Unfair ban - who do I appeal to?

andrewh5

I was recently banned from the legal forum for 1 month. Not warned, just banned. I consider this to be most unfair as , as a recently new user of boards.ie, I feel that a warning would have been more approriate.

Comments/help please.

hullaballoo

Warned here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055253762

and given an infraction:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/infraction.php?do=view&p=55371605

Banned here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055254009.

Cheers,
hullaballú.

seamus

You were warned twice, effectively. I don't see any grounds for appeal.

In future, please read the charter of a forum before posting and take heed to any warnings posted on threads and infractions given out. The text of the infraction is sent to you via PM, so there's no "I didn't know" excuse.

andrewh5

seamus wrote: »

You were warned twice, effectively. I don't see any grounds for appeal.

In future, please read the charter of a forum before posting and take heed to any warnings posted on threads and infractions given out. The text of the infraction is sent to you via PM, so there's no "I didn't know" excuse.

I hadn't even seen the PM let alone read it so your claim is total nonsense.

The ban came before I was even aware of the infraction PM.

Comments?

Bloody draconian is what it is. You can see I am a relatively new user.

Stalin & Hiltler were bloody fairer.

hullaballoo

Oh yes, and the infraction thread is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055253803.

Cheers,
hulla.

andrewh5

hullaballú wrote: »

Oh yes, and the infraction thread is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055253803.

Cheers,
hulla.

Read my previous post!

andrewh5

Oh look. legal advice being given here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55376206#post55376206 Are you going to ban all of them too?

seamus

andrewh5 wrote: »

I hadn't even seen the PM let alone read it so your claim is total nonsense.

The ban came before I was even aware of the infraction PM.

The ban came four hours after you received the infraction PM. Whether you read it or not, I don't really care. You normally get a notification of PMs in your email inbox and you normally get a popup notification telling you that you have new private messages. If you have chosen to turn these off, that's not really our problem.

You received ample warning for this.

Oh look. legal advice being given here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...6#post55376206 Are you going to ban all of them too?

That's a different forum. Different rules.

andrewh5

seamus wrote: »

The ban came four hours after you received the infraction PM. Whether you read it or not, I don't really care. You normally get a notification of PMs in your email inbox and you normally get a popup notification telling you that you have new private messages. If you have chosen to turn these off, that's not really our problem.

You received ample warning for this.

Total rubbish!

I had no email notice & it most certainly was NOT 4 hours! That message was sent to two users together. It was probably the other user who had been on 4 hrs previously.

You lot call this justice? Fair? Is it hell.

andrewh5

seamus wrote: »

The ban came four hours after you received the infraction PM. Whether you read it or not, I don't really care. You normally get a notification of PMs in your email inbox and you normally get a popup notification telling you that you have new private messages. If you have chosen to turn these off, that's not really our problem.

You received ample warning for this.

That's a different forum. Different rules.

No excuse!

seamus

Your first warning was in this post at 10.57am today:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55371822&postcount=6

You were also given this infraction:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/infraction.php?do=view&p=55371605
At 11.10am today.

Four hours and eight minutes later, you broke the charter again and you were banned.

I don't care whether or not you received an email. If you didn't, then you chose to turn that feature off.

hullaballoo

andrewh5 wrote: »

I hadn't even seen the PM let alone read it so your claim is total nonsense.

The ban came before I was even aware of the infraction PM.

Comments?

Bloody draconian is what it is. You can see I am a relatively new user.

Stalin & Hiltler were bloody fairer.

Well, I don't believe that to be the case, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.

andrewh5 wrote: »

Oh look. legal advice being given here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55376206#post55376206 Are you going to ban all of them too?

That thread is not from the Legal Discussion forum, and different rules apply to each forum.

andrewh5

Hullaballu, you never did answer my question on the thread about why legal advice cannot be given. Would you care to?

hullaballoo

Firstly, why the rule is in place doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not you broke it, so why do you want to know?

Secondly, I did explain it to you - one of the PMs to which you responded gave an outline of why legal advice is not allowed and gave the example of the fact that your "advice" was wrong for illustration.

Looking for legal advice on the internet is like going down to Tesco asking people for legal advice, except it's less safe for you on the internet.

If someone gives out bad advice to you, and you rely on it, it's going to cost you a bloody fortune (and/or your liberty).

From the point of view of people giving legal advice, if you give bad legal advice and someone relies on it, you're open to being sued for negligent misstatement. There's a reason why only fully qualified lawyers can give legal advice: they're the only people who know what they're talking about.

seamus

Because nobody on boards.ie can verify that they are qualified to give out legal advice. If someone posts on the Legal Discussion forum asking for legal advice, there's an assumption that any replies will be from legally competent professionals. Which cannot be guaranteed and purporting to provide legal advice and/or someone acting on "legal advice" received on the forum could land boards.ie in hot water.

