What is the point of the Legal Forum?

andrewh5

You can't ask for or give advice. Do the latter and the draconian moderators ban you from the forum with no right of appeal. All entries are followed by a mod post of 'consult a solicitor for legal advice'. Are they all on commission form solicitors or something?

aidan_walsh

Legal Discussion Forum.

andrewh5

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Legal Discussion Forum.

That is the point. You CAN'T discuss anything without moderaqtors throwing their dummies about! It is pointless and useless.

aidan_walsh

Discussion is not the same as advice. If you can't see the distinction, I doubt you're in any position to be offering advice anyway.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055254072

andrewh5 wrote:

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.

Except thats not the point of the forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054891512

Disclaimer: This is not a legal advice forum. Any opinion offered, in any guise, is to be taken as opinion, and nothing else. That means that if somebody offers a particular course of action, this is not to be thought of as legal advice.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054893130

Basically, hypotheticals are ok, real-life cases are not.

andrewh5

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Discussion is not the same as advice. If you can't see the distinction, I doubt you're in any position to be offering advice anyway.

How the hell do you know? Do you miraculously know what my profession is?

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

Your post has been reported.

Nerin

wasnt this already discussed today???
and the same answers given?
you cant advise someone as it puts them at risk and possibly boards,its a privately run/owned forum and they aren't going to take the fall for foolish mistakes.

done?

andrewh5

nerin wrote: »

wasnt this already discussed today???
and the same answers given?
you cant advise someone as it puts them at risk and possibly boards,its a privately run/owned forum and they aren't going to take the fall for foolish mistakes.

done?

No. Sometimes questions need to be asked and answered. If all that is discussed ix existing laws then there is always going to be a point where questions will be asked and answers cannot be given without mod intervention. That is wholly pointless.

aidan_walsh

How the hell do you know? Do you miraculously know what my profession is?

No, but I imagine any capable lawyer is able to distinguish between discussion, opinion and advice.

Nerin

andrewh5 wrote: »

No. Sometimes questions need to be asked and answered. If all that is discussed ix existing laws then there is always going to be a point where questions will be asked and answers cannot be given without mod intervention. That is wholly pointless.

if you dont like it,theres nothing that can really be done. youre welcome to start your own legal discussion site and take the risk yourself.

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

Your post has been reported.

a) you proved his point with that retort
and b) what was the point, people have tried to be straight with you and you are not seeing they are the rules.
now please stop being aggressive and illogical, because cats shall arrive.

Gandalf23

andrewh5 wrote: »

How the hell do you know? Do you miraculously know what my profession is?

Well enlighten us then ... what is your profession?

andrewh5 wrote: »

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

Your post has been reported.

Actually dont bother ... if your making a remark like that its obviously nothing in the legal profession.

Maybe its something to do with animal care? Cats perhaps ...

Nerin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Maybe its something to do with animal care? Cats perhaps ...

that almost sounded like an intro sir

BanzaiBk

As someone who works/is studying in the legal area, I love lurking on the Legal Discussion forum esp. the FE1 thread. I find it fairly easy to make a distinction between advise and discussion. I would never in a million years offer anyone on the internet legal advice, but then again why would anyone in a million years look for legal advice on the internet?! boards.ie is a privatly owned website and as such is covering itself on a legal basis by not leaving themselves open to a suit because someone received bad legal advice on a forum. What exactly is hard to comprehend about that?

Looking at the forum right now there is plent of discussion, e.g. the Equality thread, who can fire a judge, phone unlocking etc. I remember back a few weeks during the big court cases of late there was loads of discussion. Someone wandering on saying "I did this ____, am I in trouble" or "what happens now?" etc are just not topics suitable for the forum. It's not called the legal advice forum.

Free Legal Advice -> FLAC

The_Minister

andrewh5 wrote: »

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

LOL. Now we KNOW that you are not a lawyer, nor indeed, anyone with a basic knowledge of the law.

