Greed by YM

[Jules]

Anybody see the ad on page 51 of the July issue of YM about no win no fee personal injury compensation for boating accidents? Made my blood boil.
Why a mag which has the interests of boat owners at heart would accept the dollar of these people is beyond me.
Now any crew who is unlucky or slow enough to be clobbered by a gybing boom, eg, can sue the owner, at no risk to themselves. The insurance premiums skyrocket, as in cars, and we all suffer. Hard hats in boats, always-on PFDs, risk assessment, HSE, red tape, all will result. Respond please YM!

 

[rogerroger]

It's a marine related service (albeit only vaguely) - you may not approve (neither do I as it happens) - but it's not illegal nor unethical so you can't blame YM for printing it.

I saw it, ignored it, turned the page and carried on reading the rest of the mag.

It would also be sad if magazine editors decide which services on the market we're allowed to see those we're not.

Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Hi

Roger Holden writes

>It would also be sad if magazine editors decide which services on the market we're allowed to see those we're not.

Here here!

Regards



Fred

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

 

[robp]

Also, in these days of the "Competition Act" etc., they may need a good reason to refuse the ads. Don't like them either though.

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: a sign of greed by others perhaps?

I admit I was a bit taken aback by this ad when I saw it the other day but there are some facts that you should be aware of:

a) editorial staff rarely, if ever, see ads before they are published;

b) as far as I can see YM would have had no legal grounds for refusing this advertising.

I will however flag your post to the editor of YM in case she has missed it thus far.

In the meantime the real debate surely is whether no cure, no pay incidents are on the increase in the boating world here in the UK and if so who is claiming...boating enthusiasts or the inexperienced friend taken out for a day trip who finds it a bit of a shock that you cannot go on a boat without collecting a bruise for your trouble?

Some time back we had a reader send in his ideas for the disclaimer he makes every person sign before setting one foot on the deck of his boat. A mirror copy was taped to a saloon window, facing out. At the time it was tempting to see it as a slightly sad precaution but perhaps he was wise?

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[Eudorajab]

One or two observations to be made here:-
Dont know who it is you take out on your boat (I try and ensure that people on board mine are friends or family and preferrably both <S>) which are hardly likely to take legal action against me for their own carelessness, boom on the head etc.
Taking total strangers sailing in itself is a damn risky business as far as Im concerned.

Editors should not be burdened by having to chose what services we are likely to want or not. That in itself is ludicrous. Reminds me of a story I heard about a preson who called the police because to complain about nudity in his neighbors garden. When the bobby asked him to show him (to catch them in the act as it were) he was made to climb up a stepladder and then a small tree and had to crane his neck at a most awkward angel to catch but the merest of glimpses of a semi-naked woman.

In other words, if you dont like it .. dont go looking for it.

 

[tcm]

disagree with Kim, RRog and 2x½p

First, YM doens't need any reason for barring ads. Companies can bar clients cos they are called Howard if they like, and certainly refuse ads for the flimsiest (or no) reason. They can certyainly forbid ceratin ads. On the sunday times, only ads for jobs in excess of 100k can buy a front page space.

Second, are all freedoms good? Freedom to sue someone/anyone for tripping in playgrounds and or on boat seems prety rotten use of the legal system to me.

Third, is there a point at YM would draw the line? What about "soft porn" adverts? And iIf there were loads of "no won no fee" legal ads would YM run an article, outlining what sort of accident was worth how much, and which are the most likely and successful law firms to use. Ugh. I hope not.

 

[kgi]

Unfortunately its a sign of the times, the UK tends to be a couple of years behind the USA in most things of this nature, in the US "ambulance chasing" is a way of life. Every other commercial on the TV is a law firm telling you what you can sue/claim for. I mean if i walk down the path and theres a crack in the pavement, what right have i to go to a solicitor to sue the council, when 10,000 other people walked over that crack and didnt fall, serves me right should have opened me eyes a bit wider. yeah makes me sick to..........keith

 

[rogerroger]

Re: disagree with Kim, RRog and 2x½p

<On the sunday times, only ads for jobs in excess of 100k can buy a front page space.>

What's that got to do with it ? it also costs more to advertise on the right page than the left of any mag and prime space is always more expensive.

YM are in business. If they chose to run soft porn ads or ads for garden shears, readership would dwindle, the editor, or at least the advertising manager, would no doubt be booted out.

