[BLML] What if I lied? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Herman De Wael
Hermandw at skynet.be
Fri Dec 18 10:00:19 CET 2009
richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
> "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
> system of government!"
> Herman De Wael:
>> Calling something an "implicit understanding pseudo-psyche" is using
>> high words which would, in the eyes of many, if not of anyone on blml,
>> constitute an allegation worthy of disciplinary action. If all you are
>> going to do is rule misinformation, then why not simply call it
> Richard Hills:
> The 1997 Law 40B heading was "Concealed Partnership Understandings
> Prohibited". The word "concealed" has a flavour of deliberate intent,
> so for the 2007 Law 40 the neutral phrases "undisclosed partnership
> understanding" and "undisclosed knowledge" were inserted as non-
> accusatory replacements.
> "Pseudo-" is not in the Laws, but neither does it imply deliberate
> intent. Rather, it is derived from the Greek word "pseudes", which
> merely means "false".
> Law 40C3(b):
> "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership
> understandings may be penalized."
> Herman De Wael:
>> We understand that one too. Do you believe that anyone can be guilty
>> of this, when he has never ever been told that he had informed less
>> than fully?
> Richard Hills:
> The criterion for application of Law 40C3(b) is merely "repeated
> violations", so "never ever been told about repeated violations" does
> not cancel the application of that Law.
> What's the problem?
The only problem is my insistence that you should not call something by
a name that implies that something highly improper is going on, when the
thing has no legal difference from something which we all know quite
well under some other name.
What PO's partner may have been guilty of was misinformation, nothing
more. Calling it by fancy names may well be construed allegations of
The "repeated" part of it does not come into it, at all.
However, there seems to be no line that can be drawn between when the
repeat becomes an infraction (the second time?) and when it also becomes
a repeat infraction (the third time?). Which is why I said that you
cannot blame PO's partner for repeated violations of full disclosure,
when he has not been blamed for the same the previous time it happened.
It cannot be a grave offence (by being a repeat one) unless it has been
called an offence before.
Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to insist that a psyche has
become some sort of grave offence by virtue of its frequency.
And therefore no need to call it anything else than misinformation.
Of course, all this is under the presumption that the partnership has
not been warned before - if they have been warned and continue to
"actively conceal", then some sort of graver infraction exists. But I
was under the impression that Richard thought nothing of that sort.
So he should not use any other words than "misinformation", lest others
think that he is thinking there is something fishy going on.
And one more thing: while in blml, it may well be clear to most that
"undisclosed partnership understanding about psyche" and
"misinformation" are the same thing. Although some do come here to
learn, and they might not know it. But the same thing also happens in
the outside world, with non-directors hearing it. Using words like that
might trigger in them the feeling that psyches are somehow scorned upon.
I believe I am right in calling Richard to order for that reason.
> Fetchez la vache?
I don't understand this joke. Sorry.
> Best wishes
> R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550
Best wishes for holidays and new year!
More information about the Blml