Norman Wells
2024-11-23 22:44:05 UTC
Just had a post of mine rejected for 'not new' with the comment "Similar
points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of
becoming too repetitive".
The text is set out at the end.
I was replying to a post by Simon Parker, a moderator, in which I was
asked no fewer than four times 'to clarify what experience you have on
presenting cases in court on the matter of statutory interpretation and
a rough guide of your success rate in such cases'.
If that's not 'too repetitive' (as well as being totally irrelevant), I
find it difficult to think what might be. Certainly, my reply wasn't
anything like in the same league.
No sanction has been applied against him however. Perhaps someone,
preferably another moderator, can tell me why not?
This is a prime example of what I've objected to before, namely
whitelisters and moderators regularly posting in blatant contravention
of the moderation policy, and replies from non-whitelisters, even when
specifically requested (as here) being suppressed, censored or
no-platformed.
Moderators and whitelisters are supposed to be those who can be trusted
to abide by the rules. When they don't, and especially when they
demonstrate that they can't, their position needs to be changed.
Whitelisters should be removed from that list. Moderators should be
expelled. What justification is there for anything less?
except in specific legal contexts where any alternative or narrower
definition to be applied is specified.
will be pleased to learn of your approval for what he had to say.
learn of your agreement with and endorsement of his words.
enriched. That is none of my concern, nor is it the least bit relevant.
Yes, you said that earlier.
principle of applying dictionary definitions to determine what ordinary
English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as I've said
before. However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place in
interpreting what is meant by any particular word. It's a matter of
what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any number of
dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.
court on the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of
your success rate in such cases.
it's for you to say why.
So, you have no reason at all to disagree with me.
guide of your success rate in such cases.
But that is totally irrelevant. It is merely a veiled ad hom, implying
that I have none and that my argument must therefore be incorrect. Your
problem with that of course is that my argument is correct, and you
unfortunately have nothing to counter it.
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'. Getting back to the
original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be.
were long overdue one.
on the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of your
success rate in such cases.
I don't think bald repetition really helps.
witness as you could have resolved the case prior to it reaching court.
Well, colour me surprised. Please clarify under which "Subject Index
Terms" your entry appears. Having done that, please highlight those you
deem relevant to the instant case.
But that is irrelevant. I wasn't asked. But I would have been available.
definition with 'a collective name for obnoxious insects such as ...'.
definition provided by Oxford's "Dictionary of Environment and
Conservation" which provides the definition as: "The collective name for
various small animals (including mice, rats, and birds) and insects
(including cockroaches and flies) that are regarded as pests".
long espoused that dictionaries should be used to determine the meaning
of words that are in question. And that the Oxford Dictionary is not
the only one or even the main one that should be used. As I said, it
holds no special place in the law.
be used when the meaning of a word is in dispute.
Dictionaries are prime evidence though. Their reason for existence is
to define what words mean, and all do.
you have on presenting cases in court on the matter of statutory
interpretation and a rough guide of your success rate in such cases.
Why?
you claiming that moths are not insects, or that the ones under
consideration are not pests? If neither, you're agreeing with me in
every respect.
dictionary you would use, and the definition of 'vermin' in it, which
very clearly indeed includes the moths we were discussing.
the decision to purchase. It matters not whether one wishes to label
them as "pests", "vermin" or even "pets".
Well, it does, because as I understand it the vendor was obliged to
disclose the moths that were present which depended precisely on such
labels. And it is the very subject of this thread.
or includes by any term used in it. But that only applies within the
context of that document, and not outside it.
court on the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of
your success rate in such cases.
just make veiled ad hom remarks..
a rough guide of your success rate in such cases.
on the effect they have
claim that "It's just obvious and self-apparent" automatically defeats
any objections raised?
I would suggest it depends more on whether it is a key argument in
the legal submissions made and furtherance of one's case.
No, because what was being commented on was Mr Nugent's simple assertion
that:
"So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically."
With what in that, if anything, do you disagree, and what needs to be
proved? It's just a statement of the obvious, isn't it?
Indeed. Why then did you say above 'It matters not whether one wishes
to label them as "pests", "vermin" or even "pets"'?
vermin." before asking for judgment in your favour and costs.
I didn't actually say say anything you have indicated I said by your
misleading use of quotation marks. However, even on the definition you
said you would rely on yourself, moths fall into 'vermin', as they do
under any number of other dictionary definitions. If you're now
disagreeing, do please say why.
this time?
No, because it's perfectly good English and perfectly clear.
either in this discussion or in a case in court?
No, of course not. It's what's called a hypothetical.
necessary to adduce evidence to support my position. Bare assertions
have little weight in court, even if one tells the court that the
assertion is a "Norman Bull".
Thank you for confirming my suspicion."
points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of
becoming too repetitive".
The text is set out at the end.
I was replying to a post by Simon Parker, a moderator, in which I was
asked no fewer than four times 'to clarify what experience you have on
presenting cases in court on the matter of statutory interpretation and
a rough guide of your success rate in such cases'.
If that's not 'too repetitive' (as well as being totally irrelevant), I
find it difficult to think what might be. Certainly, my reply wasn't
anything like in the same league.
No sanction has been applied against him however. Perhaps someone,
preferably another moderator, can tell me why not?
This is a prime example of what I've objected to before, namely
whitelisters and moderators regularly posting in blatant contravention
of the moderation policy, and replies from non-whitelisters, even when
specifically requested (as here) being suppressed, censored or
no-platformed.