The biggest thing we can do to discourage these blood sucking, money grabbing, pick-pocket Faggin vagabond lawyers who want an American style litergation society where one can't do anything in case you get sued, is to ignore them and not use them.


Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[sailbadthesinner]

This fills me with dread
To be quite frank I am bloody fed up of how litigeous this culture is becoming and how there have to be disclaimers on everything to protect the dimwitted and protect companies from being exploited when somebody spills the coffee they have bought and find it is hot and it burns them.

I find the statement -
(I try and ensure that people on board mine are friends or family and preferrably both <S>) which are hardly likely to take legal action against me for their own carelessness, boom on the head etc.- also to be worryingly naieve.

I have seen people seriously fall out on boats and I am sure there must be circumstances where if they thought they could jump up a claim (at no expense to themselves remember) they would

I am more fearful of this than government legislation. Case precedent is obviously created a lot quicker than statute and once people start claiming it snowballs, see the rise in the number of these law firms just specialising in the claims business.

I do not like the fact that YM has to taken these people's money but understand we cannot silence those we donot agree with, but a part of me ( the childish part i fear) is murmuring 'its not fair! YM are meant to be on OUR side.'
sorry rant over.


If it Cooks Flys or Floats, Rent it.

 

[tcm]

Re: agree with RRog !

ah, well i agree with that..

YM cd have refused the ad.

Kim seems to feel that a legal reason is needed to refuse an ad
- I was merely illustrating other specious reasons given by others to refuse to print adverts.

 

[claymore]

I must admit to being more than a little irritated by the advert. I feel that YN et al are there to promote interest in yachting and that, I feel, they do quite well. The advert promotes the interests of solicitors and opportunist sods and as such it has no place in YM.
On from there - we all suffer as insurance premiums are hiked to cover the increase in claims.
I think Sarah Norbury ought to get her act together on this one and drop the ad - I'm really surprised that there is no ethical guideline to prevent the daft mercenary antics of the advertising department. Sign of the times and one to be resisted.

regards
Claymore

 

[rogerroger]

Re: agree with RRog !

sticking it on page 51 has got to be pretty much the same as refusing it ! and they get paid - best of both worlds!!

Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: Legal reason to refuse an Ad?

I cannot see how the law can force a private publication to advertise anything it doesn't want to.

IPC media may publish 'Sue Them' monthly and feel duty bound not to upset its other markets tho'. but as far as i am aware this is not the case

More likely noone thought it would create comment

If it Cooks Flys or Floats, Rent it.

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: a sign of greed by others perhaps?

It is also possible that the companies are seeking to break into new markets to see if any claims come in.
I have to say if i was in their business you would look at what sports/pastimes/jobs have the potential for unforeseen injury. Sailing fits that bill. We will have to see what happens.

ps love the boards.

If it Cooks Flys or Floats, Rent it.

 

[david_e]

Re: page 51

I didn't see it at all first time round and can't see it all now 'cause someone's knicked off with mag! (quite fancy suing SWMBO were she the registered owner, could claim that frying pan bruise on the back of the head was an anchor chain that flew up )

 

[rogerroger]

Re: a sign of greed by others perhaps?

I dare say they'll get no response from the ad in YM. Most readers are of above average intelligence and probably above average income too - the sort of person who could probably afford a proper lawyer and wouldn't use a ruthless shark and who wouldn't sue for something stupid.

The no-win no-fee guys clearly target those on lower incomes who are duped into using their services - a good point made here about the awful ads on digi TV, they're clear not after sopisticated people.

10/1 says the ad won't be repeated next month.



Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: a sign of greed by others perhaps?

I'll have a pound at 10/1

I just hope your right.

Above average intelligence? Me? Criminey you really can make out you're different on this 'ole net thingamy



Wants woman with boat
Send photo of boat

 

[tcm]

let\'s all sue YM

Clearly, the appearance of this ad has caused some siginficant distress! So, I suggest that we all call whassisnames legal bunch and gettem to sue YM on account of the advert appearing in formerly calm-inducing mag for distress, and also on account of mag being "for sailors" when it clearly is now "for anyone who is against sailors" so that's worth another few 000's. Setlle OOC (that's "out of court"- you'll need to know these new abreviations with revised sailing quals..) for 10k each.

 

[kgi]

While the UK still has the NHS (or whats left of it) we are fairly safe, if however we are encouraged to go private where we have to PAY for it like the govt wants then ifear we will see a rise in this "dirty lawyering" as in the USA...........keith