What you should do isI should seek legal help about this
1. Shut up.
2. Mind your own business.
3. Send your "client" to an actual lawyer.
NSW Charged for Shoplifting Months Later?
- Thread starter MNoman
- Start date
- Status
1. Shut up.
2. Mind your own business.
3. Send your "client" to an actual lawyer.
[Deleted by Moderator - Abuse / Breach of Community Guidelines]
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey @lawanswers , I have to ask...
Are those asterisks inserted automatically by the forum software,
or did he actually go to the effort?
Are those asterisks inserted automatically by the forum software,
or did he actually go to the effort?
Hi @TimW
Automatic. User how now been banned and I've added the missing words to the forum moderation bot.
Automatic. User how now been banned and I've added the missing words to the forum moderation bot.
@lawanswers
Why was the guy (Jermy) banned? Tim W is a rude person and I read it several times that he is rude to other posters. Tim W initiates the rude comments, what is he? Why is he getting this great treatment? why was he not banned from this site? Read his comments:
"What you should do is
1. Shut up.
2. Mind your own business.
3. Send your "client" to an actual lawyer."
he attacked the other person for no reason at all. Who does he think himself. Go from the start of this thread and see for yourself. Tim is not someone you want on this forum.
You can remove my account if you want, but what will it help? you still will have Tim W a rude person. You will ban me because I wrote this. Check all his postings and you should see a fair amount of rude comments to other posters for no reason at all. So once the other poster is pissed at Tim W and responds with what Tim W deserves, you ban that poster. This is not fair. Again, read from the start to this thread and tell me why the other poster was banned and not also Tim W? Your treatment should be fair.
I hope others read this and complain about Tim W as he is a rude and worthless.
Hi @Davidgreat
Thanks for your message. When I started LawAnswers.com.au 4.5 years ago, I did it to try and help others.
I understand that the forum community, like all communities, is not perfect - and I try to be as transparent as possible in each decision to issue a warning, temporary ban or ban when a forum member breaches the Community Guidelines.
In separate recent posts, I have made clear that all members of the community must comply with the Community Guidelines. I'm happy to receive any constructive feedback - either privately or in the Pool Room - to improve the Community Guidelines or to be notified of a potential breach (if the post/thread has not been reported for moderation to date because I don't have time/resources to review each post before it is published).
Thank you.
Thanks for your message. When I started LawAnswers.com.au 4.5 years ago, I did it to try and help others.
I understand that the forum community, like all communities, is not perfect - and I try to be as transparent as possible in each decision to issue a warning, temporary ban or ban when a forum member breaches the Community Guidelines.
In separate recent posts, I have made clear that all members of the community must comply with the Community Guidelines. I'm happy to receive any constructive feedback - either privately or in the Pool Room - to improve the Community Guidelines or to be notified of a potential breach (if the post/thread has not been reported for moderation to date because I don't have time/resources to review each post before it is published).
Thank you.
Hi.
Thank you for your site. It is a great site and helpful. I can confirm it is a great job well done.
You have not answered my question. Tim W is a rude person, I have noticed that he attacks people here for no reason at all. Just read from the start of this thread and you will know what I mean. I have noticed Tim W attacked other posters. He pisses them off for no reason at all. I also, read some of his comments, he responds to threads after they have been answered and does not add any benefit (this is not an issue and all are free to express their point of view), my concern is that other posters are banned and treated differently and Tim W is treated is a good manner. In this thread the poster did not mention anything wrong until Tim W responded with an attack, so why is the other poster is banned and Tim W is not? and Tim W has initiated the attack?
This is the concern I have.
Again, you work at this site is very important and much appreciated and no one can claim otherwise.
Thank you.
Davidgreat, I may be able to assist here. I’d say Jermy was banned because of a breach of terms of use for inappropriate language, based on a post being deleted.
With respect to your queries about Tim W, there’s a subtext to the exchange that I don’t think you’re getting. From what I can observe of Tim he can be terse and doesn’t appear to suffer fools, but his conduct (especially in this thread) is mild in comparison to some of the demeanours in the legal profession.
