User talk:Francis Davey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Francis Davey and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Hello. I posted a response to your inquiry on talk:writ. Let me know if there are questions. Pmadrid 09:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've just put something on talk:allodial. Maybe this article needs a link to "precarious tenure" too?

BTW, I too have a (rather older) Cambridge Maths nackground and wound up in computers. I too tried to rattle my cage to get out of that tarbaby of a career path (which I found out about too late), only my efforts were thwarted - largely by people with their own agendas and preconceptions, who started out with denial about what I had told them, then went into suppression mode to conceal what they had done inadvertently (office politics, no doubt). P.M.Lawrence (mailto:peterl@netlink.com.au).

Contents

[edit] Concurrent estate

I moved joint tenancy to concurrent estate, and noted that many jurisdictions refer to a JTWROS as a joint tenancy. I hope that alleviates some of your concerns. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 02:47, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting other wikipedians

See Wikipedia:Meetup/London: meetups happem fairly regularly around the world. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Yellow Brick Road

Your efforts to recover my original rant on this topic are admirable, but as soon as I wrote it somebody tagged it for deletion, for whatever reason. Thanks for trying.  :) Wahkeenah 15:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Law

Mr. Davey, I've recently been prepping for the Bar exam (do you have a bar exam in the UK?) by posting lots and lots of articles on common law topics (e.g. Leasehold estate, Third party beneficiary, Lesser included offense). I have found an unfortunate lack of consistency and connectivity in Wikipedia articles on the common law, and have therefore proposed on the largely defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that we make a major project of overhauling the whole thing, one key area at a time. Would you be interested? -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested. It would be a good idea to discuss how the law should be organised on wikipedia. The reason for this is, at the moment, wikipedia has a very strong implicit US and common law bias in its presentation of law (I think I've already noted this in place). It would be a good idea to iron out how things should be presented. This is especially true where concepts are not even congruent. Francis Davey 1 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)
As an example of my concern, none of the topics that you have added are *quite* right in English law, the most serious being the Third party beneficiary article, which is totally different over here -- we didn't have such a concept until the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. I am sure all the articles are quite right for US law. PS: we do have a bar exam here though not quite the same since barristers are not attorneys which I think they are over the pond. Francis Davey 1 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

[edit] Kitchen

This is just a note as a reminder that you offered to add information to Kenneth Kitchen ~~~~ 3 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Bother. Yes I did. I am on holiday away from my sources for two weeks. I'll *try* to remember. My watchlist was bust for a while as well which didn't help. Francis Davey 3 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

[edit] Consideration

Hi. I've noticed that there are separate articles on Consideration and Consideration under English law. Based on my experience as an American law student, they are virtually identical, except for the cases cited and a few particulars. Shall we merge the articles, with a broad main section covering the standard common law elements, and subsections noting specific national nuances? -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 02:35 (UTC) -- in principle yes. It needs some careful handling. Can you put an example page together and then let me tinker with it? The reference to promisory estoppel may be a little misleading and the main article seems to have a better introduction than the english one. Case citations are valuable and something about the williams v roffey brothers development may be interesting. How has consideration developed in the US? Francis Davey 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Certainly. Francis Davey 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

[edit] The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to do that. I don't like "notability" as a criterion for anything (I am one of that crowd) but I think one could characterise the relevant bible verses as those whose interest derives from something other than their membership of the bible. Francis Davey 17:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admiralty court

I am happy to rewrite the article from scratch, but would that not upset people?

I wouldn't worry. By all means rewrite it - that's what Wikipedia is about. I don't know enough about the field to do it myself properly - but enough to see that it gives the entirely wrong impression that there exist a set of UK courts (in the sense of dedicated court buildings - one imagines with judges wearing pirate hats) devoted to maritime cases. Tearlach 02:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] statement of case

I've moved the article to which you gave the title statements of case to the singular statement of case. On Wikipedia, the singular is usually preferred in the article title. The link to civil procedure failed to work because the p was capitalized; it may help to bear that in mind. Although the article's title was statements of case with a lower-case c, you used the capital in the article; I've changed it. I notice that you've capitalized some initial letters in some of the red links in that article, so you may want to check to see if the articles already exist with lower-case initial letters and direct the links there. See wikipedia:Manual of Style for customs on capitalization and pluralization in article titles (both tend to be avoided, although in at least some cases they are necessary). Michael Hardy 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I try. Severe dyslexia (which is supposed not to exist) makes this hard. Thanks anyway. Francis Davey 19:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Law getting on the move!