Moderators and whitelisters are supposed to be those who can be trusted
to abide by the rules. When they don't, and especially when they
demonstrate that they can't, their position needs to be changed.
Whitelisters should be removed from that list. Moderators should be
expelled. What justification is there for anything less?
Correct. That's the domain of linguistics and usage, not the law,
definition to be applied is specified.
As Lord Whitty is still sitting in the House of Lords, I am sure he
I have no doubt his life will be enriched immeasurably should he
It interests me not whether he is pleased or has had his life
And I am equally sure that he feels precisely the same about anything
you have to say on any subject matter here, or indeed anywhere.Yes, you said that earlier.
That is not in fact the legal position. I'm glad to see that the
English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as I've said
before. However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place in
interpreting what is meant by any particular word. It's a matter of
what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any number of
dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.
Please clarify what experience you have on presenting cases in
your success rate in such cases.
The legal position is as I said. If you actually disagree with it,
Please answer the question asked, rather than the question you hoped
I had asked.So, you have no reason at all to disagree with me.
I asked you please to clarify what experience you have on presenting
cases in court on the matter of statutory interpretation and a roughguide of your success rate in such cases.
But that is totally irrelevant. It is merely a veiled ad hom, implying
that I have none and that my argument must therefore be incorrect. Your
problem with that of course is that my argument is correct, and you
unfortunately have nothing to counter it.
If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be.
Oh look! A "Norman Bull". We have not had one for some time and
The reasoning is all there above.
Please clarify what experience you have on presenting cases in courtsuccess rate in such cases.
I don't think bald repetition really helps.
It is a shame you did not make yourself available as an expert
I would have been available had I been asked.
You have an entry in the "UK Register of Expert Witnesses" [^1].Terms" your entry appears. Having done that, please highlight those you
deem relevant to the instant case.
But that is irrelevant. I wasn't asked. But I would have been available.
Whereas Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary starts its
Were I arguing the point in court I would likely rely upon the
Conservation" which provides the definition as: "The collective name for
various small animals (including mice, rats, and birds) and insects
(including cockroaches and flies) that are regarded as pests".
It's good to see that you too now subscribe to the principle I've
of words that are in question. And that the Oxford Dictionary is not
the only one or even the main one that should be used. As I said, it
holds no special place in the law.
Dictionaries *can* be used to determine the meaning of words. That
does not mean that they *should* be used in court nor that they *must*be used when the meaning of a word is in dispute.
Dictionaries are prime evidence though. Their reason for existence is
to define what words mean, and all do.
If you want to discuss the point further, I request that you provide
the information previously requested, namely to clarify what experienceyou have on presenting cases in court on the matter of statutory
interpretation and a rough guide of your success rate in such cases.
Why?
No, getting back to the point, you haven't been at all clear. Are
consideration are not pests? If neither, you're agreeing with me in
every respect.
I have not claimed anything regarding the status of moths in this case,
But you have. You've even given a reference (still there above) to thedictionary you would use, and the definition of 'vermin' in it, which
very clearly indeed includes the moths we were discussing.
other than that their presence should have been disclosed to the
purchaser as their presence is a material fact that may have affectedthe decision to purchase. It matters not whether one wishes to label
them as "pests", "vermin" or even "pets".
Well, it does, because as I understand it the vendor was obliged to
disclose the moths that were present which depended precisely on such
labels. And it is the very subject of this thread.
Any legal document including any Statute can define what it means
context of that document, and not outside it.
As requested above, please clarify what experience you have in
your success rate in such cases.
If you actually disagree with what I said, do say why rather than
It is a simple request, yet you seem determined to avoid answering.
No. I am not answering because it's a totally irrelevant question.I ask again for you to please clarify what experience you have on
presenting cases in court on the matter of statutory interpretation anda rough guide of your success rate in such cases.
That's unnecessary. It's just obvious and self-apparent depending
It is unnecessary to produce cites when requested and rather a
any objections raised?
Well, that is certainly news to me.
That depends whether it is just obvious and self-apparent.No, because what was being commented on was Mr Nugent's simple assertion
that:
"So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically."
With what in that, if anything, do you disagree, and what needs to be
proved? It's just a statement of the obvious, isn't it?
In the instant case the matter of the precise nature and
classification of moths is at issue.Indeed. Why then did you say above 'It matters not whether one wishes
to label them as "pests", "vermin" or even "pets"'?
It is not sufficient to state, "Everyone knows moths are vermin.", or
if we use your preferred terminology, "It is axiomatic that moths arevermin." before asking for judgment in your favour and costs.
I didn't actually say say anything you have indicated I said by your
misleading use of quotation marks. However, even on the definition you
said you would rely on yourself, moths fall into 'vermin', as they do
under any number of other dictionary definitions. If you're now
disagreeing, do please say why.
Statements that are have to be taken as baseline knowledge or
discussion is effectively impossible.
Do you want to have another go at writing that, preferably in Englishdiscussion is effectively impossible.
No, because it's perfectly good English and perfectly clear.
Would you ask for cites that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Is the question of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow at issueNo, of course not. It's what's called a hypothetical.
I suspect you would.
If the matter were at issue, I recognise and realise it would behave little weight in court, even if one tells the court that the
assertion is a "Norman Bull".
Thank you for confirming my suspicion."