Author wrote:
Hi Jane,
Yes some friends are going thought the 'mill' at the moment.
Someone (theory is he was about to break into their home), tripped over one
of the children's push along toys and cracked his ankle. The fact that he
had NO right to be on their premises is not relevant apparently (we are also
talking night time here). He is trying to sue them – as this injury has put
paid to his work (in more ways then one I imagine).
They have been told they could face negligence charges and are waiting to
see if it will go to court.
How absolutely ridiculous. The toy was on their land, of which this person
had no right to be on. But, it would seem the law views it differently.
I think this one might have been thrown out – but you never can tell. A man
made a purchase from a well known o online auction. He was not happy with
his purchase so he left a negative feedback against the sellers name. The
seller took offence he said it ruined his life and made him suicidal. If
the case went to court it was set to alter the whole way people viewed and
spoke on the internet. The auction people who run this 'feedback' were
also open to being sued for 'hosting' the website. (libellous ) . They
were talking millions of $. All because one person said he was not happy
with something he had bought... So it would seem be very careful what you
write – people are out there looking and searching the web. Also be careful
if you write something for someone else on your web site, or run a web site
for some, as you are as quilty as them – if they try to sue. Crazy World.
Coleen
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] RE: Governments

Hi Coleen!

I think we are probably starting to take a leaf out of the American's

book!

There can be few of us who could afford to take the Government, or anyone

else, to Court on a charge of negligence and seeking damages in
compensation, either here or in the US.

However, I guess you've noticed that people do sue in the States and

sometimes here and for vast sums of money too.

Professionals, ie: doctors, dentists, etc. and companies, have to pay huge

sums in insurance premiums to cover themselves for such an eventuality.

Lawyers too can take out insurance to cover the costs of a case if they

lose but they have to be very accurate in what they estimate to be the
percentage chance they have of 'winning' an individual case to be accepted
as a risk by the insurers.

As far as I know there is no 'blanket' cover available to them, each case

is accepted or rejected by the insurers on an individual basis and the
premiums can be very costly. If lawyers get their estimate wrong they're
unlikely to be accepted as a risk ever again!

Therefore, in order to avoid being sued it pays to make sure that the

proceedure used or goods manufactured – especially drugs etc – are really
'safe as possible' before being launched on the wider world.

Hence what appears to be a more open attitude to questions in the USA.

They are somewhat further on in this field than we are but I'm sure we'll
catch up soon!

Even for private individuals it's well worth checking that both public and

employer's liability is well covered by insurance. The chance that someone
will sue you because they tore their dress on your gatepost or a window
cleaner tripped over your planter when polishng your french windows is ever
more likely these days!

Author wrote:
Hi Mark
We are massively paranoid about compensation here in the UK, to the
determent of 'knowledge' and our sanity.
I agree the Americans throw more money into research and from my limited
knowledge they are not afraid if a 'theory' proves to be wrong and have

no

basis. They are also not afraid to ask questions. They see all of this

as

furthering the cause and research. We on the other hand are afraid of
admitting we got it wrong, and not enough people ask questions.

Something

in us, says we cannot ask questions. What right do we have – we might

also

be made to look silly! Stiff upper lip and all that tosh... So

repeated

Governments get away with doing what they do to us. And, in keeping with
what you say Mark, if you do not belong to the 'old boys'

establishment –

then you are always going to be on the outside looking in.
Wherever you look today good old independent advise has almost become a
thing of the past. From vets, doctors, supermarkets someone is pulling
someone else's strings via financial inducements. Most of the public

cannot

see it, and go blindly along buying what is shoved under their noses, in

the

belief that this is 'best' for whoever whatever...
In looking for 'blame factors'. Then the animals are going to be on the
loosing side everytime. After all they cannot stand up in the dock and

say

'well what what about all those chemicals you let the farmers use for

years.

