED SHOULD SEEK LEGAL ADVICE ON THIS MATTER, AS SOME PEOPLE MAY KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE POSTERS AND THEIR REPUTATION MAY BE TARNISHED BY THE SELECTIVENESS OF THESE COMMENTS.

I have since added a note to the first post of this thread clarifying the situation.

It is an unfortunate that the context of the posts in this thread may have been lost. If desired, a reader can reconstruct the context of these posts by going through the posts in both threads all in chronological order.

Will the normal reader do that? (Gillick v BBC [1996] EMLR 267)

Every poster to these forums has agreed to terms and conditions allowing moderator actions to be taken, including but not limited to editing.
In this case the action taken of splitting off-topic posts is reasonable when compared to the alternatives of: censoring posts, deleting posts, locking the original thread or letting ad-hominem type behaviour continue.

A reader of the first post in this thread will certainly understand that someone had been quoted so reasonably concluding that it is a follow up post. A reader with the motivation to read the subsequent posts, who also wishes to determine the context, would almost certainly make efforts to link these posts to what occurred in the other thread; they have the ability to do so by simple means.

So that's reasonable? (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] 11Ex 781)

Who could give a hoot about whether you're a nurse, or an engineer or a magistrate etc? Who could care less about all that stuff? It's whether you can do the job that counts. The rest of it is just slips of paper, and old farts nodding in meetings.

Ref link for Gillick v BBC [1996] EMLR 267 which relates to :
What is meant by fraudulently or negligently?
[Extract]... The test of negligence is the same as is applied in tax matters generally, that is a test of "reasonable care". In the context of a company, Baron Alderson in Blyth vBirmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781, said that errors which a reasonable person, acting properly, would not have made, are negligent. What is reasonable conduct must always depend upon the circumstances of the case, and this test is to be applied in context: oil companies are sophisticated in tax, not ignorant persons, and this sets the level of expectation of knowledge. A company acts through its authorised servants, and negligence by them is negligence by the company. In this context, "servant" would include an employee or an agent of the company: for example, if a company authorised an agent to make returns on its behalf, the company would be acting through that agent. ....

Ref link for Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] 11Ex 781
[extract] ... In establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition of negligence:
“ Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done. ....

and for a Negligent case in a driving / riding (bicycle) case - quite interesting ...
HERE

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Please do not shout. (Upper case designates shouting - just in case you are unaware.)
If you did not make this post then that is breech of the rules, however I think that you are confused and perhaps mean originator of this Forum thread.


No it is a single 'Thread' split and can easily be traced back to the original thread. It has been correctly split, as Steve has done so, as it has gone way off topic.


I appreciate your concern for Safe Speed, but I have much legal advice available.
Please note that these are public forums, where all and sundry, can and do post.
Each poster can only be 'judged' by the merits of their posts, and their ability to interact with others.
We never advise that anyone take action from any advice posted here, but to always seek professional advice from those properly qualified, and identified.
Safe Speed deals in facts and the truth.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Dear Claire aka Safespeedv2

There seems to have been a change in your mood. On private messages you said you wished me to phone you as you felt I may have skills to offer, now publicly you seek to criticise and ridicule me.

It doe’s look like your private messages were a cynical trick to find out who I am after Fisherman & Co had failed despite going to great lengths.

Re Gillick v BBC, there is more to the judgement than you have quoted and the part you quote is not relevant to the point in question.

I really do not think that such behaviour attracts professionals who might otherwise wish to further a cause of improving road safety. If fact just the opposite, I would imagine that people visit this site, read the administration posts and posts from “select” members, and Safe Speed rapidly looses credibility. Opponents of Safe Speed must surely be monitoring the site?

As I have constantly said, if you don’t want me contributing to Safe Speed then tell me so.

As the ESP thread is now evolving with intellectual posters, I wonder if people can see just what sort of help I can offer?

In general I agree, but there are times when accurate knowledge of just where advice is coming from is important.

I couldn't begin to list the number of times I have seen defendants arrive at court, having pinned all their hopes on internet advice from an "expert", only to find out that the "expert" is anything but. Just last month we had somebody who had refused a fixed penalty and opted for trial on the basis of very encouraging and totally untrue "legal" advice from the internet.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I can't speak for anybody else but wish to make clear that I have NOT attempted to find out who Lucy is.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I know. The Internet has many flaws, yet it is already indispensable. Tim Berners-Lee has tried to conceptualise the "semantic web", whereby information isn't just made available in bulk from a search engine. Instead, it is evaluated, classified and placed in context. That is a surprisingly difficult thing to achieve, actually! But until it's done, surfing the web is largely a matter of hit and miss. I expect it's the same for solicitors.

In the end, though, I think the law will have to bend to fit the needs of "information technology", because the delivery of legal information depends on laws that are rational and logical, internally consistent and comprehensive. At the moment, the law is too defective, so special expertise is needed. One of the goals is to eliminate that need.

PS: laws should be rational and logical, internally consistent and comprehensive anyway. If they are not, they have to change, because there is something wrong with them.

Ah I see you have me at a disadvantage, you know my name and I do not know yours.


Really - how - I am always polite and friendly - or so I think anyway.


I did invite you to phone me, so that we could discuss many things, but you chose not to, nor to arrange a later time to do so. I thought there were several things that might be discussed, more quickly than in writing, saving both of us precious time. I had hoped to discuss, or verify any professional qualifications that you may have, too. If you think that I have criticised or ridiculed you then I apologise immediately.

What ? I have neither the time or the interest, in placing you on my priority lists! Sorry to disappoint, no, nor am I cynical either.

I simply helped to provide a link as I was interested in what may be there. I found one and placed a link and quoted a small section that I thought was interesting.


You have a right to your opinion.

Again you have a right to your opinion. Yes large numbers visit our website and these forums.

Constantly ? Why ask ? You want my 'personal approval' to remain ? The rules are there for all to see, obey them and like everyone, you are welcome, disobey them and you will be dealt with appropriately.

What help would you like to offer?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Claire,

Well there you have it. Your intention is to discover my identity via my professional qualifications after Fisherman & Co’s endeavours to find me – all that Googling etc by some members.

I do not seek anyone’s approval, but merely state that I respect the wishes of the Website owners.

I would like to help anyone who sincerely feels that my skills, training and knowledge can help them, and will post accordingly, unless told otherwise, where I identify such an opportunity.

However, it is up to individuals to decide for themselves if they feel I have anything to offer.

I have already stated that I have not tried to discover your ID.



You might be taken more seriously if you stopped repeating allegations that have already been denied and concentrated on actually answering questions.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

You see there you go again Fisherman, trying to pressurise me into answering you question that would lead to my identity.

Have you found the Court Guidance notes Re Hamilton defences yet?

I happen to care.