Contributory Negligence v Compromise
Something to think about:
In law (when you issue a writ) a Judge has the ability to deal with a case on the premis of "contributory negligence" - I have seen it bizarrely referenced that contributory negligence can be 100% but to my mind that would just be wholly negligent then! So, perhaps between 1% and 99% based on logic. (Someone may like to enlighten me concerning 100% and how it works legally!) Where contributory negligence is found, one or more parties are involved as having done something wrong against each other or others, have occasioned damages which can be apportioned.
Contrast this with "compromise":
A party may have done absolutely nothing wrong, therefore why would they enter into a situation whereby they "compromise" away something in order to mediate their issue and/or if one or more party has done something wrong why would they compromise that which they have done wrong[rather than agree contributory participation]: the Japanese use this concept "culturally" to save loss of face - whereas we appear to be using it to resolve the dispute quicker, or cost effectively, or provide a solution other than can be provided by the courts, eg an apology.
Now, with all this hoo ha going on in the banking sector can folks keep their eye on the ball - there should be a Directive on Mediation due to impact across Europe about now enabling "compromise" to have legal effect via the judiciary and is effective "within" the legal profession contra to my research and arguments and I have been unable "democratically" to prevent this concept being contained in society in the Judicial system and in the legal professions across Europe albeit I do accept it may exist outside these arenas as a "competitive" concept which is "naturally" opposite to litigation (public) and arbitration (private) by application of the "rule of law".
Moreover, everyone should question why we need to "compromise" our rights via mediation and the wider aspect that that has concerning law where an ("ADR" alternative dispute resolution / "IDS" informal dispute settlement = mediation) clause is contained in a common law contract thereby undermining it and the need in society for the application of the rule of law other than by choice of forum. No one is saying the PARTIES cannot resolve their dispute themselves, what I am arguing is that where a writ is issued that "rights" are applied especially where you have done nothing wrong and/or are not accountable or responsible for any wrong done before a JUDGE.
Back to those Bankers:
Company in profit = company pay bonuses
Company not in profit = company does not borrow to pay bonuses
Company in profit but does not pay bonuses = check your contract / access to the courts!!! maybe constructive something or other
Also what about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 could it be used to prevent paying out bonuses/pensions where there is a contractual right to them [due to a certain politicisation of contracts] especially where there is serious failure including [whopping failure]presumably based on a political atmosphere that does not accept it is in a big hole and is continuing to dig as opposed to stop digging. Politically stop throwing good [taxpayers] money after bad - its not about nationalisation and if you so do, then presumably those who are affecting the financial markets will realise there is nothing more forthcoming and therefore to cease activities : if you keep giving them the money, they will keep doing what they are doing to get it!
In the current climate, if you earn your wages then hopefully you keep your job; if there is not enough work - then try seconding folks to clients; a four day week; letting folks off to upskill via education/training; working from home; or better office based working - ie teleconferencing rather than flying out to do business; dropping your fee rate to keep clients / attract them - bear in mind if a core business folds it has a ripple effect to all suppliers (you have a material benefit to keeping core businesses ticking over too). And why not get rid of the City of London/Westminister Law firms fee charging differential - is it really necessary when the law is the same, therefore it should follow so is the service to client! including the fee!!! and of course make the necessary changes re good redundancy practices so as to avoid litigation!!
And whilst I am on the soap box:
Heathrow Airport - all you "need" is a new control tower!
Do some statistics - who is travelling to from where and from where to. Then locate new runway(s) nearer to the bulk of the source of passengers: lessen congestion on London - split up any potential terrorist threat do you really want to close a whole airport even on a luggage handler strike and disrupt even more people's holidays - minimise the risk - scrap the Heathrow upgrade. Also what about the 3 new Millenium Cities and their airports. You don't take a Ferry to Norway from Stranraer - so why would you fly to Moscow from Heathrow when you could fly their from Inverness! And to suggest that the Scots would use a high speed train link to Heathrow over flying out of Prestwick is fallacious - use the money for a new Bridge over the Forth and if you want to do high speed train links why not Myrthur Tydfil (where there is allegedly 7000 unemployed out of a population of 10,000 approx to Cardiff (Internationale) and/or Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness - flying folks to North America, China, Russia and the northern hemisphere. Also in Germany an internal flight between Cologne and Berlin is 19 euro - internal flights in the UK are ???? How about redoing the entire flight paths for Europe ensuring that airports/runways are nearer to the source of their passengers toing and froing as well as ensuring that internal flights are cheaper so as to reach more beneficial international flight zones and planes fly out "full" - there is a saying "less is more". NB it is more likely that runway approval will be given in Inverness than Heathrow as a planning concern - less congestion; less environmental impact and NO UPSETTING FOLKS BY DEMOLISHING VILLAGES / AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYISTS etc.
Dare I say : discuss!
In law (when you issue a writ) a Judge has the ability to deal with a case on the premis of "contributory negligence" - I have seen it bizarrely referenced that contributory negligence can be 100% but to my mind that would just be wholly negligent then! So, perhaps between 1% and 99% based on logic. (Someone may like to enlighten me concerning 100% and how it works legally!) Where contributory negligence is found, one or more parties are involved as having done something wrong against each other or others, have occasioned damages which can be apportioned.
Contrast this with "compromise":
A party may have done absolutely nothing wrong, therefore why would they enter into a situation whereby they "compromise" away something in order to mediate their issue and/or if one or more party has done something wrong why would they compromise that which they have done wrong[rather than agree contributory participation]: the Japanese use this concept "culturally" to save loss of face - whereas we appear to be using it to resolve the dispute quicker, or cost effectively, or provide a solution other than can be provided by the courts, eg an apology.
Now, with all this hoo ha going on in the banking sector can folks keep their eye on the ball - there should be a Directive on Mediation due to impact across Europe about now enabling "compromise" to have legal effect via the judiciary and is effective "within" the legal profession contra to my research and arguments and I have been unable "democratically" to prevent this concept being contained in society in the Judicial system and in the legal professions across Europe albeit I do accept it may exist outside these arenas as a "competitive" concept which is "naturally" opposite to litigation (public) and arbitration (private) by application of the "rule of law".
Moreover, everyone should question why we need to "compromise" our rights via mediation and the wider aspect that that has concerning law where an ("ADR" alternative dispute resolution / "IDS" informal dispute settlement = mediation) clause is contained in a common law contract thereby undermining it and the need in society for the application of the rule of law other than by choice of forum. No one is saying the PARTIES cannot resolve their dispute themselves, what I am arguing is that where a writ is issued that "rights" are applied especially where you have done nothing wrong and/or are not accountable or responsible for any wrong done before a JUDGE.
Back to those Bankers:
Company in profit = company pay bonuses
Company not in profit = company does not borrow to pay bonuses
Company in profit but does not pay bonuses = check your contract / access to the courts!!! maybe constructive something or other
Also what about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 could it be used to prevent paying out bonuses/pensions where there is a contractual right to them [due to a certain politicisation of contracts] especially where there is serious failure including [whopping failure]presumably based on a political atmosphere that does not accept it is in a big hole and is continuing to dig as opposed to stop digging. Politically stop throwing good [taxpayers] money after bad - its not about nationalisation and if you so do, then presumably those who are affecting the financial markets will realise there is nothing more forthcoming and therefore to cease activities : if you keep giving them the money, they will keep doing what they are doing to get it!
In the current climate, if you earn your wages then hopefully you keep your job; if there is not enough work - then try seconding folks to clients; a four day week; letting folks off to upskill via education/training; working from home; or better office based working - ie teleconferencing rather than flying out to do business; dropping your fee rate to keep clients / attract them - bear in mind if a core business folds it has a ripple effect to all suppliers (you have a material benefit to keeping core businesses ticking over too). And why not get rid of the City of London/Westminister Law firms fee charging differential - is it really necessary when the law is the same, therefore it should follow so is the service to client! including the fee!!! and of course make the necessary changes re good redundancy practices so as to avoid litigation!!
And whilst I am on the soap box:
Heathrow Airport - all you "need" is a new control tower!
Do some statistics - who is travelling to from where and from where to. Then locate new runway(s) nearer to the bulk of the source of passengers: lessen congestion on London - split up any potential terrorist threat do you really want to close a whole airport even on a luggage handler strike and disrupt even more people's holidays - minimise the risk - scrap the Heathrow upgrade. Also what about the 3 new Millenium Cities and their airports. You don't take a Ferry to Norway from Stranraer - so why would you fly to Moscow from Heathrow when you could fly their from Inverness! And to suggest that the Scots would use a high speed train link to Heathrow over flying out of Prestwick is fallacious - use the money for a new Bridge over the Forth and if you want to do high speed train links why not Myrthur Tydfil (where there is allegedly 7000 unemployed out of a population of 10,000 approx to Cardiff (Internationale) and/or Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness - flying folks to North America, China, Russia and the northern hemisphere. Also in Germany an internal flight between Cologne and Berlin is 19 euro - internal flights in the UK are ???? How about redoing the entire flight paths for Europe ensuring that airports/runways are nearer to the source of their passengers toing and froing as well as ensuring that internal flights are cheaper so as to reach more beneficial international flight zones and planes fly out "full" - there is a saying "less is more". NB it is more likely that runway approval will be given in Inverness than Heathrow as a planning concern - less congestion; less environmental impact and NO UPSETTING FOLKS BY DEMOLISHING VILLAGES / AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYISTS etc.
Dare I say : discuss!
posted by Lesley McDade at 6:36 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home