[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 21/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *****************************************
> "Beware when the great God lets
> loose a thinker on this planet."
>             ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> ===========================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> To: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
> Cc: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations
>
>
> >>
> >
> >> The legal
> >> advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion
> >> of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims
> >> like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it
> >> probably is a duck.
> >
> > This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you
> > have no partnership understanding then you are entitled to
> > waddle like a duck, swim like a duck, fly like a duck and
> > quack like a duck even though you are an elephant.
> >
> > There for if it is in a regulation that regulation is contrary
> > to Law 80F.
> >
> +=+ The question to be determined on the balance of
> probability is whether the partnership has a CPU contrary to
> Law 40A. It is not a matter of regulation, it is Law. The
> SO is entitled to, has a duty to,  guide Directors as to what
> constitutes evidence of such probability - the Director and
> the AC are still making the decision - or ultimately the
> national authority.

You cannot consistently say that balance of probabilities is used and
then use a regulation that allows for no judgement.

The EBU requires a determination of red psyche when both partner's
psyche on the same hand - there is no latitude to determine 'balance
of probabilities'.

Wayne