Hi. Please join the discussion at Portal talk:Law - we're getting things off the ground for featured articles, pictures, cases, and a collaboration of the week! -- BD2412 talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mortgages

Hi Francis,

I'm in the process of editing the mortgage page and I noted your comments on the discussion page. I have rewritten the lead and the added a new first section, it would be nice if you altered your comments to reflect the changes.

I would very much appeciate if you could edit the section I've renamed legal aspects and the history section. I intend to remove some of the US bias in the rest of the article and correct the woefully inadequate UK references. It would be good to explain the key differences between liens, legal charges, pledges?? and reference historic types of mortgages eg. mortgage by demise. Also, some reference to fee-simple?, and (other?) types of land tenure: freehold, feuhold and udal land.

Simon West 23:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll make some edits. "Conditional Pledge" isn't right I'm afraid. Francis Davey 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I knew their would be some inaccuracies which was the main reason I asked for your input. My first aim was to improve the poor structure which IMHO I have. Further sections giving details of the UK market are needed, I'll get to them soon but I'm sorting out the investment pages at the momment. I looked at dozens of definitions on the web to find the one I did but I think you've improved it! I think its a good idea to include the discussion page notes. Do you find pages are thoughtless reverted very much? Simon West 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There are occasional thoughtless reverts of legal pages, but its rarer (at least this is my impression) than in the rest of wikipedia. Nevertheless its demoralising when it happens and I tend to give up on an area for a while when its too hard.

A US attorney has promised to send me a copy of a property law book, which will help me get some US perspective. Francis Davey 10:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English law?

I was surprised to discover that English law is on a redirect to English and Welsh law. Is this another of those plaintiff/claimant changes in a term of art that has passed me by since retirement, or is it some Welsh POV pusher's disire to spread the fame of Wales to all parts of the globe? AND a Happy New Year! David91 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escheat

I think you have a valid point (please see follow up on my talk page). Necessaryx 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles For Deletion

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Law selections

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class Action

Hi! I have been trying to add/change the article on 'class action' to be less US-centric (and less of a rant). I have added sections for other countries' treatment of collective actions, but fear I am not very familiar with international law (I am a US lawyer). The references I used are what I found on the internet, and would surely not be my first choice. However, previously there was a single paragraph, and one isolated (and incorrect) sentence under "notes." And I have nothing on the UK. Would you be interested in taking a look at this?jgwlaw 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll have a look. Francis Davey 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw your reply also on my home page...outstanding! Thank you! I'd most appreciate some help on class action. It, like many others, had been a rant on tort reform. There are some lawyer-hating Wikiipedians, that is for sure. Law is my second career, as I went to law school in my 40s (I am a bit older than you). Before that I worked in telecom engineering (and my undergrad degree is in EE)jgwlaw 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's very reassuring. I am a spring chicken at 38 (39 in September). I was a sysadmin mostly - doing a lot of networking at the end - but I had the pleasure of working in an engineering department (in Cambridge University) towards the end of my career, which was great fun. Lots of interesting people doing different kinds of scary things, all very demanding in different ways. I am afraid tort isn't my specialism - although it comes in to plenty of things I do. I am trying to get my head around how class actions differ from what we have. As far as I can see, we don't have anything quite like them, but I can't quite yet see what the difference is. I'm about to read The Duke of Bedford v Ellis which is an early representative claim in England. Francis Davey 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I bet that was quite an experience! And thank you for looking at the class action. I looked at 'contingency fee' article and it was terrible. And, there were misstatements of law, about using legal aid instead of private attorneys - legal aid will not cover personal injury lawsuits in the US and I don't think they do in the UK either. I took quite a bit of employment law in law school, although am not working in that now. I may still, though.jgwlaw 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singular vs. Plural

Ok. Here I am. I keep correcting your incorrect use of "they" to refer to a singular person. Why you think it's approriate to use such poor grammar I am at a loss to surmise. Is it some sort of 'nox-sexist' language BS?DocEss 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Its not poor grammar. Have a look at singular they for a brief discussion. Its an old English (maybe British English - I don't know) usage which has been widespread for at least 6 centuries. The usage is that 'they' is used as a singular for an indefinite person or persons. Its been analysed as a variable bound by a quantifier by some modern linguists, but it is not "bad" grammar. I accept that it is something that not everyone would use, or even like, but the rule on wikipedia is to leave other editors choice of style alone unless it is either wrong, misleading or contrary to the manual of style. This isn't, so you shouldn't mess with it.
Its not always easy to realise that a usage that may seem very wrong to you, is acceptable across the whole wiki-world. This is particularly a problem with British v US English, where there are quite different usages and styles.
Incidentally, many languages (not just English) use singular and plural in this mixed way in a number of contexts. So, for example, in classical Greek, a singular verb is used with neuter plurals. This is good not bad grammar. The English example is similarly correct (though a matter of style).
Use of 'they' as a non-sexist pronoun for a definite subject is controversial, and it would probably be in order to "correct" such a usage, though I wouldn't have the temerity to do so. The exmaple in Treason was of they used to refer to a non-definite subject, which is correct. Francis Davey 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You're mixing up two different issues here. Nevertheless, it is not a matter of style to use improper grammar. What really matters, though, is that we don't have a neuter in English. Accordingly, we use the masculine singular to refer to gereralised individuals. If we do not do that, meanings can change and give the wrong impression. An occurrence is in this sentence: 'The barrister published a mean essay about his friends and he was thereafter ostracized' is certainly a different sentence from 'The barrister published a mean essay about his friends and they were thereafter ostracized.' Can you not see? In sentence 2 we don't know who was ostracized. A re-write of the shape and style would be required to convey the right meaning. Or we could just use sentence #1 and do things the right way. That is a poignant example why we use a singular.
You haven't understood the usage. Please read singular they. To use "The barrister..." with a singular would be a novel. I am not suggesting that one should. It is (and has been for over 6 centuries) grammatically correct to use a singular they where in *indefinite* expressions. The expression you give is definite. Of course it is confusing in context and no-one should write it, I am not suggesting they should. Francis Davey 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It has not been acceptable to do so in written language! Are you suggesting this sentence is correct: 'The writer should avoid exceeding his abilities.'?DocEss 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've lost you. What "it" has not been acceptable? I am suggesting that 'The writer should avoid exceeding his abilities.' is correct. In both obvious senses (1) where "the writer" is an oblique reference to the person writing and therefore definite - it would of course only be correct if the writer were male, but since the writer should know who they are, there is no difficulty with that; (2) where "the writer" is indefinite and refers to writers in general (which may be the sense you meant) - its probably a style I would not use but de gustibus non est disputandum and I would not correct such a usage. Francis Davey 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ya sure fell for that trick. Of course that sentence is correct! But the tenure of this
How was it a "trick"? I answered honestly, which was the point. Do you mean "tenor"? "Tenure" of a discussion would be an unusual usage, but not impossible.
discussion is that you would have it writtten: 'The writer should avoid exceeding THEIR abilities.' I am stating that sentence is INCORRECT; the following sentence is CORRECT: 'Any writer should avoid exceeding his abilities.' You should stop saying things are a 'matter of style,' a
I'd probably write 'Writers should avoid exceeding their abilities', I am not at all sure about the "the writer" - its not really my style.
phraseology that has been created by those with an agenda to alter traditional English. I am here to defend traditional English, which uses the neutral 'HE' (notice neutral!) when referring to a singular, general person. Face it: the long-accepted rules are clear about this issue. All attempts to alter the tradional singular vs. plural conventions are merely a popular fad and there is no consensus among linguists that the rules should be changed. Moreover, any Wickepedia article writtten by like-minded, politically-correct, gender-neutral-language zeolots obviously has no veracity whatsoever and relying on it to bolster your argument is specious if not spurious. Remember when people started puttin slashes or parentheses in the middle of sentences or around words? As in  'A doctor must remember to take his/her stethoscope to the lobotomy operation.' And  '(S)He is a good doctor who fixes the lunatic with the coat-hanger.' Remember when that crap was de reggeur? I'm glad that it is nearly deceased. Hey - it's a simple story: no consensus, no change. And if you want to start throwing Latin around you're in for a long debate. DocEss 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It is traditional English. Check out the references I pointed you at - it was used by Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. It is certainly not a new usage. I don't suggest "(S)He" (which is an abortion), and "his/her" is an awkwardness of style I dislike. I am not a zealot in this respect: I would not alter anything you (or anyone else) had written on wikipedia to change the style to be one that is inclusive. I don't like seeing someone's choice of style being overriden by another editor. I'm sorry about the Latin, its something I slip into without thinking, I'll avoid it if you like. Francis Davey 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am going to change all similarly ill-advised instances of this garbage all over Wikepedia because I, for one, do have the temerity -- nay, courage -- to stand up to this ridiculous politically-correct non-sense that is perverting the beautiful English language, not to mention pussy-fying men all over the place! I suggest you re-write you work to avoid the use of singular “they” so that we can avoid an edit war. Why don’t you go correct all the Latin languages which have feminine and masculine declensions to all of their nouns, including French, Spanish and Portuguese, by forcing the neuter in them? And incidentally, you wrote "Its not poor grammar" --- I'm sure you meant to put an apostrophe in there, as in "It's not poor grammar" - perhaps you don't need to use proper punctuation in law school.DocEss 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be polite. Also do not assume that my productive accuracy equates to my knowledge of grammar - the two are not identical. In particular, typographical errors are common. Please don't go on a crusade to change other people's style. The point I have been trying to make is that you should not impose your own style on everyone else. Singular they is natural to some (to me for instance) and it is not proper on wikipedia to try to wipe out anything you don't like. I have no objection to your writing de novo an article in a non-inclusive style. I am not a zealot, merely a defender of someone else's style.
I am polite. I am also stern. Now be good. [I make type-o's too, so you are forgiven.] I see that it is easy to get your goat.DocEss 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in your observation. In fact it varies depending on what is going on in my non-cyber life. You catch me at a less patient phase of my life than would be normal. Francis Davey 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"Non-cyber life' and 'less patient'? Goodness - I think you need to get a dog, get a woman or get a drink. Man - just get all three! Whatever you do, stop mangling the Queen's English! I've learned that you are pliable, easily tricked, easily inlammed and yet stubborn. You are an interesting person and I like our time together. DocEss 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Your observation is puzzling. The reason why I am unhappy at the moment (or at least not particularly patient) is that my mother has been involved in a nasty car accident. She has just been released from hospital and I am looking after her. There's been a lot of work to do getting her out and home and I've had to clear a lot of my diary, which was quite a bit of work before it was done. There is, as it happens, no room for a dog in my flat (which would be contrary to the terms of the lease), I have been extremely (and increasingly) happily married to my wife for over 8 years so I certainly don't need a woman and I can't see the point of getting drunk, though if I did I would start mangling English (which does not belong to any one person, and certainly not the Queen). I am very hard to trick, but I for a long time I have found that appearing to take things at face value saves energy (and protects my position) better than many other strategies. I might be interesting, but I am not at all sure that you have much idea who I am. Francis Davey 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to further change Treason, may I ask that you respond to what I said in the Treason discussion page? The reason is that, in that way, the discussion will be opened to a wider audience, which may take some heat out of it. For the moment, can you leave the article as it is, until we have had some more editors respond in the discussion page?
Ya, ya, ok. But I already once wrote it in a fashion not requiring the use of the singular and you huffily changed it back to 'wrong.'DocEss 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, that may be a confusion on my part. The article - as it was originally - used a singular they. I reverted a change to it (which may have been you, but may not have been). The most recent revert by myself was to the status quo. I ought to say that the singular they style is one I was taught at school and feels very natural to me. This may be a difference in emphasis across the Atlantic. Francis Davey 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I re-wrote one sentence in the plural like this so that I could avoid offending your obvious over-sensitivities: "Traitors may also mean persons who betray (or are accused of betraying) their own political parties, families, friends, ethnic groups, religions, or other groups to which they may belong." You changed it back to incorrect. I suggest that you, Sir, are a Language Traitor! Boo. DocEss 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, it does pain me when someone else is pedantic at my expense. If you must, please try to be scrupulously accurate yourself. There is no such thing as "law school" in my country. School is where children are educated 8-). Francis Davey 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not know 'school' did not apply in the UK. Ya learn sumpthun new everyday. That is interesteing. What, then, is the term for the factory where lawyers are manufactured?DocEss 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Er, they would usually learn law at university or one or two private institutions like the college of law. Only BPP law school calls itself that (and thats a US influenced import). In general higher education is "university" or (sometimes) "college". Barristers then have to do a Bar Vocational Course and solicitors a Legal Practice Course, which are quite different by that point. Francis Davey 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's kinda persnickety, ain't it? School, law school, qualifying school - all terms which carry no negative connotation. I think you were just looking for something I'd written that you could pick on. Touche. DocEss 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No. I've always been irritated by Americans saying "I went to school...." when they meant university. When I visit the US, I do try to use US English so that people can understand me (I don't offer to help people "wash up" for example), it is annoying to hear people mangle my dialect in my country. Of course, on wikipedia, it behooves me to tolerate all usages if valid somewhere (that's what NPOV is all about), so if "color" is used its not for me to change it to "color", if you see what I mean. My original reversion of your edit (which I did not suspect would generate such animus) was of that species. Francis Davey 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Piller order

