[Gllug] ``Confidential`` .sigs

[David Damerell]

On Monday, 6 Dec 2004, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Well, that starts with a misunderstanding of the McDonald's case -
>Linked from the second sentence of the first paragraph.
>http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

A distinctly ambivalent summary - even when they're trying to make a
political point, they can't paint their flagship case as black and
white silly. That might _just_ suggest they're on weak ground.

Their "kicker" is the National Coffee Association recommending that
coffee be brewed at temperatures that cause third-degree burns and be
drunk immediately. I think there may be something we are missing here.

>>which was also explained here last week - and as far as I can see
>>shows that allegedly silly litigation happens [1], not that it is on
>>the increase as you assert.
>It's not only on the increase, it's big business.  A friend of mine is a 
>lawyer who works for one of these "no win, no fee" companies.

2 of whom went broke not so long ago - obviously big business.

So _if_ your friend had been in this business for several years and
claimed this was on the increase, then you'd have one piece of
anecdotal evidence. Whoopee!

http://www.brtf.gov.uk/docs/pdf/betterroutes.pdf contains some actual
facts - such as the one that the number of claims in 2003/2004 was
less than that in previous years, and that tort costs as a percentage
of GDP have remained essentially constant since 1989 - but who needs
facts when you have the Daily Mail?

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug