On 21/01/2023 21:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message
> <94e0772c-d2a4-f52c-d5db-c13abe1a2299@outlook.com> Robin wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>
>>> In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
>>> Scotland) and notaries.
>>>
>>
>> we also have other lawyers
>
> Be interested to know who you feel falls in that category.
>

You can start by adding chartered legal executives, registered foreign
lawyers and lawyers with foreign qualifications who don't carry out
reserved work.

Then add in those who provide legal services with a qualification (eg
LLB or CILEX).

After that there's a long spectrum before you reach the gutter. That's
'cos "lawyer" has no special meaning in the UK. Someone can call
themself a lawyer whether or not they have a qualification or are regulated.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 17:46, Scott wrote:
>>In what way does this make it an American term?
>
>
>
>I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER or
>ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different meanings
>there but they have history of use in English.

Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
Solicitor and Barrister.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

On 21/01/2023 in message
<8a485a91-9c07-bf1f-d642-ae04c8f222ef@outlook.com> Robin wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 21:06, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 21/01/2023 in message
>><94e0772c-d2a4-f52c-d5db-c13abe1a2299@outlook.com> Robin wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>>
>>>>In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
>>>>Scotland) and notaries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>we also have other lawyers
>>
>>Be interested to know who you feel falls in that category.
>>
>
>You can start by adding chartered legal executives, registered foreign
>lawyers and lawyers with foreign qualifications who don't carry out
>reserved work.
>
>Then add in those who provide legal services with a qualification (eg LLB
>or CILEX).
>
>After that there's a long spectrum before you reach the gutter. That's
>'cos "lawyer" has no special meaning in the UK. Someone can call themself
>a lawyer whether or not they have a qualification or are regulated.

Absolutely, that's why you should use a solicitor - qualified and
regulated. Lawyer is meaningless.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Remember, the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 23:18:39 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
>> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
>
>
>What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network.
>They do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is
>to be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
>
>The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
>for local viewing.
>
I was responding to Roderick's comments on the UK constitution
(admittedly off-topic).

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:29:32 +0000, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
>>>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
>>>>> bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
>>>>> put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
>>>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
>>>>
>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>> There is no written constitution
>>>>
>>>
>>> The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
>>> codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
>>
>> Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
>> way of doing things.
>>
>> As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
>> British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
>> a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
>> particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
>> culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider
>> preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
>> to understand.
>
>Maybe all natives should be required to do the British Citizenship Test.
>And be thrown out when we fail.

Effectively we do, except it's not a written memory test, but a
practical test where we simply have to live honest lives in peace and
harmony with others. Most people know how to do this without being
told. We don't seem to have allowed ourselves enough reasons to throw
people out, but those who fail the test can be thrown in jail.

Rod.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:06:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>>>>
>>>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>>>
>>> "The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>>> the whole country."
>>>
>>> Seems clear enough to me.
>>
>> Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
>> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
>> across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
>> this does not alter the principle.
>
>The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
>exact terms in the way Common Law has above.

Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.

There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:29:24 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>>
>>>> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
>>> lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
>>> are specialised sub groupings.
>>
>> Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
>>
>
>The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before
>America was discovered.

From the Oxford English Dictionary-

" 1. A person with knowledge of the law; a member of the profession of
the law; esp. a solicitor, a barrister. LME".

Rod.

On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>
>>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>
>>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>
>>Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
>>who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
>
>The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
>interested to know what the "other groups" are.

Professors of Law?

On 21 Jan 2023 21:07:00 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 in message
><e2cdbaa3-25e4-4cfc-92b5-91eeecb9c1e9n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
>wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>>>
>>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>
>>In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
>>Scotland) and notaries.
>>
>>In the UK, but not the US, an attorney is any person legally empowered by
>>another person or company to act on their behalf e.g.
>>https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney
>
>I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.

For present purposes, all you need to know is that the Scots term for
a barrister is an advocate.

On 22/01/2023 in message <mj2qshh0l3g1f9rq94cs0itcoofr8in8tj@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:

>>I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.
>
>For present purposes, all you need to know is that the Scots term for
>a barrister is an advocate.

Presumably only if whoever said so is qualified to make the statement?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:59:17 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:29:24 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
><usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
>>>> lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
>>>> are specialised sub groupings.
>>>
>>> Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
>>>
>>
>>The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before
>>America was discovered.
>
>From the Oxford English Dictionary-
>
>" 1. A person with knowledge of the law; a member of the profession of
>the law; esp. a solicitor, a barrister. LME".
>
This reminds me when (Glasgow) Rangers went into administration, the
joke was that everyone in the pubs of Glasgow became experts in the
Insolvency Act.

On 22 Jan 2023 10:18:38 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 in message <mj2qshh0l3g1f9rq94cs0itcoofr8in8tj@4ax.com>
>Scott wrote:
>
>>>I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.
>>
>>For present purposes, all you need to know is that the Scots term for
>>a barrister is an advocate.
>
>Presumably only if whoever said so is qualified to make the statement?

This interpretation did not occur to me, but as the same would apply
in England and Wales, there is a direct equivalence.

On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
> >On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
> >
> >>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
> >>>
> >>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
> >>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
> >>>
> >>Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
> >>who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
> >
> >The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
> >interested to know what the "other groups" are.
> Professors of Law?

Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even acted for me once] - others are not.

R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
>> On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>>>
>>>> Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
>>>> who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
>>>
>>> The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
>>> interested to know what the "other groups" are.
>> Professors of Law?
>
> Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even
> acted for me once] - others are not.
>

There’s also the distinction between being qualified as a solicitor, ie
having passed the exams, and being qualified AND holding a practising
certificate, which comes with an annual fee. Some lawyers require the
qualification but don’t need the certificate.

On 22/01/2023 09:59, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:06:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>>>>
>>>> "The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>>>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>>>> the whole country."
>>>>
>>>> Seems clear enough to me.
>>>
>>> Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
>>> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
>>> across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
>>> this does not alter the principle.
>>
>> The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
>> exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
>
> Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.

I repeat my original question: "How can you claim we have something that
we cannot even define?"

> There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
> constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.

It's not the fact that it's unwritten, it's the fact that it's undefined.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>
>> I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER
>> or ATTORNEY are Americanisms.  They might have slightly different
>> meanings there but they have history of use in English.

Quite, and that is the pertinent point.

> Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
> Solicitor and Barrister.

As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my use
of the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite categorically
state that I wasn't referring to any particular legal qualification, and
neither is the term particularly associated with any one nation or
national legal system. For example, the search terms "American" and
"United States" both get zero hits on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 12:34:29 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 09:59, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:06:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>>>>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>>>>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>>>>> the whole country."
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems clear enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
>>>> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
>>>> across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
>>>> this does not alter the principle.
>>>
>>> The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
>>> exact terms in the way Common Law has above.
>>
>> Which is entirely different from saying we don't have a constitution.
>
>I repeat my original question: "How can you claim we have something that
>we cannot even define?"
>
>> There are two views whether an 'unwritten' constitution is a
>> constitution. Yours and mine obviously differ.
>
>It's not the fact that it's unwritten, it's the fact that it's undefined.

I think we can just respectfully disagree on that.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 11:57:39 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 10:00:18 UTC, Scott wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2023 21:02:04 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1...@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
>>>>> who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.
>>>>
>>>> The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
>>>> interested to know what the "other groups" are.
>>> Professors of Law?
>>
>> Some are qualified as solicitors - e.g. [Prof. E. Rex Makin, who even
>> acted for me once] - others are not.
>>
>
>There’s also the distinction between being qualified as a solicitor, ie
>having passed the exams, and being qualified AND holding a practising
>certificate, which comes with an annual fee. Some lawyers require the
>qualification but don’t need the certificate.

Non-practising membership also comes with a fee (at least in
Scotland).

On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Lawyer is meaningless.

If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote its
dictionary definition at you? I do so again:

lawyer
noun
noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers

a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a
solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.

So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjb3e$340uf$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>>
>>>I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER or
>>>ATTORNEY are Americanisms.  They might have slightly different meanings
>>>there but they have history of use in English.
>
>Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
>
>>Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
>>Solicitor and Barrister.
>
>As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my use of
>the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite categorically state
>that I wasn't referring to any particular legal qualification, and neither
>is the term particularly associated with any one nation or national legal
>system. For example, the search terms "American" and "United States" both
>get zero hits on this page:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
>
>Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.

I can't accept your statements as you are not qualified to make them.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjcmn$3493d$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>Lawyer is meaningless.
>
>If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote its
>dictionary definition at you? I do so again:
>
>lawyer
>noun
>noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
>
>a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a solicitor
>or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
>
>So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
>context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.

Did you forget the space between "I" and "ANAL"?

I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact there
is no such qualification in the UK.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 16:41:11 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> There is a chapter in a book about the history of Ryanair, where it
> recounts a period when Michael O'Leary actively encouraged staff to
> tell any customers making complaints to fuck off.

In the unlikely event that I ever meet that odious little shit (IMHO),
then I will take great delight in telling him to do exactly the same.

On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.

Perhaps if you lent them that whole deep fat fryer full of potates that's
sitting on your shoulder it might help.

On 22/01/2023 13:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjb3e$340uf$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2023 08:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqhrjq$2pk4e$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either
>>>> LAWYER  or ATTORNEY are Americanisms.  They might have slightly
>>>> different  meanings there but they have history of use in English.
>>
>> Quite, and that is the pertinent point.
>>
>>> Lawyer is an American qualification, in England the equivalents are
>>> Solicitor and Barrister.
>>
>> As the person originally childishly criticised by you because of my
>> use of the well-known internet acronym IANAL, I can quite
>> categorically state that I wasn't referring to any particular legal
>> qualification, and neither is the term particularly associated with
>> any one nation or national legal system.  For example, the search
>> terms "American" and "United States" both get zero hits on this page:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL
>>
>> Now shut the fuck up and stop behaving like a stubborn child.
>
> I can't accept your statements as you are not qualified to make them.

I am not qualified to state what I meant in my own previous post?

FFS grow up!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/01/2023 13:36, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2023 in message <tqjcmn$3493d$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/01/2023 08:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> Lawyer is meaningless.
>>
>> If it's meaningless, then how come others have been able to quote its
>> dictionary definition at you?  I do so again:
>>
>> lawyer
>> noun
>> noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers
>>
>> a person who practises or studies law, especially (in the UK) a
>> solicitor or a barrister or (in the US) an attorney.
>>
>> So it's a generic term, the exact meaning of which can depend on its
>> context, and my use of it in IANAL was entirely appropriate.
>
> Did you forget the space between "I" and "ANAL"?

Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

> I know you are not a "Lawyer" because of your replies and the fact there
> is no such qualification in the UK.

I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
describe any of several possible professions.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk