But according to the article the laws are already in place, the school seems negligent in their interpretation of the law, and I can understand that the school should be held accountable for neglecting its responsibilities, but "suing" (IMO) is wrong.
But that's the point.
How do you know if a school has been negligent in their conforming with the law and fulfilling their responsibilities? Until the day they put you in charge of deciding ( ;wink ), a case has to be taken to court to test that.
Who will do that, unless a 'victim' steps forward.
I`m not objecting to the case, I`m objecting to the possibility of large damages being paid. If it is made clear that the damages are set at £1.00 then great. I hate compensation culture. We are money obsessed and it is being seen as a cure all, I`m all for righting wrongs, it just seems to me that a few thousand pounds appears to soften the blow. That is wrong and doesn`t compute in my head.
But in many cases (not necessarily this one, I don't know) the person/organisation found to be at fault has done something that has caused the victim financial losses. (eg, loss of earning, facing medical or other expenses and so on). Why shouldn't they be compensated? I have no problem with it myself.
Also, if there is no punitive impact on the offending organisations, they can just carry on ignoring the law. And if they get taken to court and lose, ah well. Never mind.
But I think under the 2010 Act Part 9 (Enforcement) the tribunals and courts are empowered to award compensation and damages (subject to various criteria and limits).
That banana story (an utter lie, but promoted by Boris) is proof that (a) Boris is despicable and (b) we have had out own alternative facts long before the Trump administration.
I think the point is being missed here. The point being that some voters were (insert whatever adjective you feel is appropriate) enough to decide the future of the UK on such trivial matters. ;angry
It is not strictly a lie Mrs G, there is legislation out there that was passed by the EU regarding the size and shape of bananas, but it was for classification, so for marketing purposes people knew what they were buying - Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas:-
The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1] The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4] This is not true, however, of the size specifications; sale of bananas below the minimum size is almost always prohibited (with exceptions only for bananas from a few regions where bananas are traditionally smaller).
If you don't read all the information and just focus on section underlines it is easy to see why people misinterpreted the regulation. Also at the time, a lot of the bananas imported to the UK came from the West Indies which tended to be smaller and curvier so imports from that area suffered, as importers switched to other countries who grew products that were more in line with the highest classification - it also lead to accusations (from those losing out) of the EU protecting it's own as many of the EU's big agricultural companies had interests in those areas producing the new higher classification fruits.
The real problem is that there is a lot of legislation and regulations out there from the EU regards fruit and vegetables that is produced for marketing and trade purposes - i.e. when you buy the product badged as Grade A or Class 1 that is what you get (as per the EU regulation), if not you can send it back and have it replaced or pay the costs of the lower grade it actually is (claim back a credit if already paid), which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood.
Admeus said: "which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood" - by the usual suspects: e.g: Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail among others
I think the point is being missed here. The point being that some voters were (insert whatever adjective you feel is appropriate) enough to decide the future of the UK on such trivial matters. ;angry
So NE, you have generalised, what was it, 17-18m voters on one comment. That's why Brexiteers call Remainers (insert whatever adjective you feel is appropriate) elitist.
It may surprize some but there are around 1000 varieties of banana & they come in many sizes - it seems to me that it would be impossible to grade bananas by size and shape, and why would you i tend to think it is the taste that is important - to some it must be how they look in the fruit bowl?
Do you write the Food Review as well Outcast? ;lol
I'm applying for the job. That's actually why I have riot gear, to protect us from straight banana-wielding Belgians ready to lay down the law. The Middle East is nothing in comparison. They only have hummus.
I think you're right. In Bangladesh they just call it a banana. The big ones didn't exist until rich people started importing them to show how classy they are, by eating bland mushy things.
And talking of bananas, I opened a new pack on sunday morning, reached in to pull one or two from the cluster, and found a large spiders web in the middle of the bunch. Not having a great affinity to spiders (especially the venomous banana dwelling types) I screamed like a pre-pubescent girly and dropped the bunch in the middle of the kitchen floor and ran around like Corporal Jones on amphetamines. I re-entered the kitchen dressed in protective gear (similar to John Goodman in Arachnophobia) armed with a tennis racket and rolled up copy of The Radio Times (Xmas Edition) accompanied by my daughter, whom I assured would be employed only in a covert "spotting" capacity. Her signal would be to scream in a similar vein to her father if "anything moved". After much prodding and poking I plucked up the courage to advance on the abandoned bunch and prodded and poked. My daughter screamed, I leapt back like someone who has an Olympic Gold in leaping back, only to be informed that my daughter was "testing her signal". After removing the tennis racket that was now embedded in the ceiling I again continued to prod and poke and ascertained that the bunch was disarmed and safe. My daughter and I then managed to scoop the bunch using said tennis racket and TV times into a sainsburys carrier bag which was triple tied (the accepted norm when bagging dangerous fruit) and now sits outside the back door at a safe distance from the house. The only worry now is that the cats (we have two) seem to have interfered with the carrier bag in the night and may have inadvertently released a dangerous arachnid into what was once a safe and leafy suburb.
You know that while you were out of the room getting tooled up, 3 large foreign spiders legged it from the bananas and are now hiding somewhere in your kitchen, don't you.
Comments
How do you know if a school has been negligent in their conforming with the law and fulfilling their responsibilities? Until the day they put you in charge of deciding ( ;wink ), a case has to be taken to court to test that.
Who will do that, unless a 'victim' steps forward.
Also, if there is no punitive impact on the offending organisations, they can just carry on ignoring the law. And if they get taken to court and lose, ah well. Never mind.
But I think under the 2010 Act Part 9 (Enforcement) the tribunals and courts are empowered to award compensation and damages (subject to various criteria and limits).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-woman-banana-is-straight-audience-member-brexit-vote-last-minute-eu-referendum-a7560781.html
How many more of them had a similar reason ;puzzled
would ofwould've been cucumbers ;biggrinIt has been debunked so many times, but some people still believe it. Even after Boris admitted he made it up.
The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1] The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4] This is not true, however, of the size specifications; sale of bananas below the minimum size is almost always prohibited (with exceptions only for bananas from a few regions where bananas are traditionally smaller).
If you don't read all the information and just focus on section underlines it is easy to see why people misinterpreted the regulation. Also at the time, a lot of the bananas imported to the UK came from the West Indies which tended to be smaller and curvier so imports from that area suffered, as importers switched to other countries who grew products that were more in line with the highest classification - it also lead to accusations (from those losing out) of the EU protecting it's own as many of the EU's big agricultural companies had interests in those areas producing the new higher classification fruits.
The real problem is that there is a lot of legislation and regulations out there from the EU regards fruit and vegetables that is produced for marketing and trade purposes - i.e. when you buy the product badged as Grade A or Class 1 that is what you get (as per the EU regulation), if not you can send it back and have it replaced or pay the costs of the lower grade it actually is (claim back a credit if already paid), which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood.
"which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood" -
by the usual suspects:
e.g: Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail among others
;whistle
;sofa