Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 89

Thread: More sensationalist journalism!!

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Yes, that's what I'd have imagined.

    If people voluntarily make themselves homeless, I'd have thought there's no obligation on the council to find them a home - that makes sense.


    So, a follow-up question, does this establish a precedent?

    For example, if the family claim that the ghost has returned, are the council now obliged to subsidise Ghostbusters permanently?

    If another family in council accommodation next door decides that the ghost has moved to haunt their house, do the council now have to pay for psychic whatsits for them also? And if the council didn't pay for such treatment, would they be open to litigation based on unfair treatment?

    Because, call me Mr Cynical, but I can't help wondering if this could be a nice little earner...

    Finally, is the council officer who authorised such payment congenitally insane, or what? (OK, that was a rhetorical question)
    That rather depends on whether he enthusiastically embraced this woo-woo nonsense, or reluctantly decided that it was worth spending £60 in order to avoid more expensive problems.

    But yes, nice little earner. £120 for turning up, sprinkling a bit of distilled water and burbling some mumbo-jumbo. And wait! if the ghost doesn't go - what happens? Do you have to refund the £120? No-o-o! You just shake your head, mutter about 'particularly persistent p-poltergeists', explain that your industrial-strength exorcism procedure (The Premium Purge®) is considerably more expensive - say, £360 - and you're back next Saturday with a bell, book and candle! Brilliant!
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 13th-February-2008 at 12:33 PM.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    I've never seen a hairy slug.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebeard View Post
    she may well be familiar with a few hairy eaters of slugs ;-)

    But I do like the idea and imagery of hairy slugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by ~*~Saligal~*~ View Post
    As an aside... I thought it meant that the people eating the slugs were hairy - not that the slugs were hairy...
    I'd hate that a minor grammatical point may distract people from this otherwise worthy debate, so I'll clarify: I did mean that the eaters of slugs were hairy. But for the sake of peace in the fields, I'll concede that they could both be.

  3. #23
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    But yes, nice little earner. £120 for turning up, sprinkling a bit of distilled water and burbling some mumbo-jumbo. And wait! if the ghost doesn't go - what happens? Do you have to refund the £120? No-o-o! You just shake your head, mutter about 'particularly persistent p-poltergeists', explain that your industrial-strength exorcism procedure (The Premium Purge®) is considerably more expensive - say, £360 - and you're back next Saturday with a bell, book and candle! Brilliant!
    Actually, I was thinking more that it could be a good earner for the family involved - they agree kickback with the woowoo woman ( ) and everyone's happy. Well, except the taxpayers, of course.

    Although, I'd still like to know, is this a precedent or what?

  4. #24
    Registered User Beowulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Beoverse
    Posts
    7,985
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    This will seem very odd but a few years back I DID actually look into the purchase of electronic equipment to measure EM fields, temperature variations and audio/video recording equipment with a view to DEBUNKING haunted house claims.

    At the time I was with someone who attended Spiritualists and who went along to meetings to speak with "the other side" and who claimed that their parents home was haunted.

    I actually thought there would be a market for "ghost eradication" by means of proving the effects were down to natural phenomena rather than anything spiritual. However my friends thought I was mad.. which was just as well as the equipment proved way too expensive at the time and I certainly didn't have the time to dedicate to my "hobby". Not to mention owners of profitable "Haunted houses" are quite happy to let mystics and psychics into their homes to "speak to the other side" but after making a few calls It turns out very few people would be willing to let someone in to debunk their claims.. even on an amateur level. Funny that



    (And I also got sick of the Egon Spengler jokes too )

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf View Post
    This will seem very odd but a few years back I DID actually look into the purchase of electronic equipment to measure EM fields, temperature variations and audio/video recording equipment with a view to DEBUNKING haunted house claims.

    At the time I was with someone who attended Spiritualists and who went along to meetings to speak with "the other side" and who claimed that their parents home was haunted.
    I applaud the sentiment, but the project was doomed to failure. How will readings on scientific instruments persuade people who think they have photographic evidence of ghosts?

    I know of a person who instructed lawyers to recover monies owed to her and described exactly where it was held, in a safe in a first floor room.

    Sadly, it turned out that the debtor lived in a bungalow and had no safe. The woman told her lawyers that she had been given the information by her mum and dad. Which provoked no little incredulity, mum and dad both being dead. Turns out the information actually came from a medium, and was as accurate as such information usually is - that's to say, not at all. Nothing the lawyers could say could disabuse the lady of the idea that the information from the medium was correct, and that the information the lawyers had obtained was just incomplete. Could they just make some more enquiries...?

  6. #26
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Could they just make some more enquiries...?
    Ooh, I know this one - the information was in the future. In XX years' time, there will be a first floor.

    There you go, easy

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Ooh, I know this one - the information was in the future. In XX years' time, there will be a first floor.

    There you go, easy
    Yeah, it's a bastard getting clear messages from the afterlife, they're always jumbling things up.

  8. #28
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    I was kind of interested in the comment in the originl report that "A Catholic university in Rome began offering courses in exorcism in 2005 and has drawn students from around the globe."

    How exactly did they get the demons to attend for the practical elements of the course - did the students have to bring their own, or were they supplied by the university, perhaps on an "exorcism or return" basis?

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    How exactly did they get the demons to attend for the practical elements of the course - did the students have to bring their own, or were they supplied by the university, perhaps on an "exorcism or return" basis?


    Ex-cer-lent!

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Actually, I was thinking more that it could be a good earner for the family involved - they agree kickback with the woowoo woman ( ) and everyone's happy. Well, except the taxpayers, of course.

    Although, I'd still like to know, is this a precedent or what?
    Well, not from a legal standpoint, no. A precedent is established when a court, giving judgment on a matter which it is required to determine, sets out a principle on which a statute or an element of common law or equity is to be decided in future.

    It must be part of the ratio decidendi (race-ee-oh dee-sid-end-I), otherwise it is obiter dictum (oh-bitter dick-tomb). Obiter pronouncements are persuasive but are not actually a precedent - this is because it is axiomatic that the court may not have been taken to all the important factors effecting the issue on which it is making an obiter pronouncement.

    Most courts don't set precedent. No County Court judgment constitutes a precedent. A High Court decision will be binding on lower courts but not other High Courts; a Court of Appeal decision will bind all lower courts and all future Courts of Appeal; a House of Lords decision binds everybody except future Lords panels. (Although until the 60s, the Lords was bound by its previous decisions, as a result of a centuries-old Lords decision; then it took a decision that it would no longer be bound by its previous decisions, and if that doesn't make the logic centre of your brain gurgle and die, congratulations!)

    For example: section X(2) of a statute says that the court can exercise a discretion when making a particular decision; somebody issues a claim and asserts that the discretion is unfettered; the defendant says no, the discretion is fettered by the language and intent of sections X(1) and X(3).

    If a county court judge gets first shot, his decision is not even reported so it couldn't bind anyone; but maybe the solicitor writes it up for the Gazette and the next similar claim sees the earlier judge's decision cited for the assistance of the new court. Whatever the level of judge, this court will certainly take the earlier decision into account, but will not be bound by it. However, if this next judge is a High Court judge, his decision may well be reported, and will be cited to the next court that hears a case on the same point. Whoever loses in front of the HC judge decides to appeal, so the CA gets to decide. Here there are three judges, and they will usually each give their own opinion; a majority decision suffices. That decision will be binding on all future cases until someone can afford to take it to the House of Lords (5 judges, exceptionally - as in Pinochet - 9 of them), which will result in a final decision binding everybody else.

    The recent lottery-rapist case was decided under the principle that the House of Lords is not bound by earlier decisions. The Limitation Act 1980, and its application to Personal Injury claims of that type, was reviewed in a previous case and the Lords' decision was that such claims were not susceptible to the discretion of the court to extend the limitation period - so 6 years, or you're stuffed. But last month the Lords changed its mind and now it's 3 years, but that can be extended in appropriate circumstances.

    This is what the skill of advocacy (at the higher levels) is all about. Counsel for the Claimant says "these facts are on all fours with the 1943 case of X v Y, so the court must admit the claim". Counsel for the Defendant says "well, the facts of this case are not on all fours with X v Y (and here is exactly why not...) so you are not bound by it, my Lord; further, the cases of A v B from 1958 and P v Q from 1971 were decided differently and yet are at least as similar to the present case as X v Y and so you are free to determine which one is most applicable to the current facts".

    um...sorry - what was the question again?