Nerin

BanzaiBk wrote: »

As someone who works/is studying in the legal area, I love lurking on the Legal Discussion forum esp. the FE1 thread. I find it fairly easy to make a distinction between advise and discussion. I would never in a million years offer anyone on the internet legal advice, but then again why would anyone in a million years look for legal advice on the internet?! boards.ie is a privatly owned website and as such is covering itself on a legal basis by not leaving themselves open to a suit because someone received bad legal advice on a forum. What exactly is hard to comprehend about that?

Looking at the forum right now there is plent of discussion, e.g. the Equality thread, who can fire a judge, phone unlocking etc. I remember back a few weeks during the big court cases of late there was loads of discussion. Someone wandering on saying "I did this ____, am I in trouble" or "what happens now?" etc are just not topics suitable for the forum. It's not called the legal advice forum.

Free Legal Advice -> FLAC

thats a damned good post BanzaiBk. Feedback is awwrite! i havent had to post a cat in ages

The_Minister wrote: »

LOL. Now we KNOW that you are not a lawyer, nor indeed, anyone with a basic knowledge of the law.

+1

Blk150

You guys have lost me

Otacon

Blk150 wrote: »

You guys have lost me

YOU must be a lawyer then!

seamus

andrewh5 wrote: »

You can't ask for or give advice. Do the latter and the draconian moderators ban you from the forum with no right of appeal.

You have the right to appeal. In fact, you did appeal. Your appeal was rejected. Just like in real court cases, to "appeal" doesn't mean to have your "sentence" overturned.

Just because the appeal didn't go the way you wanted it, doesn't mean you were denied the chance to appeal.

Are they all on commission form solicitors or something?

Quite the opposite in fact. When someone's life goes wrong because of advice they received on the forum, solicitors will cash in on cleaning up the mess.
You wouldn't believe the atrocious opinions that people sometimes put forward as legal fact. People often get it wrong, but we've seen stuff along the lines of, "It's legal to poison and cook your neighbour's cat if it spends more than 15 minutes on your property". This is why advice on real problems is banned.

Nerin

Blk150 wrote: »

You guys have lost me

OP broke rules of forum 2 (or was it 3?) times.
thinks that the rules are stupid and is pi$$ed off about being banned.
and is now bitching about it

seamus wrote: »

You wouldn't believe the atrocious opinions that people sometimes put forward as legal fact. People often get it wrong, but we've seen stuff along the lines of, "It's legal to poison and cook your neighbour's cat if it spends more than 15 minutes on your property". This is why advice on real problems is banned.

i dunno, he might. OP you really have no comeback on this, rules where there, you were warned and you ignored it.

Boston

The fact that I don't know your profession is a good reason not to follow your advice. It you post up your name and address I'd be more inclined to follow your advice given that I could then sue you.

Nerin

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/12/isezsuedabea128498221578605000.jpg

stevenmu

andrewh5 wrote: »

If all that is discussed ix existing laws then there is always going to be a point where questions will be asked and answers cannot be given without mod intervention. That is wholly pointless.

Well if you're right then I suggest you just wait for that point to be reached, then the forum will be closed and the problem solved.

And I'm sure you are right, it's not like new laws are ever created, old laws struck out, new precedents set, an infinite number of real life situations against which laws must be interpreted and applied etc.

Gandalf23

nerin wrote: »

that almost sounded like an intro sir

Why thank you sir ...

/ doffs hat to nerin ... /

Maximilian

andrewh5 wrote: »

You can't ask for or give advice. Do the latter and the draconian moderators ban you from the forum with no right of appeal. All entries are followed by a mod post of 'consult a solicitor for legal advice'. Are they all on commission form solicitors or something?

andrewh5 wrote: »

That is the point. You CAN'T discuss anything without moderaqtors throwing their dummies about! It is pointless and useless.

andrewh5 wrote: »

How the hell do you know? Do you miraculously know what my profession is?

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

Your post has been reported.

andrewh5 wrote: »

No. Sometimes questions need to be asked and answered. If all that is discussed ix existing laws then there is always going to be a point where questions will be asked and answers cannot be given without mod intervention. That is wholly pointless.

For some reason, I haven't been able to reply on the (more or less) duplicate thread on Help Desk.