On any other forum, that expectation isn't there, though we tend to be wary of anything that gets too legalese and any posters who say, "I am a solicitor and this is what you must do", get stamped on.

andrewh5

hullaballú wrote: »

Firstly, why the rule is in place doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to whether or not you broke it, so why do you want to know?

Secondly, I did explain it to you - one of the PMs to which you responded gave an outline of why legal advice is not allowed and gave the example of the fact that your "advice" was wrong for illustration.

Looking for legal advice on the internet is like going down to Tesco asking people for legal advice, except it's less safe for you on the internet.

If someone gives out bad advice to you, and you rely on it, it's going to cost you a bloody fortune (and/or your liberty).

From the point of view of people giving legal advice, if you give bad legal advice and someone relies on it, you're open to being sued for negligent misstatement. There's a reason why only fully qualified lawyers can give legal advice: they're the only people who know what they're talking about.

Never heard of the guy in the UK who defends people lfor free and wins his cases then? He isn't a solicitor or barrister yet he is respected by judges. lawyers hold a licence to print money & I find that immoral. many, many people do not qualify for free legal aid & cannot afford to pay the outrageous fees that lawyers charge so how do they get justice in your perfect world?

seamus

What's that got to do with anything?

andrewh5

seamus wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything?

EVERYTHING!!!!!! Forums like this give people a chance to sound things out if they can't afford a solicitor and do not qualify for legal aid. It is clear that you don't give a stuff for anyone else's predicaments. Are you a lawyer perchance?

hullaballoo

You don't seem to understand the underlying issue here. If I've been unclear, I apologise.

What's important here is not whether people should be able to get free legal advice. I fully agree that they should - and where I can, I would help people in that regard. The issue is that people who don't know what they're talking about come along and start giving people "advice" that's only going to land the poor person in more trouble.

From a moralistic point of view, the above is enough of an explanation, but there are legal implications as well: anyone who gives the bad advice can be sued for holding himself out as a professional where he is not.

andrewh5 wrote:

Never heard of the guy in the UK who defends people lfor free and wins his cases then? He isn't a solicitor or barrister yet he is respected by judges.

No, I certainly haven't heard of him. I can't tell you what goes on over in the UK (though, I doubt this man's existence for a number of reasons that I'm not getting into), but that simply couldn't happen over here.

You have to have rights of audience to speak to the court over here. Traditionally, parties to the action - i.e., plaintiff/prosecutor and defendant(s) - were the only people who had rights of audience. It has been extended to solicitors and accountants and possible a few others in that vein in various circumstances.

However, someone who is unconnected and unqualified simply wouldn't be allowed to address a court in this country.

Perhaps he advises people what to do when they get into court, and doesn't actually speak in court himself. If that's the case, he is a fool. Even more foolish are the people who listen to him.

In relation to medicine, would you trust someone who wasn't qualified to perform open-heart surgery on you? Would you even trust their diagnosis of you?

In relation to accounting and finance, would you trust someone who wasn't qualified to manage your hard-earned cash? Would you trust them to advise you on what to do with your money?

The logic follows for lawyers and there's often just as much, if not more at stake. If I was accused of something by a criminal court, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be willing to fork out my very last penny and then some to save myself from jail. If people can't afford lawyers, they get legal aid. What you're saying in relation to not being able to afford lawyers and having to pay "outrageous fees" is rubbish.

For your information, you are misdirected in your assertion that lawyers have a licence to print money: if you said that to any young barrister, you can rest assured they would take issue with you. One of my friends has been a practicing barrister for three years now (having done two years of unpaid devilling) and made a whopping €5,000 last year. That figure would not cover your costs as a barrister (library fees and professional indemnity).

I'm not too sure why I went to such trouble to explain this to you. I know already that you're just going to compare me to a Nazi again.

Gordon

andrewh5 wrote: »

Are you a lawyer perchance?

Now now, less of the insults :pac:

Maybe you should speak with this gentleman that offers free legal advice and set up a free discussion board offering people free legal advice. You could call it freelegaladvice.ie for example. You'd need to pay for hosting and the domain name but you can install phpBB software for free.

It's obviously a niche in the market for free legal advice.

hullaballoo

Gordon wrote: »

Now now, less of the insults :pac:

Maybe you should speak with this gentleman that offers free legal advice and set up a free discussion board offering people free legal advice. You could call it freelegaladvice.ie for example. You'd need to pay for hosting and the domain name but you can install phpBB software for free.

It's obviously a niche in the market for free legal advice.

A classic example of dodgy business consultancy, on foot of which one might sue. Of course, one might also recognise the facetiousness with which Gordon posted, in which case one would be a shrewd one!!!!one!

Edit: by the way, it's, 'to whom do I appeal?' :pac: