Greed by YM

[claymore]

Re: Disagree MOST strongly with all of this!

Much of what you say is correct no doubt - but it doesn't stop me feeling annoyed at the picture of that grinning wee toe rag of a solictor attempting to profiteer from others misfortune.
Scheister. (Not you!!)


regards
Claymore

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: Disagree MOST strongly with all of this!

Sorry i should have made myself a bit clearer
I am more perturbed about the implications that this advert may have than worried about the advert per se. When i said i donot like the fact that YM have the ad i mean't more that an in an ideal world they would be choc full of advertisers and wouldn't have to accept such ads ( ofcourse i realise drive for proft will mean no reasonable offer is ever refused) but it i view this ad as indicative of my fears.

I am more worried that the negligence business maybe turning its focus from; 'had an accident at work in the street?' to
'had an accident on a boat, horse, go cart?'.. or whatever.

When i started contributing to these boards, not long ago. i was rather dismayed at the attitude of some. I thought some held a cantankerous and negative view putting forward unfounded fears about regulation etc.

Not being a regular sailor on the Solent ( and it has to be said for a goodly part of the posters that is their stomping ground) I was not aware just how bad it was. I may be wrong but the constant complaints about overcrowding, wash, costs of moorings have started to make me fear that it could get so bad that regulators will step in. I donot mean in the near future. However only yesterday chap i work with went sailing in the solent and hurt himself on the gaurdrail as wash ( i donot know what from) raised the boat up as he was stepping from a pontoon.


I acknowledge all your points about YM quality. I donot think YM have done anything incorrect or illegal ( in an ideal world etc). As i said it was the child like part that was thinking it is not fair. The rational part acknowledges that YM is a business and whilst on our side cannot shrink from being a commercial entity. I know i am not going to like or agree with everything i read in any publication.
Hope that clears up my position. No offence mean't


Wants woman with boat
Send photo of boat

 

[Endymion]

Re: Disagree MOST strongly with all of this!

Absolutely no offence taken my friend!!

I was just trying to highlight that there is always a flipside to the arguement, and that it is wrong to knock the YM team for accepting their money!

I personally think these "ambulance chasers" are the lowest of the low, and do rather think they are wasting their time trying to promote their grimy little service to true sailing (boating) folk.

It is I feel a very sad indictment on society, when these parasites think that everyone will be interested in suing the ar*e off each other all because "Fleecem, Grabbitt and Runne offer a No Win, No Fee service"...



Endy

 

[Endymion]

I can only agree...

...but perhaps the best way to wipe the smile off the smug b*st*rds face would be by YM signing him up for a full years worth of Colour advertising with a 'no get out clause' included and then we all ignore him!

Go on Kim, get the Ad department to sign him up!!!

Endy

 

[AndrewB]

Look. These guys are anti-yachting ...

Or at least engaging in activities that are likely to harm the tradition of yachting in this country. YM might as well start accepting adverts from pirates.

Sorry, but even a mag like yours moral issues sometimes, as the Labour Party found when they accepted money from a pornographer. Some things are better left alone.

And for the record, I think your approach to 'censorship' as it has worked in relation to this board has been pretty sensible.

 

[Guest]

Re: Oops he IS a lawyer

Well, yes, I don't disagree. Going to court can be traumatic (for both sides). But as someone pointed out above, the boat owner may well have legal costs covered in his insurance policy, in which case both the boat owner are in a similar position: ie. not taking a risk on (their own) legal costs.

If the defendant doesn't have the stomach to insist on his rights, then a plaintiff who has a stronger stomach clearly has a tactical advantage.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff does go to court with a weak claim, he'll probably end up being ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs anyway, irrespective of the no win/no fee arrangement.

 

[Guest]

Re: Why not a lawyer?

You're right. Lawyers are probably a lot more laid back about these things - familiarity breeds contempt. A bit like doctors who don't look after their own health!

Even Americans don't put up signs saying "slippery decks" in a gale, so I think that you're safe from having to do that for some time to come.

 

[hlb]

Re: Oops he IS a lawyer

Dont think you've quite got it yet, have you. We do not like this. "Where theres blaim theres a claim". Advertising. Nor the people who advise it or those taking advantage of it. If there on the TV, I switch channels with as much speed as I do for the ones advertising pads for womens problems.

No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer!!!

Haydn

 

[Guest]

Re: Oops he IS a lawyer

First, I object to the implication that I should be forced to adopt "your" opinions, whoever you think that you are posting on behalf of (hope that the "we" doesn't mean that you're schizophrenic!). I do not really care what you like or do not like.

Second, if you have read what I said earlier, you will no doubt have noticed that I do not condone such advertising. Actually I couldn't care less about it, although I do find it mildly distasteful. So for that matter is smoking, or eating with your mouth open - I put it on the same level.

What I have been trying to do is clarify some of the rather ill-informed opinions (to put it mildly) expressed about no win/no fee arrangements, and calm some of the hysteria about liability. No doubt the wiser action would have been just to ignore it and let people babble on uninterrupted..

If you feel happier not knowing out a little more about the subject, just don't read my posts.

 

[Guest]

Oh dear

Thank goodness I didn't go into the diplomatic service.

 

[Guest]

If you saw an ad for impotence in one of the mags,then it shows that they are not hard up.

Sorry could not resist putting a bit of humour into a post that is getting rather serious.

 

[brian_neale]

"Even Americans don't put up signs saying "slippery decks" in a gale"

- but they do put writing on car door mirrors that warn that things may be closer than they seem, and packets of nuts say "may contain nuts".

I sailed on a gaff cutter last year where the guard rails went down to the stem head, no pulpit fitted. The skipper commented that he was thinking of putting a "harnesses must be worn forward of this point" sign on the forward end of the coachroof, just in case...

Who can I sue for wear and tear on my eyes through having to read too many small print warning notices?

 

[Guest]

Well, yes, no one can stop people putting up silly notices. They are completely unnecessary. It takes all sorts to make a world. But as I said, it's a matter of public perception. Your nut notice is going to have diddly squat effect legally even in America, but some people are daft enough to think they have to put that sort of notice up. The manufacturer is clearly a little nuts himself.

Your friend's notice about wearing harnesses however doesn't strike me as odd at all. It is very common on boats to have such standing orders. Some people even print them up. For example, we have a standing order that anyone alone in the cockpit at night, and always in bad weather, has to wear a harness. I don't have that standing order to protect myself from liability, it's to stop people dying.

 

[paul_lomax]

This does seem to be correct.. you can get reported to the OFT for refusing to carry an advert if you could be seen to be abusing a dominant position..

"For example it was recently reported (Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2000) that Kickon, an internet start-up, had complained to the OFT that the equestrian magazine Horse & Hounds was allegedly abusing a dominant position in the market for equestrian publications. Horse & Hounds had been refusing to carry Kickon's launch advertising. So if it can be argued that Horse & Hounds is dominant, with a circulation of little more than 68,500, clearly it is not just the corporate giants of this world which are open to attack." (from http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/pa304.htm)

Since H&H is an IPC publication I'm sure advertisers are more than aware of possible issues...

Having said that this act is more to stop, for example, yachting world refusing to carry adverts for any Chandlers except our own ybw-marine-store.com. Rather than refusing on the grounds of editorial preference.