I am just a sheep – but my money would be on them being the cause'! The
public understand the wording 'blame the farmers, mad cow diesease, etc

etc'

better then they do OP's and perhaps this is an easier pill to swallow

then,

countless Governements having sold this Countries health to the person

with

the 'biggest and fattest wallet' in terms of gratitude and payback for
services rendered.
Coleen
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] RE: Governments

Hi Colleen,

I totally agree with you about the Brits and their reluctance towards

being

open with research data , etc. It is all to do with protecting the

vested

interests, should any product ever prove to be held accountable for

causing some

health catastrophy that will lead to massive damage payments at the

end of

the

day. I think that, in respect of your discussion, the difference

between

the

Brits and the Americans is that the Americans tend to throw more money

into

researching the possible / likely environmental health negatives of a

new

invention , before they license its open release onto the market.

Whereas,

the

developers in this country tend to channel all of the available money

into

perfecting

the invention ( no bad thing ), yet largely skimp investigation of the
possible negatives for fear of sinking the whole project. Furthermore,

the

licensing

authorities in this country are abit more incestuous – Key

individuals

from

the relevant industry bodies dominate the ranks of the supposedly

impartial

government committees that are granting the licenses for their very

own

own

products. At one time, 75% of the veterinary products committee were

made

up of

pharmaceutical company folk . Hardly democracy. Well, the US EPA also

has

its

problems, but not as bad as goes on here.

I have just written a letter to a farming paper which discusses this

very

same problem. Its in response to the UK government scraping a meeting

to

be held

about the neurological effects in the farmers who were exposed to

agricultural

organo-phosphate insecticides. A phenomena that was government

compelled

here

in the UK –

Re: DEFRA ditch OP summit.

Dear Sir,

Back in 1984 when my farming business defeated the UK government's

compulsory

OP warble fly order in the high courts, I felt that there was a

possibility

of persuading officialdom that neuropsychiatric repercussions would

inevitably

follow any compulsory OP treatment programmes; thereby getting the

authorities

to reconsider their policies.

But nobody took any serious notice, and all anti-OPites found

themselves

subjected to a prolonged campaign of ridicule and dirty tricks from

the

appropriate departments. They were criminalised and marginalised until

they lost all

self worth.

Today, we are dealing with a DEFRA who have surrendered every last

iota of

government independence to the commercial interests of the

multinational

corporations. They have betrayed the healthy interests of the very

people

and

environment who they are supposed to be serving.

In this respect, it is not surprising to read that DEFRA have ditched

the

OP

summit ( FG 24/10/03). In one sense, their officials are finally being

honest

in stating that there is nothing new to discuss. On the face of it,

they

have

never had any genuine intention of advancing the debate . We all know

that

agricultural OPs were proven to be toxic to human health back in

the1950s,

plus

we all know that the government could never afford to cough up the

compensation

for the raft of illhealth damages that has directly / indirectly

resulted

from the compulsory overdosing with OP – Neurodegenerative disease in
farmworkers, BSE, ME, etc, etc. The government has craftily installed

the

enemy onto both

sides of the OP chessboard, and this has kept the debate in stalemate

for

many years now.

The answer is for the people of this country to bypass the so called

sugar

daddy state and get on with policing our toxic problems for ourselves.

We

need

to become responsible as individuals for our own health, and simply

refuse

to

buy the classes of chemical or food that are currently leading us into

the

abyss of self destruction. That is the only way to stop the heart rot.

The government will never own up to the fact that their compulsory OP
licensing had given us a diverse array of neurological diseases such

as

BSE, or that

the fungicides they have licensed for inclusion into our soaps have

given

us

skin cancer , or that concorde's sonic shock waves have blasted the

atomic

equilibrium of the ozone layer to pieces. They just make silent

retreats;

and , if

anyone starts shouting, they misappropriate the blame onto a natural
scapegoat like sheep scrapie, ultra violet rays or the methane from

livestock manures.

Sincerely, Mark Purdey.

(

www.markpurdey.com)

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...