Anyway, If you bothered to read the Charter ,Andrew, you wouldn't have to post either here or on the Help Desk forum. In fact, I would lay money on you still not having read it because if you did, I would credit you with the intelligence to have understood it & I wouldn't be typing this. The fact that you don't understand why the rules are what they are is completely irrelevant.

The only person "throwing their dummies about" is you. You got an warning & infraction for breaching the charter earlier today and then went and did it again, earning a ban for yourself, as was promised. I can't speak for my fellow Mods but I certainly won't be inclined to lift the ban anytime soon.

I'm not going to bother going through your various points and assertions because its clear to me you are just having a rant. Move on. Oh, and read the Charter.

Dr Strange

Maximilian wrote: »

For some reason, I haven't been able to reply on the (more or less) duplicate thread on Help Desk.

Only Admins and Smods can reply there afaik.

Karoma

Preusse wrote: »

Only Admins and Smods can reply there afaik.

Correct. It protects idiots making idiotic statements...from other idiots...mmm.

Nerin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Why thank you sir ...

/ doffs hat to nerin ... /

doffs hat back

fitting that it would be my thousandth post

mikemac

andrewh5 wrote: »

How the hell do you know? Do you miraculously know what my profession is?

Your remark is insulting & potentially libellous.

Your post has been reported.

lol
You can bring a libel case? Has the reputation of your username being ruined?
Maybe you have an important job Andrew but you're no lawyer

Overheal

Maximilian wrote:

Anyway, If you bothered to read the Charter ,Andrew, you wouldn't have to post either here or on the Help Desk forum. The fact that you don't understand why the rules are what they are is completely irrelevant.

The Charter Disclaimer wrote:

Disclaimer: This is not a legal advice forum. Any opinion offered, in any guise, is to be taken as opinion, and nothing else. That means that if somebody offers a particular course of action, this is not to be thought of as legal advice. In the event that a poster says he is qualified to give legal advice, neither Boards.ie Ltd., nor any of its affiliates, accept any liability for any loss or damage arising therefrom. In other words, members can assume that nobody who posts in this forum is qualified to give legal advice. BY POSTING IN OR READING FROM THIS FORUM, YOU AGREE TO THIS DISCLAIMER. Any legal advice sought or given will result in an immediate week long ban. Second offences result in an indefinite ban.

Its come up enough times where the mods could at least spend a paragraph explaining the implications as to why this is the case, ie "This is to protect Boards.ie from legal action, bla bla bla."

However, this is a disclaimer. Boards is disavowing that anything posted in the forum is legal advice, and has about as much grounding in reality as the Cuckoos Nest. If you are already washing your hands of the liability of asking for legal advice:

In the event that a poster says he is qualified to give legal advice, neither Boards.ie Ltd., nor any of its affiliates, accept any liability for any loss or damage arising therefrom. In other words, members can assume that nobody who posts in this forum is qualified to give legal advice.

Then I really dont see the point of banning the asking of direct questions about the law (which I have been banned for in the past)

Bear with me here lads: if I ask for example, for a general opinion on the current standing of a law to sort an issue, I understand that it will not always be so and that what Im being told could be a complete fabrication. However say I want to, for instance, drink when I'm 17. If I get 12 posters telling me its not possible, fine, I probably wont pursue the matter very far. However if I get some posters saying they thought you could (opinion) then it would merit looking up in the Irish Statute Book. Its just a time saver when theres thousands of pages of Irish law to sift through (much of it legal jargon) to ask people who may have read through it already, or not.

You dont see such disclaimers say, in the tech thread. Someone tells you its ok to overclock your graphics card, then your system blows up - whos going to sue boards.ie? whos going to sue the poster? Nobody: youre a tool and you fried your own graphics card.

I can see why its important to have it in Legal and Personal Issues when it may be a case of commiting a serious crime or life and death (you do not give someone suicidal advice/tips on how to kill themselves for instance); but when asking a general question on the state of the law and adding context to it for communications sake, I really dont see the problem. Im not a legal professional and would have assumed placing context on a question would help to convey understanding and resolve feedback more accurately.

Maximilian

In fairness, if you blow up your graphics card, that’s far removed from going to jail for example, because some eejit tells you "nah mate, you don't actually need to show up at Court".