In terms of the subtext, the only thing more dangerous than a layperson giving legal advice is a law student giving legal advice. They come under the old saying of knowing just enough to be dangerous. A law degree does not make you competent to give legal advice. It’s a start, only. Generally, and I believe it’s the same In all states and territories here, It’s illegal to act as a legal practitioner in Australia without a current practising certificate. Even then, you can’t give legal advice unless you have an unrestricted practising certificate or do it under the direct supervision of someone who does. And one of the keys to having an unrestricted practising certificate is having current professional indemnity insurance.
Anyone who tries to operate outside that system is not only breaking the law, but courting disaster. And someone who relies on what that person is saying is taking a big risk. The amount of risk depends on what’s happening of course. It becomes a real danger in the event of confirmation bias - something we see in here occasionally: someone saying “I did this in this situation, and I got this outcome so you will too.” Sure, you might, but you might not. It’s like thinking, “I patted a dog once and didn’t get bitten. This dog looks the same, so I’ll be fine.” Maybe. Maybe not.
The damage is done as soon as the person hearing what you have to say thinks it is advice, as long as they’re acting somewhat reasonably. What you intended, or any disclaimer, can come secondary.
Lawyers are very careful with their words, and the limits of their advice. They have to be, especially given the cpapacity for a negligence claim against them. So, when a lawyer gets very short with someone who’s isn’t qualified and is playing on the boundaries of giving advice it’s because there’s very real danger - not only for them, but also for the person who they are ‘advising’.
With respect to your queries about Tim W, there’s a subtext to the exchange that I don’t think you’re getting. From what I can observe of Tim he can be terse and doesn’t appear to suffer fools, but his conduct (especially in this thread) is mild in comparison to some of the demeanours in the legal profession.
In terms of the subtext, the only thing more dangerous than a layperson giving legal advice is a law student giving legal advice. They come under the old saying of knowing just enough to be dangerous. A law degree does not make you competent to give legal advice. It’s a start, only. Generally, and I believe it’s the same In all states and territories here, It’s illegal to act as a legal practitioner in Australia without a current practising certificate. Even then, you can’t give legal advice unless you have an unrestricted practising certificate or do it under the direct supervision of someone who does. And one of the keys to having an unrestricted practising certificate is having current professional indemnity insurance.
Anyone who tries to operate outside that system is not only breaking the law, but courting disaster. And someone who relies on what that person is saying is taking a big risk. The amount of risk depends on what’s happening of course. It becomes a real danger in the event of confirmation bias - something we see in here occasionally: someone saying “I did this in this situation, and I got this outcome so you will too.” Sure, you might, but you might not. It’s like thinking, “I patted a dog once and didn’t get bitten. This dog looks the same, so I’ll be fine.” Maybe. Maybe not.
The damage is done as soon as the person hearing what you have to say thinks it is advice, as long as they’re acting somewhat reasonably. What you intended, or any disclaimer, can come secondary.
Lawyers are very careful with their words, and the limits of their advice. They have to be, especially given the cpapacity for a negligence claim against them. So, when a lawyer gets very short with someone who’s isn’t qualified and is playing on the boundaries of giving advice it’s because there’s very real danger - not only for them, but also for the person who they are ‘advising’.
Long answer but still did not answer my question, I am not asking about the law student giving advice. That is not my issue. The issue I raised is that Tim W attacked the person :
Read this:
"What you should do is
1. Shut up.
2. Mind your own business.
3. Send your "client" to an actual lawyer."
He attacked the person who did not thing wrong but was asking a question. If Tim W is pissed off at what the other poster was asking, he can turn off his system off and not read anything, no one forced him to read the posters and he is not God. This is what I am getting here. All are protecting Tim W. I noticed he attacked other posters. If Tim W keeps attacking other posters and annoys them, why is not banned. This is the issue. Not the issue of student giving advice. I don't care about that. Read what Tim W answered Jermy.
Jermy did not offend Tim W or offend anyone but merely asking a question (I can not remember what Jermy wrote but it was a result of Tim W answer and was not before). So Tim W annoys people off and you keep protecting him. Every person is entitled to ask or write a comment on this site. I agree sound language should be used, but why ban someone while the other person who initiated the attack still posts free. This is the question that need to be answered.
- Status
Similar threads
