DS Forums

 
 

oh, the irony...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-05-2009, 20:37
nickymonger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,920
None of this is in the slightest bit relevant.

If you induce members of the public to undertake some action that they would not have taken had it not been for your intervention then you have a liability under health and safety legislation. (As well as common law in a lot of instances).

You can not escape those liabilities no matter what you get people to sign.

In this instance the producers have created an environment in which it could be reasonably expected that people to whom the had a duty of care would behave in a way that was inimical to their well being and as such there is a prima facie case against them if any one of those people come to harm, physical or mental.
Are you a lawyer? Do you or have you studied contract law? What makes Lorraine different to the multiple number of other reality contestants in shows who have suffered from false stories etc.... Why haven't they taken the show to court and won compensation?
nickymonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-05-2009, 20:38
nickymonger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,920
None of this is in the slightest bit relevant.

If you induce members of the public to undertake some action that they would not have taken had it not been for your intervention then you have a liability under health and safety legislation. (As well as common law in a lot of instances).

You can not escape those liabilities no matter what you get people to sign.

In this instance the producers have created an environment in which it could be reasonably expected that people to whom the had a duty of care would behave in a way that was inimical to their well being and as such there is a prima facie case against them if any one of those people come to harm, physical or mental.
Are you a lawyer? Have you studied contract law? What makes Lorraine's case different from others before her and why do you think they have never been awarded damages?
nickymonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 20:39
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
1) She has suffered no injury from sleep deprivation.
Are you a qualified medical practioner who has examined her?

2) Psychological damage is supposedly due to an article i a newspaper which is an independent company to the BBC and something the BBC cannot be held accountablefor.
Disingenuous. The damage was obviously caused by a combination of factors.

3) If you sign a contract stating you are fully aware that i signing up you will potentially have towork long hours, have little sleep, you give the BBC full permission to show any scenes they like and that you understand that you can quit at any time you feel uncomfortable. That you have undertaken a psychological assessment and are aware that by entering the program, you are entering the public eye and may be subject to some negative publicity and reactions from the public - you sign away any rights to then complain about averse publicity and sleep deprivation.

Her signature on the contract would overrule common law. She would have to go through a legal process to state she wasn't fully aware of what she was signing and that she was mentally or something, to assume she wasn't of right mind when she signed the contract. But then she would struggle to prove as she had a pyschological assessment and most likely, a full medication examination, to prove she was healthy and mentally stable.
Straw man alert!

H&S legislation and the actions of the H&S executive have nothing whatsoever to do with common law.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 20:42
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Are you a lawyer? Do you or have you studied contract law?
This shows how far you are from even the most basic understanding what you are talking about.

H&S law is nothing to do with contract law!

Come back when you have discovered and understood the difference and maybe we can actually make some progress.

Although I very much suspect that when you understand the difference you will already have understood what I'm talking about.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 20:43
sarahcs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,406
Quick, someone say something about ironing before they start again.
sarahcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 20:45
suziechan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London town
Posts: 638
Quick, someone say something about ironing before they start again.
lol! best post on the thread...!
suziechan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 20:50
memmh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: glued to the computer
Posts: 10,035
Quick, someone say something about ironing before they start again.
lol! best post on the thread...!
I so agree with you both! I wish people would stop hijacking threads for never-ending arguements. Discussion is one thing but they're not discussing, they're just banging their heads against brick walls, and they're getting very boring now.
memmh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 21:17
apprentice_fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 803
^ Sorry I made a fatal mistake by suggesting that, may be just may be, the candidates are not that stupid and they sleep in their spare time rather than iron their clothes .

Other reasons may include:

1- Suffering permanent mental damage as a result of sleep deprivation and that is why they all behave idiotically.

2- The camera crew asks them to iron their shirts (even if they are already ironed) just to make them look idiots.

3- A candidate double did the ironing for the camera when they were sleeping/out in a task.

4- The production company/ a candidate put all the irons in a locked room and releases them in the morning.

5- For some reason, the candidates think that it is important to prove to SAS, N&M, and the nation that they don't go out without ironing their shirts.

6- This list can go forever .

Sorry again for going off topic .
apprentice_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 21:20
nickymonger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,920
I so agree with you both! I wish people would stop hijacking threads for never-ending arguements. Discussion is one thing but they're not discussing, they're just banging their heads against brick walls, and they're getting very boring now.
I apologise everybody. I am getting very wound up. Especially as this heads down my actual career avenue. As it was off topic and fms asked us to stop, I have done so otherwise we will be here all night. But Tern, just so we are absolutely clear on this; I do not at all agree with you. However, I am tired of arguing.
nickymonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 21:28
sarahcs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,406
I still think that someone's going around screwing up the shirts in the middle of the night.
sarahcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 21:29
mimi dlc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,043
Quick, someone say something about ironing before they start again.
Quite!

Bog off out of this ironing thread and start your own health and safety employment law thread.

I like the idea that someone is sabotaging the shirts...
mimi dlc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 21:33
memmh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: glued to the computer
Posts: 10,035
I wonder if sometimes they're actually ironing at night but we're shown the footage as though it's morning?
memmh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 22:43
MichBOT !
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wirral
Posts: 555
Apologies, this is going a bit off track. But I remember signing a very very long and lengthy contract with Shine when I went on a relatively 'easy' show, Masterchef. Basically it said that they had the rights to everything you talk about and do on the show, plus a sizeable amount of any income you make as a result of the show, plus you were theirs to do with as they liked until you got knocked out. There were significant confidentiality clauses, plus a whole bunch of health and safety stuff, including a health assessment. Plus, you had no choice on how you were edited on the show. Put this way, we filmed easily about 28 hours for a half hour's show.

No rights or responsibilities at all. I can't remember if I kept a copy of this contract, let me have a nose around and if I find it, I will scan and pop it on.

If that's for Masterchef, I can only imagine what its like for the Apprentice!
MichBOT ! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 22:45
MichBOT !
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wirral
Posts: 555

H&S legislation and the actions of the H&S executive have nothing whatsoever to do with common law.
Common law? Who didn't get married ?
MichBOT ! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2009, 23:11
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
I apologise everybody. I am getting very wound up. Especially as this heads down my actual career avenue. As it was off topic and fms asked us to stop, I have done so otherwise we will be here all night. But Tern, just so we are absolutely clear on this; I do not at all agree with you. However, I am tired of arguing.
Given that you probably now realise that as you don't understand the difference between contract law and H&S law, I think that you are very wise to 'tire'.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2009, 10:31
suziechan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London town
Posts: 638
I apologise everybody. I am getting very wound up. Especially as this heads down my actual career avenue. As it was off topic and fms asked us to stop, I have done so otherwise we will be here all night. But Tern, just so we are absolutely clear on this; I do not at all agree with you. However, I am tired of arguing.
thanks nickymonger...
suziechan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2009, 10:53
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
I so agree with you both! I wish people would stop hijacking threads for never-ending arguements. Discussion is one thing but they're not discussing, they're just banging their heads against brick walls, and they're getting very boring now.
And I also agree 100% with all three of you! The tedium of the endless back and forth is coma-inducing and saps the life of every thread. Leaving no room for those of us who just want to have a normal natter about things and have no desire to pound everyone over the head with pompous and endlessly pedantic opinions.
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2009, 11:50
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
One past candidate said that the "half hour to get ready" is a girlie half hour not a bloke's half hour. It takes as long as it takes. The production crew seem to like them looking smart and professional in the task briefing. So it may be that the boys do their ironing then because they know that whatever the girls are doing will take longer.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2009, 14:10
memmh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: glued to the computer
Posts: 10,035
One past candidate said that the "half hour to get ready" is a girlie half hour not a bloke's half hour. It takes as long as it takes. The production crew seem to like them looking smart and professional in the task briefing. So it may be that the boys do their ironing then because they know that whatever the girls are doing will take longer.
I should get all upset with whatever past contestant said that but it's too funny to get upset about!
memmh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2009, 16:41
mimi dlc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,043
One past candidate said that the "half hour to get ready" is a girlie half hour not a bloke's half hour. It takes as long as it takes. The production crew seem to like them looking smart and professional in the task briefing. So it may be that the boys do their ironing then because they know that whatever the girls are doing will take longer.
That actually is the best reasoning so far.

My next thread was going to discuss Debra's eyelashes and which curler she might use.

Heaven only knows what type of hijacking that one could fall prey to.
mimi dlc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2009, 12:29
isopap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,480
That actually is the best reasoning so far.

My next thread was going to discuss Debra's eyelashes and which curler she might use.

Heaven only knows what type of hijacking that one could fall prey to.
I imagine there may be a prohibition against using eyelash curlers on the show, unless the contestant signed a Health and Safety waiver to confirm that any eye poking was there fault rather than the fault of the show

(Sorry)
isopap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2009, 16:01
mimi dlc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,043
I imagine there may be a prohibition against using eyelash curlers on the show, unless the contestant signed a Health and Safety waiver to confirm that any eye poking was there fault rather than the fault of the show

(Sorry)
Can you cite which piece of European employment law covers eyelash curlers?

Have you worked in the field of eyelash curler hazard assessment?

How do you know that Debra has not had her eyelashes permed?


(Double sorry)
mimi dlc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2009, 21:04
mimi dlc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,043
yay!

Ironing!
mimi dlc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:40.