If someone gets the wrong legal advice here, acts on it to their determent, there could be serious consequences. Be that financial or their very liberty. They might then seek recourse against the person who gave the advice and those that permitted it to be given. That would include Boards.ie Ltd - the standard practice in litigation is to throw the net as far wide as you can. Sue everyone (optionally from orbit, it being the only way to be sure). That in a nutshell, is the reason for the rule in question. Putting disclaimers in a sticky is not a magic formula for escaping liability. It helps sure but its by no means bullet proof.

There are instances where threads which are really borderline cases are left open or perhaps because a mod judges the "risk" negligible. I've been a solicitor for almost as long as I've been a member here, so I use my own judgment as to what threads to close and which to leave. Its not a hard decision to make when someone is blatantly trying to get free advice here and you know they should see a solicitor for their own good.

Overheal

Maximilian wrote: »

In fairness, if you blow up your graphics card, that’s far removed from going to jail for example, because some eejit tells you "nah mate, you don't actually need to show up at Court".

If someone gets the wrong legal advice here, acts on it to their determent, there could be serious consequences. Be that financial or their very liberty. They might then seek recourse against the person who gave the advice and those that permitted it to be given. That would include Boards.ie Ltd - the standard practice in litigation is to throw the net as far wide as you can. Sue everyone (optionally from orbit, it being the only way to be sure). That in a nutshell, is the reason for the rule in question. Putting disclaimers in a sticky is not a magic formula for escaping liability. It helps sure but its by no means bullet proof.

There are instances where threads which are really borderline cases are left open or perhaps because a mod judges the "risk" negligible. I've been a solicitor for almost as long as I've been a member here, so I use my own judgment as to what threads to close and which to leave. Its not a hard decision to make when someone is blatantly trying to get free advice here and you know they should see a solicitor for their own good.

Wow... humor. unexpected Here I thought legal types had no souls.

okay I'll ask about my case here on the sly so; do I really seem the type to sue boards.ie ? I'm a foreign national college student studying computer games development.... cmoooooonnnnnnn......

though I was frantic and very snappy at the time so I see why ya did it.

If someone gets the wrong legal advice here, acts on it to their determent, there could be serious consequences. Be that financial or their very liberty. They might then seek recourse against the person who gave the advice and those that permitted it to be given. That would include Boards.ie Ltd - the standard practice in litigation is to throw the net as far wide as you can. Sue everyone (optionally from orbit, it being the only way to be sure). That in a nutshell, is the reason for the rule in question. Putting disclaimers in a sticky is not a magic formula for escaping liability. It helps sure but its by no means bullet proof.

There are instances where threads which are really borderline cases are left open or perhaps because a mod judges the "risk" negligible. I've been a solicitor for almost as long as I've been a member here, so I use my own judgment as to what threads to close and which to leave. Its not a hard decision to make when someone is blatantly trying to get free advice here and you know they should see a solicitor for their own good.

I think adding that to the charter (perhaps in a nice looking ) would answer a lot of the confusion and frustration a lot of posters get from the LD forum.

Maximilian

Overheal wrote: »

Wow... humor. unexpected Here I thought legal types had no souls

Mine has about two years left.

Overheal wrote: »

okay I'll ask about my case here on the sly so; do I really seem the type to sue boards.ie ? I'm a foreign national college student studying computer games development.... cmoooooonnnnnnn......

You have to operate as though anyone is the type. You might judge a person correctly 99 times in a hundred but unfortunately, it only takes that 100th person to take legal action and to quote Aliens again, its game over man.

Overheal wrote: »

I think adding that to the charter (perhaps in a nice looking ) would answer a lot of the confusion and frustration a lot of posters get from the LD forum6

I think you are right here in fairness & that's something to look at. Some large font attempts at idiot proofing might be no harm.

Overheal

Maximilian wrote: »

quote Aliens again, its game over man.

Wow. That might still be funny to me if you posted it up as a function call or something.

int main() {

        new lameJoke;
        cout << lameJoke.string("Aliens") << endl;
        return 0;
}

.....No, that was still pretty bad my course isnt about playing games at all.... :pac: but you get major kudos for supporting my favorite diety: the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think you are right here in fairness & that's something to look at. Some large font attempts at idiot proofing might be no harm.

\o/

Sangre

Hmm, probably should ask to be unban considering I'm starting with a firm in september...

Anyway, its pretty obvious what the forum is for, abstract legal discussion relating to bills, existing legislation, precedent and legal opinion. Also handy for those studying the law or hoping to pursue a career.

johnnyskeleton

Sangre wrote: »

Hmm, probably should ask to be unban considering I'm starting with a firm in september...

Yes, along with what college you went to, how many fe1s you have passed already, and what areas of law you are interested in, all the big firms want to know whether you have been banned from boards for any reason.

Sangre wrote:

Anyway, its pretty obvious what the forum is for, abstract legal discussion relating to bills, existing legislation, precedent and legal opinion. Also handy for those studying the law or hoping to pursue a career.

What really gets me is that it doesn't really take that much brain power to turn:

Someone please help: I'm up in the District Court tomorrow for possessing a small amount of hash. Should I just plead guilty or should I see a solicitor? Will I go to jail?

into:

I'm reasearching court cases because I am doing a course in journalism. I've heard that people can be jailed for minor offences, such as possession of a small amount of hash. Is this true? I would also like to know what the benefits are of having a solicitor versus defending yourself?

OR

Can my ex-spouse take my children away?

into:

Hypothetically, can the court order that one parent of a child gets sole custody, and if so what are the circumstances?

Sherifu

Maximilian wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

I think adding that to the charter (perhaps in a nice looking ) ) would answer a lot of the confusion and frustration a lot of posters get from the LD forum.

I think you are right here in fairness & that's something to look at. Some large font attempts at idiot proofing might be no harm.

size=1 is the small one.
size=7 is the big one.
maybe throw in some red too

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What really gets me is that it doesn't really take that much brain power to turn:

True.

Maximilian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Someone please help: I'm up in the District Court tomorrow for possessing a small amount of hash. Should I just plead guilty or should I see a solicitor? Will I go to jail?

into:

I'm reasearching court cases because I am doing a course in journalism. I've heard that people can be jailed for minor offences, such as possession of a small amount of hash. Is this true? I would also like to know what the benefits are of having a solicitor versus defending yourself?

OR

Can my ex-spouse take my children away?

into:

Hypothetically, can the court order that one parent of a child gets sole custody, and if so what are the circumstances?

Changing a question into a "hypothetical" one, does not necessarily mean the thread won't be locked. Its quite obvious sometimes that a question is framed in such a way as to sidestep the intent of the charter. Its not an easy call but if I'm reasonably sure its the case, I will lock the thread. Don't know what the other Mods think about these scenarios.

Overheal

Hypotheitcally speaking (:p) what if someone did instigate legal action versus boards? Boards.ie has hardly passed the BAR exam or anything; Surely there have been cases in irish law where your friend has said "yeah, you should just kill her" and the lad does, and he tries to blame it on his friend saying he told me to do it. Id say they didnt get very far with that.

Maximilian

Thats a bit of an extreme example. "Bob said I could do it" is no defence to murder.

Nerin

Maximilian wrote: »

Thats a bit of an extreme example. "Bob said I could do it" is no defence to murder.

bob said that?!:eek: oh well.
*gets shovel*

Jesus Wept

hullaballoo

Overheal wrote: »

Hypotheitcally speaking (:p) what if someone did instigate legal action versus boards? Boards.ie has hardly passed the BAR exam or anything; Surely there have been cases in irish law where your friend has said "yeah, you should just kill her" and the lad does, and he tries to blame it on his friend saying he told me to do it. Id say they didnt get very far with that.

Yeah, that's true.

There's absolutely no difference between telling someone to kill another person and misinforming them as to the consequences of possession of 'nuff for a joint. Absolutely no difference. None whatsoever. In fact, the two are so similar that there are Supreme Court judges who couldn't tell the difference. Subtlety doesn't describe it. In fact, I'd hedge all my bets with you on that. Fcuk Cheltenham, who needs it?

Amz

Er ... hug?

Sherifu

Someone took the ham out of his sandwich...

popebenny16

Well, as someone with 9 years PQE I don't post on the Legal board because it's like being back in school. Dosn't mean that the board has no worth nor substance nor expertise, in fact it can provide me with very good pointers. However, you have to have been already as far as me to get that subtlety.

Given the fact that the OP cannot understand a basic rule of a messageboard I'd say Aidan can rest easy in his bed.

Now, with that in mind, why does the OP want to be told what to do by someone who, unlike me, hasn't got to put their name, professional integrity and expensive indemnity insurance on the line when they advise him?

As I have often said, if you want your wisdom tooth out you go to the dentist.....

Overheal

hullaballú wrote: »

Yeah, that's true.

There's absolutely no difference between telling someone to kill another person and misinforming them as to the consequences of possession of 'nuff for a joint. Absolutely no difference. None whatsoever. In fact, the two are so similar that there are Supreme Court judges who couldn't tell the difference. Subtlety doesn't describe it. In fact, I'd hedge all my bets with you on that. Fcuk Cheltenham, who needs it?

... fuckit ballu, you dont need to get so sarcastic on me :rolleyes: my point being what defense do you have, if you try and blame someone else whom on the internet; via boards; told you it was safe to carry a pound of weed in the backseat of his car? I'm going to guess none.

hullaballoo

Sherifu wrote: »

Someone took the ham out of his sandwich...

Must remember to go for a smoke before posting a reaction... em, I get your point, Overheal. I just don't agree with you. I don't think that what you're talking about is the sort of advice people come here looking for. It's generally more along the lines of, 'I'm up in court tomorrow, but I don't want to fork out for a solicitor, what do I say to get off?'

This question usually gets, 'get a solicitor' or something, but every once in a while, some dipsiht will come along and say, 'it's grand, fella. The gards never turn up. You deffo won't have to go to jail/pay a fine/have other sentence imposed'. That's what the trouble is. Advising someone not to get professional legal advice in the context of the forum is just as bad as advising someone wrongly as to the merits/demerits of their case.

Overheal

Well, for example, I asked how long a charge could be pressed after a case report was filed and I was told typically 6 months for everything but extreme cases. I was banned when I gave an example and asked if they would consider that extreme. In the end I found out no, but it would have been nice to get a casual opinion on the matter.

But the LD mods have made their case here.

popebenny16

Overheal wrote: »

Well, for example, I asked how long a charge could be pressed after a case report was filed and I was told typically 6 months for everything but extreme cases. I was banned when I gave an example and asked if they would consider that extreme. In the end I found out no, but it would have been nice to get a casual opinion on the matter.

But the LD mods have made their case here.

This is actually a good example of why discussion of such things are banned.

Whilst The Petty Sessions Act has a general time limit of 6 months for making a complaint grounding the issue of a summons this dosnt apply in Indictable cases and there are also dozens of summary offenses where it dosnt apply either. "Extreme cases" is total bull, and if you relied on that there is the potential to go after boards (although I'd love to see your statement of claim, it'd be worth a laugh).

Overheal

I'm hardly going to sue boards for offering me informal conjecture :rolleyes: at the time I was looking for fast information before I responded more formally. But the point has been made so I'll accept in hindsight it was much better to be banned from the form and forced to find professional advice rather than sit on my ass on the word of a few boardsies...no offence.

edit: that was the term I was given; indictable offenses. Never got an answer on what a summary offense is though it mightve been handy at the time.

hullaballoo

Overheal wrote: »

I'm hardly going to sue boards for offering me informal conjecture :rolleyes: at the time I was looking for fast information before I responded more formally.

You might not, but given the number of times and calibre with which the site has been threatened with legal action, I can confidently say that there are those who would.

edit: that was the term I was given; indictable offenses. Never got an answer on what a summary offense is though it mightve been handy at the time.

I think the best definition available for summary offences is along the lines of, "a summary offence is an offence that can be tried summarily". I'm not joking. Maybe that's why you found that you were left high and dry in relation to that particular point.

Overheal

Fair enough. Vague definition anyway

And now theres an interesting question: just how many times has boards been under legal flak and was it mostly via the LD forum or more through incidents a la MCD and such?