Why have you removed half the quotation? See [2]. --Edcolins 09:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I reinstated half the quotation, rather than removed it. If I did remove it that was an accident. Francis Davey 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly an accident. Sorry. Francis Davey 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's alright. It happens to everyone. --Edcolins 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britsh court cases records

Hi. I notice that you are a British lawyer and am wondering if you can help me out. Do you know how one can find information about British court cases from the late 1980s and early 1990s? Such as summaries or official records. Specifically I need information on a court case (or rather, series of court cases) involving a band and their record label. Punctured Bicycle 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of possibilities. It depends on whether the cases were "reported" or not (i.e. whether they were important enough). Also what kind of case it was. Though many kinds of case are regularly recorded (now on cassette tape) I don't think those records are kept for very long, certainly not 20 or so years (but I may be wrong about that). Can you be more specific? What kind of cases were they and what court? Francis Davey 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The cases concern the band Talk Talk and their label EMI, during the time of their album Spirit of Eden. It must have been around 1989. This is pretty much the only reputable information I have about the cases:
"[Keith Aspen, manager]'s anxiety was exacerbated by the fact that he'd spent much of the time they were recording Spirit Of Eden trying to extract the band from their contract. 'I knew by that time that EMI was not the company this band should be with, so I was looking for any way I could get out of the deal. When I discovered EMI had missed picking up their contract option [after The Colour of Spring] I pressed that home. It took us 18 months of legal wrangling, and we lost. So we appealed and we won on appeal. I wanted to make some money, frankly. I was fearful that the money wouldn't be there to record another album. I had to get them out of that deal. Then people said we'd delivered Spirit specifically to get them out of it, which is ridiculous.'"
...
"Then we did the Spirit of Eden album and that’s where it all started to go wrong. We did it, the record company hated it, and they sued the band and me [Phill Brown, engineer] for “Technical Incompetence” because it wasn’t commercial. It got thrown out of court. The judge was wonderful. But they changed the British production contract. It now says you must deliver masters that are “commercially satisfactory.” I think that’s even worse. The good thing might be that they couldn’t sue you until a year after it came out! It’s such a dubious clause. It’s bullshit." Punctured Bicycle 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mesne profits edit

no intention to be NPOV - I don't know this terminology well enough. But I've been looking at loose pages under T, and if the information on trespass for mesne profit was correct, a link from mesne profit seemed rational to me - getting "trespass" out of the "linkless" state it was in. Hope you can make both articles say something sensible! --Alvestrand 05:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. NPOV is not a value judgment. In law, its hard to know what is universal in the common law and what's jurisdiction specific. I am guessing that "trespass for mesne profits" is standard terminology in the US but has fallen out of use here. Francis Davey 11:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Shapiro

You are correct here. The article should never have been written. It is not a biography, but a rant on lawyers, using Shapiro as a poster boy. Here is one such statement by the article's original author:

"James J. Shapiro (also known as Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro) is a personal injury lawyer known for his Crazy Eddie style television commercials. He is important as an example of the effects of changes in United States law regarding the advertisement of legal services, resulting in both false and misleading by Shapiro that have been used to illustrate issues of legal ethics and the need for the reform of those laws."

FIrst, these are not changes in United states law - they are professional ethics rules. Second, there is no general call for reform, because all states restrict lawyer advertising and ban false and misleading advertisements. Some are more restrictive than others, but all must also conform with the US First Amendment (and the Supreme Court case regarding legal advertising). jawesq 16:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is how it appeared to me - though I lack the context. The article (as it originally was) was incoherent to me. Francis Davey 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumstances for revealing identity of criminal with Permanent Anonymity in the UK

Hi Francis. I'm currently editing the article on accused child rapist and murderer Dante Arthurs, whom was rumoured to be Robert Thompson under a new identity. In your opinion, due to the permanent anonymity order he was granted in 2001, in the event that he reoffended either here or overseas, would it be reasonable to argue that the UK justice system may not necessarily authorise the revealing of his true identity? I've looked at the examples involving WITSEC program participants in the US and it appears to be a very grey area. Cheers. Elpocoloco 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Employment Tribunal

Hi Francis. I noticed you edited the Employment Tribunal page. I was looking for that, but unable to find it, when I discovered and then edited a page headed Industrial Tribunal. I'm sure the content of the two should be merged, and the 'Industrial' page redirected to the 'Employment' page... Have you an opinion on this? thanks, Justdignity 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There may, of course, be Industrial tribunals in other jurisdictions (in which case a redirect might be inappropriate), but at the moment all the material at Industrial tribunal concerns Employment Tribunals, so really it ought to be merged in. Francis Davey 07:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have expanded the Employment_tribunal page, left Industrial_tribunal more or less as it was but with a link to the expanded page. In the process I discovered another Employment Tribunal (with a capital T ). I see you created both. Perhaps the short page should become a redirect to the longer one? Justdignity 09:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've merged them together and done some work to Employment tribunal but its still a bit of a dog's breakfast. Francis Davey 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lucky Dog! Tidying it up like that puts my previous effort to shame! The world will thank you for that. I don't know how I came to stray into this area but I'm tempted to look around and pad out the employment law section, to make sure the well known milestone cases etc are online to illustrate the state of the law today. I'm fairly hot on whistleblowing & constructive dismissal so I'll look there first. Justdignity 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidea

>>> Hi Francis, sorry for not responding to your comments. But I'm afraid I am correct about the changes. What I'd like to do is get a good spread of material on the subject, with as many references as possible.

Hi. I've moved your comments here (the usual place). Could you address my points on the tort talk page please? Some of your remarks were clearly wrong -- such as the origin of tort in trespass. You could read Baker's history of English Law (I can lend it to you if you like) to see I'm right, or Maitland's "Forms of Action at Common Law" which is more concise though now out of print (again I can lend it). I will be interested to see what you write in response to my remarks on the tort talk page. Francis Davey 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your commentary

Hello Francis. It wasn't nice to come across your comments on the contract page. I feel you were being disingenuous, and unfair. I replied to the things you complained about on tort, but you left that bit out. You point out that you have legal expertise. Does that rule out that others can disagree with you when they might be experts too? Surely in court you disagree all the time. The conflicts were unfortunate over contract, but if you have a look at the history page you can see the only thing that Whatsisname disagreed with was one little edit back in 2004 that he made which he wouldn't let go of. That's why you have this odd bit at the article's start, which makes everything look American. But would you please refrain from underhand sniping? Wikidea 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how wikipedia works or what we have been doing in the wikilaw project. I asked you not to make a global change to tort without discussing it. You did, without apology or explanation. As far as I am concerned that rules out good faith. If you do apologise for that, I might be convinced that you are genuinely trying to help and then try to discuss with you, but at the moment its pointless me trying to contribute to pages you are working on. That, means that, in wiki terms you are causing disruption. I am not sure you understand what you have done or how insulting it is. I am not "sniping", I am quite straightforwardly expressing my upset and frustration with what you have been doing. You do so much, so fast, its really too hard to get things right and you won't discuss them first. Francis Davey 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal prejudice

Hi Francis. I am looking for someone who knows about the English law on prejudice: I saw that you had contributed to various articles on English law and wondered if you could comment or could suggest someone else who would be useful. This relates to the article on Steven Gerald James Wright who has been charged with the "Ipswich murders". I have suggested that articles about such people are a bad idea because information published on Wikipedia could be prejudicial to a UK trial (particularly so in the future as Wikipedia becomes more ubiquitous in the UK). Others insist that the only considerations for Wikipedia are US law, NPOV and Biography of Living Persons considerations (see Talk:Steven Gerald James Wright for current discussion). Is this something you could comment on or could you recommend someone else who really understands the legal issues? Thanks! Bluewave 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia coverage of legal topics

I wonder whether you have any comments on a critique I just wrote at Talk:Appeal. You wrote something on that talk page back in July 2005; I think since then the article has not improved at all. It raises a general question of how the English Wikipedia should approach legal topics like appeal. Should the article essentially cover just the fundamental concept of an appeal without reference to any type of legal system? If it takes that approach, then there's not much that can be said, because the nature of appeals in the USA might be quite different from the nature of appeals in Austria, for example, or China. Since this is the English Wikipedia, should the article confine itself to the nature of an appeal in common-law jurisdictions? Even there, it becomes problematic because there are various differences in terminology. For example, Americans seem to use the term "appellee" for the respondent on an appeal. Is that used in the UK? Is it used in any country outside the US? --Mathew5000 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have mostly given up on wikipedia after trying to stop some pretty stupid changes to the contract article without success. All I wanted was that major rewrites weren't going to happen without some discussion. I was ignored.

A lot of the problem is, as you rightly observe, that law is so different in different jurisdictions. At the moment wikipedia tries to do a one size fits all approach, and that really doesn't work. What you end up with is vague generalisations that aren't particularly informative and may be wildly inaccurate.

A better approach is to start with articles for jurisdictions which we can be sure of getting right (I can be nearly 100% accurate about my own for example) and then we can try to build from them to more general articles. Top down doesn't work. Francis Davey 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Francis; I agree with your approach. There are some good legal articles in Wikipedia that are confined to a specific topic in a specific jurisdiction (e.g. Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but many other legal articles are in a shambles for the reasons you mention here and at Talk:Appeal. --Mathew5000 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's beard candy

I got the temperature by looking at a number of recipes online and testing it out myself. Here's one in an English Youtube video. [3] Jimworm 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinors

I've taken up the old "what is a spinor" debate again on Talk:Spinor. Let's see if we can finally solve this one. Adam1729 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Can I ask you to answer Gavin Collins on his talk page? He's replied to your message saying that a lack of references is evidence of non-notability - that absence of proof is proof of absence - and that's something that needs to be set straight. Me? I've gone on a schoolwork bender and am currently editing at 4 AM, local time. My tact and capability for coherent arguments might just be compromised. --Kizor 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lands Tribunal (England and Wales)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lands Tribunal (England and Wales), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Lands Tribunal. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Pages

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So sorry about that! I thought I had moved the original page to the new page, pasted in your last version of the new page over the original page after it was moved, and then restored your version of the dab page over the old page. But I remember thinking someone else was trying to fix it at the same time, because I saved a page but it didn't stay saved. I may have pasted one of them in the wrong place. Please accept my apologies and if I inadvertently deleted any best versions of the pages, let me know and I'll email them to you. Thanks for fixing it! -- But|seriously|folks  08:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that's alright. I think I have it right now. I am still a little nervous of doing big things like page moves and I am sure one of the things I did was a c/p, which I now realise shouldn't be done. Its all a bit odd really. What's there is not satisfactory and this was intended to be a start to try to fix things. Sadly time is a bit short. Thanks for making me aware of this! Francis Davey 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, a page split is the exception to the rule. Since the history can only practically stay with one of the resulting pages, an attribution note should be left on the page without the history explaining where it came from and including a link back to the source page. I'll take a look at what you ended up with. Sorry again for the mess. -- But|seriously|folks  08:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I see what I did! I pasted the dab page over Lands Tribunal (England and Wales) instead of Lands Tribunal! That's why when I looked at Lands Tribunal, the dab page wasn't there! So all you had to do was redirect Lands Tribunal (England and Wales) to Lands Tribunal (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), and the problem was solved. Glad to see it wasn't such a bad mess after all, and thanks again for catching and fixing it! -- But|seriously|folks  08:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I got confused is all and paniced. The point about attribution on a page split is an excellent one. Thanks for the tip. It will help me to be bolder in the future. Francis Davey 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lands Tribunal for Scotland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/tribunals/landtribunal.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but the material falls under Crown copyright and so is subject to the usual licensing scheme which would permit its re-use on wikipedia. Is that not enough? Or is there an absolute rule against any copyrighted material, even if it is has been made available under some non-restrictive license (creative commons, GPL)? I'll fix something up but its not my field. Francis Davey 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

As someone with your experience and knowledge, I was wondering if you would be able to comment on what we can do about the Contract article? It was never in a really good shape, and it's progressively gotten worse and worse as random (I presume) law students come along and stick in a paragraph or three from their lecture notes. What do you think is good about the current article? And how could we deal with jurisdictional issues, given that the current article is a hodge-podge from various common law countries depending on where a particular editor is from? enochlau (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courts

Hi Francis - good to see another barrister on here. (I won't mention here my real name or which chambers I'm at, but if you ask your colleague Patrick how many organist-barristers he knows, I'm sure he'll enlighten you!). Just wondered whether you might be able to help: I'd like to take List of county courts in England and Wales to WP:FLC in due course, and wondered whether you had any thoughts on improvements before I do. Also, I've been slipping a camera in my rucksack when heading to court and have added a few photos myself (Yeovil, Pontypridd, Newport IOW etc - oh the glamour!) and wondered whether you might be able to do the same for any of the remaining 190-odd locations. (I might be able to add Blackwood and Oswestry later this week...) Regards, BencherliteTalk 14:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Law Society of Scotland

Hi, thank you for your support at Law Society of Scotland. Evidently someone at the Law Society of Scotland is treating Wikipedia with contempt. Whether this is merely a rogue employee who despises Wikipedia, or someone taking orders from above, is not clear. Nor is it clear under which WP policy clause this unregistered IP (which belongs to the LSS) can be blocked, or whether admin would have the nerve to block this august institution. I see no problem with the link to SACL, but I am open to persuasion... by debate, not censorship! Viewfinder (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am a practising lawyer and have no axe to grind against lawyers in general and I suspect that SACL may be such an axe-grinding organisation, but it seems to me wrong in principle for someone to keep removing a link without bothering to discuss it. Also, since there is a SACL article there *ought* to be a link to it. If they don't like the article, that's the point of attack (eg by an RfD). Francis Davey (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Julian intercalation

Hi Francis --

Thanks for your comments on Talk:Roman calendar. This tedious argument is now going on at Talk:Mercedonius, if you feel like weighing in there I'd appreciate the support. I put some work into the Julian calendar a while back as a test of WP, but honestly I'm inclined to consign it all to Gresham's Law.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)