Just as there are good
laws and there are bad laws, there are well-written laws and poorly written
laws. Not everyone gets everything right first time and that applies equally to
the most learned in our society as it does to the rest of us.
On that basis, what follows is not to be
regarded as fact, but more one person's version of possible events set out in a
non-prejudicial way leading us to where we are today. The following was written
by the author of that scurrilous series of on-event Bulletins 'Mull Murmurs'
which were a feature of early Mull rallies and therefore should be treated with
a fair degree of suspicion. Naturally, I personally deny all knowledge of said
individual and do not necessarily subscribe to any of his views, opinions or fancies.
He goes on:
" It would appear that the current
stramash in which Scottish closed road rallying finds itself dates back to the
original Act of Parliament in 1990 which was primarily enacted for Mull. That
Act contained a clause headed up 'Compensation'. It also featured in the more recent 1996 Act
which enabled the Jim Clark event.
In those more innocent days before the
advent of ambulance chasers and pin-striped litigants, TV and telephone call
claims specialists, the wording was of a nature that would imply that anyone
injured during the course of an event was entitled to compensation. I won't
repeat the full Clause here in case others may be so encouraged, but suffice to
say that in light of events in the Scottish Borders, some sharp-suit may have
spotted a loophole, hence the current, and understandable, state of nervousness
ahead of the FAI.
There is also a lack of understanding
why the Snowman and Jim Clark accidents are the subject of a joint FAI because
the circumstances around both are entirely different. One involved a spectator
and the other one didn't! Hopefully they will be regarded as such on the day,
or the 7 weeks to be more precise.
However, in the light of this latter
incident it would appear that someone of quizzical mind and material nature has
chosen to interpret the intention of this 'Compensation Clause' rather
differently and no doubt the final outcome of the FAI will have a bearing on
subsequent actions.
Needless to say the wording in the more
recent Act of the Westminster Parliament as pursued by the MSA is slightly
different to those original Acts and this may also have had a bearing on how
the wording and meaning of the previous Acts were interpreted.
To say that this year's event has been
cancelled simply because adequate and affordable insurance could not be sourced
is therefore a wee bit misleading. It stems from a questionable legal
interpretation and insurers are always suspicious of uncertainty. In light of
recent events, their lawyers have probably looked at the Clause and erred on
the side of caution - to the sport's loss.
In other words, either the Scottish
Government will have to update these earlier Acts or simply adopt the new
'English' Act."
Signed
- Yer auld pal, JB
As I said, the previous piece came from
a thoroughly unreliable source and nowt to do with me. I am innocent of all
insinuations and charges. I remain impartial, but in a bid to provide
information without prejudicing the forthcoming Inquiry - a big boy wrote it
and ran away.
There is a wider issue here. Other
sports could be similarly affected if relying on 'old' legislation. We live in
worrying times, eh?
No doubt I will return to this topic in
due course !!
