T.O.,
I certainly do not want to make a big issue of this. I would merely question your assertion that the current draft of ISBP represents ‘supporting opinion from the authorities’. What 'authorities'?
If by ‘authorities’ you mean some official body, then this is not the case with ISBP, as it has not been ‘approved’ by any official body. However, if by ‘authorities’ you mean the ICC opinions, then surely it the opinions that are currently authoritative and not the unapproved ISBP?
Yours lawyerly, Jeremy
[edited 8/9/02 10:21:11 AM]
date on non-negotiable copy of B/l
date on non-negotiable copy of B/l
Jeremy,
ISBP ARE MAINLY NOT NEW OPINIONS BUT A COLLECTION OF OLD APPROVED OPINIONS
We regard the publications form ICC Banking Commission some sort of authoritative drafts, information. suggestion, proposal, however named, because they are from an authoritative body and these documents are all carefully drafted, discussed and approved by the ICC DC Experts invited to join the Working Party before they are sent to us. So we do respect these drafts and regard them as from the authorities, although they are not yet approved. Approval is a procedure.
The these ISBP opinions are in fact mainly based on and reflecting the previous ICC official opinions approved by the ICC Banking Commission. So they are nothing new but only a collection of previous opinions from the authorities, in a codified and systematic format. So the ISBP is from the authorities. The mother is a "nobleman" (we do not prefer to use "noblewowan" to achieve political correctness) and so does the son!
A FRIENDLY ADVICE FROM T. O.
The Discussion Forum is not a right forum for us to practice legal skills although we do understand that those who know laws may have this temptation. So there is no significance to pick on loose words used by a member in an informal discussion or chatting venue. Let us from now on concentrate on the messages themselves other than a particular word.
We do write differently in an Expert’s Report for the Judges. If we do the same in postings here, we do not have the energy and the time, which is better saved for earning our rice and noodles. And please spare us. Many thanks.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/9/02 7:24:26 PM]
ISBP ARE MAINLY NOT NEW OPINIONS BUT A COLLECTION OF OLD APPROVED OPINIONS
We regard the publications form ICC Banking Commission some sort of authoritative drafts, information. suggestion, proposal, however named, because they are from an authoritative body and these documents are all carefully drafted, discussed and approved by the ICC DC Experts invited to join the Working Party before they are sent to us. So we do respect these drafts and regard them as from the authorities, although they are not yet approved. Approval is a procedure.
The these ISBP opinions are in fact mainly based on and reflecting the previous ICC official opinions approved by the ICC Banking Commission. So they are nothing new but only a collection of previous opinions from the authorities, in a codified and systematic format. So the ISBP is from the authorities. The mother is a "nobleman" (we do not prefer to use "noblewowan" to achieve political correctness) and so does the son!
A FRIENDLY ADVICE FROM T. O.
The Discussion Forum is not a right forum for us to practice legal skills although we do understand that those who know laws may have this temptation. So there is no significance to pick on loose words used by a member in an informal discussion or chatting venue. Let us from now on concentrate on the messages themselves other than a particular word.
We do write differently in an Expert’s Report for the Judges. If we do the same in postings here, we do not have the energy and the time, which is better saved for earning our rice and noodles. And please spare us. Many thanks.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/9/02 7:24:26 PM]
date on non-negotiable copy of B/l
T.O.,
I agree that much of ISBP consists of current opinions; this is the point I’m trying to make. Until ISBP is approved by the Commission it is the opinions that are the ‘authorities’ not ISBP. Nonethless, if, as you say, the latest draft of ISBP is carefully drafted, discussed and approved by the ICC DC Experts invited to join the Working Party before it is sent out for comment I could see some force for saying it is authoritative, where it covers a matter not covered by an opinion, if this was indeed clearly the case. However, ‘section 33b’, for example, is indisputably an attempt to modify the meaning of sub-Article 13c and Position Paper No. 3. Therefore, to me, this alone calls into question the ‘authoritiveness’ of the current draft of ISBP.
Finally, I do not regard analysing what people say and testing it for validity as ‘practising legal skills’. Therefore, I intend to continue in my usual vein.
Jeremy
I agree that much of ISBP consists of current opinions; this is the point I’m trying to make. Until ISBP is approved by the Commission it is the opinions that are the ‘authorities’ not ISBP. Nonethless, if, as you say, the latest draft of ISBP is carefully drafted, discussed and approved by the ICC DC Experts invited to join the Working Party before it is sent out for comment I could see some force for saying it is authoritative, where it covers a matter not covered by an opinion, if this was indeed clearly the case. However, ‘section 33b’, for example, is indisputably an attempt to modify the meaning of sub-Article 13c and Position Paper No. 3. Therefore, to me, this alone calls into question the ‘authoritiveness’ of the current draft of ISBP.
Finally, I do not regard analysing what people say and testing it for validity as ‘practising legal skills’. Therefore, I intend to continue in my usual vein.
Jeremy
date on non-negotiable copy of B/l
Jeremy,
Your position is understood regarding use of the word "authorities". As the Discussion Forum practises freedom of speech you may carry on what you like provided it is lawful.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/12/02 5:42:07 PM]
Your position is understood regarding use of the word "authorities". As the Discussion Forum practises freedom of speech you may carry on what you like provided it is lawful.
www.tolee.com
[edited 8/12/02 5:42:07 PM]
date on non-negotiable copy of B/l
T.O.,
That is most generous. Thank you.
Jeremy
That is most generous. Thank you.
Jeremy