  11. #31
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    um...sorry - what was the question again?
    Dunno. Something about slugs?

  12. #32
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    I was kind of interested in the comment in the originl report that "A Catholic university in Rome began offering courses in exorcism in 2005 and has drawn students from around the globe."

    How exactly did they get the demons to attend for the practical elements of the course - did the students have to bring their own, or were they supplied by the university, perhaps on an "exorcism or return" basis?
    Would that be at the UniversitÃ* di Verruche di Porco?

  13. #33
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart M View Post
    Would that be at the UniversitÃ* di Verruche di Porco?
    Ho trovato the textbook from that University!

  14. #34
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    The recent lottery-rapist case was decided under the principle that the House of Lords is not bound by earlier decisions. The Limitation Act 1980, and its application to Personal Injury claims of that type, was reviewed in a previous case and the Lords' decision was that such claims were not susceptible to the discretion of the court to extend the limitation period - so 6 years, or you're stuffed. But last month the Lords changed its mind and now it's 3 years, but that can be extended in appropriate circumstances.
    The limit for issuing certain claims in tort, such as an action for damages for negligence, is six years.Alternatively, the limitation period may be three years from the claimant's date of knowledge of the required elements to bring a claim in negligence. (ie the guy one the lottery)

    An action for damages for negligence is subject to a long stop period of 15 years from the date of the negligence (ie you can sue as a adult)

    The courts have always had discretion over the limitation act

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    The limit for issuing certain claims in tort, such as an action for damages for negligence, is six years.Alternatively, the limitation period may be three years from the claimant's date of knowledge of the required elements to bring a claim in negligence. (ie the guy one the lottery)

    An action for damages for negligence is subject to a long stop period of 15 years from the date of the negligence (ie you can sue as a adult)

    The courts have always had discretion over the limitation act
    ...oh, god, now you want to argue law with me.

  16. #36
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ...oh, god, now you want to argue law with me.
    No I want to correct you thats all, there is no debate here

    Ive been involved with the limitation Act 1980 last 20+ yrs

    There are few other posts with minor errors mainly points that are out of date (re various Acts) but i let you off
    Last edited by stewart38; 15th-February-2008 at 06:34 PM.

  17. #37
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    The limit for issuing certain claims in tort, such as an action for damages for negligence, is six years.Alternatively, the limitation period may be three years from the claimant's date of knowledge of the required elements to bring a claim in negligence. (ie the guy one the lottery)

    An action for damages for negligence is subject to a long stop period of 15 years from the date of the negligence (ie you can sue as a adult)

    The courts have always had discretion over the limitation act
    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Ive been involved with the limitation Act 1980 last 20+ yrs
    Ho hum, as I keep pointing out to you legal eagles from south of the border, this is a Ceroc Scotland forum and The Limitation Act 1980 does not apply here - the nearest equivalent is The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, in which the short presciption period is 5 years, not 6 years. There are also significant differences in the way the clock starts ticking, so theoretically in some cases the 6 year period in England could expire before the 5 year period in Scotland. And finally (for now!) don't even start on the Law of Tort, which is purely an English concept and doesn't exist north of the border.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    No I want to correct you thats all, there is no debate here

    Ive been involved with the limitation Act 1980 last 20+ yrs

    There are few other posts with minor errors mainly points that are out of date (re various Acts) but i let you off
    Well, if you think my analysis of the recent Lords decision is off; then a) you haven't read it carefully or b) despite 20 years you haven't understood the difference between the 3 and 6 year limits in personal injury.

  19. #39
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Surely this thread has now deviated into what is a discussion on points of English Law, which is both off the original subject of the thread and not pertinent to the Ceroc Scotland forum - it would be better dealt with by PMs between those involved, or else re-started as a new thread?

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: More sensationalist journalism!!

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    And finally (for now!) don't even start on the Law of Tort, which is purely an English concept and doesn't exist north of the border.
    Nonsense. Betcha. Might not have the same name, but to suggest that there is no concept of civil wrongs in Scotland is ridiculous.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 'Investigative journalism dead in UK' scandal!
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 7th-December-2006, 02:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •