Boscastle
 

In message , Tony Day
writes
I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the point.
If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Boscastle
 

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Tony Day
writes
I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the
point.
If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.

I think you mean HM not HRH

Boscastle
 

In message , Henry writes
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Tony Day
writes
I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the
point.
If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.

I think you mean HM not HRH

D'uh!

Yes I do! So much for being lazy and using abbreviations!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Boscastle
 

Ian Jelf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the
point. If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott
is acting head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.

Half a chance. That's all they need.

LU driver's managers told him to stop assisting stab victim
 

I also cant believe that a court in the UK would allow such a case to be
won.

The first thing my lecturer told me regarding common law court cases was
that the law was largely irreleveant and results of cases are most often
decided simply by which lawyer argues better on the day.

I think you are right in that no cases of this type have made the UK
courts, however the medical organisations are aware of the implications
of Good Samaritan deeds, which can by illustrated by this page on the
Resucitation Council's website giving scary reading about the potential
hazard of helping someone in need.

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm


Also, take a look at this American newspaper cutting which in a few
years time could happen here.

http://tinyurl.com/6j9ca


I did however come across this interesting case in my file:

Slater v Clay Cross Co (1956)
The pursuer was a woman who was struck by a train in a tunnel. She and
other visitors had been in the habit of using the tunnel as a short
cut. The engine driver was found to be negligent in failing to slow
down and sound his whistle when entering the tunnel. The woman was
found to be contributorily negligent but Volenti did not apply as the
court held that while the woman accepted the danger of the running of
the railway, she did not accept the risk of the driver's negligence.

(Volenti is a defence used where if the pursuer is aware and accepts the
danger of something then they canot sue if something goes wrong)

This was a landmark case which set a precedent for future negligence
cases which is relevent to another thread, though only on the Uk.Railway
newsgroup where a van driver was hit on an open level crossing on the
Severn Valley Railway. One post suggests that no warning whistle was
sounded by the steam engine driver and if this is true a lawyer acting
for the van driver could sue the railway/driver for negligence quoting
the test case above.

What a mad world we live in!!!!!!!


Stephen

Boscastle
 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:34:55 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Day"
wrote this:-

If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state.

Mrs Battenburg is head of state, whether she is in the UK or not.
She has a whole line of successors, whose place in the pecking order
is worked out in a rather sexist way, but these only come into play
upon death.

As such, it would be extraordinarily remiss if he did not
show a personal interest and concern, on the state's behalf, in any major
disaster of national significance.

His interest is in votes, he is a party politician. He might or
might not be interested and concerned on a personal level, but that
is a separate issue.

I do not think this is a major disaster and of national
significance. Obviously it is locally very serious and it is right
for assistance to be rendered from the UK as a whole.

It is NOT a political visit.

It is a totally party political visit.

If he did not visit, he would also be criticized (rightly).

He would be criticised. Whether this criticism would be right or
wrong is a matter of debate.

Whether such visits do any good may be arguable

Opinion was divided on his visit to Ladbroke Grove, but I am not
convinced it did any good. However, as his prowess in water was
being spun this weekend perhaps he was more use this time.

- the proof of the pudding
will be when we see what, if any, financial assistance Government makes
available to the local community to help rebuild.

We live in an era of telecommunications. As it has become less
important to visit in person so party politicians seem to be doing
more personal visits.

Hopefully his
understanding has been improved by the visit (which, incidentally, the local
lunchtime news described as "brief").

If he is up to his job then he will already have enough
understanding of such events. One of the effects of global warming
is going to be more weather extremes. He claims to be interested in
global warming and in England he covers all sorts of planning. Thus
he should have ensured that he is briefed adequately on such things,
for example with reference to Lynmouth.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Boscastle
 

On 17 Aug 2004 15:11:21 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the
point. If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott
is acting head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.

Half a chance. That's all they need.

Mr Liar does seem to think he is head of state.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Boscastle
 

Tony Day wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the point.
If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state. As such, it would be extraordinarily remiss if he did not
show a personal interest and concern, on the state's behalf, in any major
disaster of national significance. You would expect to see the head of state
in any other country visit such a disaster. It is NOT a political visit. If
he did not visit, he would also be criticized (rightly).

Indeed, but I have always felt so sorry for those who have suffered a
disaster and then have to smile for the cameras when a head of
government or head of state visits them.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)

Boscastle
 

In message on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:32:34
+0100 in uk.railway, Ian Jelf tapped out on the
keyboard:

In message , Tony Day
writes
I think you (and just about everybody else on here) are missing the point.
If Blair is out of the country (which I assume he is), Prescott is acting
head of state.

No, head of *government*. HRH is Head of State.

Off to the Tower with you. Her Majesty is not a mere Royal Highness.

--
John Youles Norwich England UK
j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m

LU driver's managers told him to stop assisting stab victim
 

In article , Fearty wrote:
The first thing my lecturer told me regarding common law court
cases was that the law was largely irreleveant and results of
cases are most often decided simply by which lawyer argues better
on the day.

And, in my legal studies days, by a feeling that although X had come
to grief as a result of their own stupidity (e.g. diving into an
empty swimming pool while drunk) if you could construct an argument
that allotted blame to some other insured party then you should try
to do so.

--
Tony Bryer