Quick Question

elmyra

I was stopped at a random Garda check point the other evening, due to having to explain that my insurance disc was on it's way out but I was covered (insurance company sent wrong one....) but the guard I was chatting to said that the least I could do was display the old one while I was waiting. I thought that it was illegal to display an out-of-date insurance disc and my Mum said the same when I told her about it today? Just a general wondering, it's all sorted now so I really just want to know out of general interest.

Eru

Asking for advice is a bannable offence, should this be re-worded and acceptable to mods I will reply.

padser

elmyra: Im not sure whether it is or is not legal to display an out of date disc, a google search or aosis.ie would probably tell you but in any event I wouldnt rely on a guard for legal advice.

padser

elmyra wrote:

Just a general wondering, it's all sorted now so I really just want to know out of general interest.

Attempting to solicit legal adivce? I dont think so

dats_right

s56 of The Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended deals with the rules relating to motor insurance. Essentially, it is an offence to drive a mecahnically propelled vehicle in a public place without insurance. This is a reasonably serious offence. However, failure to display a valid insurance disc is not a particularly serious offence and will most often be overlooked by the Gardai provided you are insured and can verify same. You and your mother are both mistaken to think that it is a specific offence to display an out of date disc, the offence is failure to display a valid disc. To a Garda it will always raise his suspicions that there is no insurance disc displayed and it is common sense to display the old disc until the new one arrives.

hullaballoo

padser wrote:

Attempting to solicit legal adivce? I dont think so

It generally needs to be more unequivocally worded than that, but it's ok because it's elmyra. She's not going to sue boards.

elmyra

hullaballoo wrote:

She's not going to sue boards.

Too right I'm not *hugs Boards*.

Apologies for not wording it better, but thank you for the responses.

focusing

Nice to see that policy of deleting or locking threads because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued is at least being applied consistently.

hullaballoo wrote:

It generally needs to be more unequivocally worded than that, but it's ok because it's elmyra.

hullaballoo

focusing wrote:

Nice to see that policy of deleting or locking threads because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued is at least being applied consistently.

I suggest you carefully re-word that.

focusing

Ok, how about:

At least for once they'll have some common sense and take a break from deleting or locking threads because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued.

hullaballoo

Have a read of the charter. Moderation is not something to be discussed here. Either take it to PM or the Feedback forum.

Incidentally, you're talking rubbish.

padser

focusing wrote:

Ok, how about:

At least for once they'll have some common sense and take a break from deleting or locking threads because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued.

I think Ill try to jump in here for a few reasons. Mostly to try and prevent this from getting out of hand (although I think focusing has chosen his words very carefully and avoided directly attacking a person and rather a policy that he (or she?) feels is unnecessary) which would probably result in Focusing getting banned and I actually think you are generally a very knowledgable poster.

So my 2c for what its worth -

a) Its a fair point that if a policy is going to be ruthlessly applied it should be ruthlessly applied and exceptions being made because somone is a 'regular' poster and 'will not sue boards',

b) even if it was acceptable only to make people who might sue boards re word posts from a practical point of view its a dangerous route to go down. Im sure Hull can remember from cases we have done in the past (estopell providing loads of examples) that the strongest and most trusting relationships can turn sour very quickly and end up in the courts.

Regarding the general re wording, deleting and locking of threads

c) I actual agree that boards could never be sued for advice given as it could never be shown (and for advice given like this it would need to be proved) that it was 'reasonable' for the user to rely on the advice and thus the strict moderation is unnecessary, however it is of course boards perogitive to moderate the forum in whatever way gives them the most protection

d) I think there is actually an argument that the current structure could potentially leave boards in no better a position IF it were to be sued. My reason here is that by allowing people to re word questions that blatently refer to real life issues boards and allowing legal advice to be then given may not provide any protection. Im sure any law student would agree with me that courts more and more are willing to look beyond 'mere words' and investigate the true meanings and actions behind them. Examples include in England a lease for a premises will not simply be considered a licence because the words 'there is no exclusive possession' are in the lease. Or in employment law if the courts feel an employment contract is for a fixxed term in order to prevent it coming under the unfair dismissals acts it will look beyond the term. Similarly I feel there is definitely an argument to be made that here a court could look past the 'is that a hypothetical question?' 'yes'.

e) Finally if boards could be sued because advice is given in answer to a 'direct question' rather then hypothetically surely they could be sued if someone (possibly not the original poster) found themselves in that hypotethical situation and relied on the adivce, in my opinion at least this is just as possible as being sued because a question has not been asked in the hypothetical.


A long post that im sure will generate contreversy (if anyone bothers to read it) but as i said its just my 2c

padser

PS my post was started (and posted) before Hulls response (yes it took me over half an hour....i got distracted half way through

focusing

Padser's right there.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll have this discussion sometime on a fresh, purpose-built thread.

Although, for the record, I don't like being told I'm talking rubbish, especially when I am very correct in my statement of the law.

But as the great man said, for the moment, no more of that.


***Kindly note: the great man I had in mind was Shakespeare, rather than that chap who quoted him, before someone takes it the wrong way.

"Soft you; a word or two before you go.
I have done the state some service, and they know’t.
No more of that. I pray you, in your letters,
When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak
Of one that loved not wisely but too well;”
Othello | Act 5, Scene 2