DAN

Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.

I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.

Pete S.

>Dear Mr Steggle
>
>Permit me to introduce myself as the Area Medical Director of DAN Europe
>
>First of all please find attached a message we received for your
>information. Should what is claimed be true and you intend to malign DAN
>Europe on your website please be aware that DAN Europe will take all the
>steps necessary to protect its good name and this includes suing you in
>court for slander.
>
>There is no record of a call informing us that you were being treated at the
>DDRC for decompression illness. The DAN Europe Hotline receives a number of
>calls from the UK and although over 60% of them are from non-members none
>are turned away. The truth is that in such (non-member) cases, if DCI is
>suspected, we call the UK National Diver Helpline manned by the Royal Navy,
>alert them to the existence of the injured diver and follow up the case
>until we are sure that the Royal Navy has effectively taken over the care of
>the diver.
>
>If we carry out this service to non-members you can imagine that members
>get significantly more support. in your case, the DDRC would have been
>immediately called and we would have seen if any assistance is needed.
>
>Most of the calls received on the hotline are not to report an accident but
>simply to ask information and even then, although this is inappropriate use
>of the hotline, no-one is turned away.
>
>Therefore we cannot understand your wife's claim that she called the DAN
>Europe UK hotline, reported that a DAN member is suffering from
>decompression illness and she was turned away. This is not possible. Your
>wife may have called the hotline but she must have asked a general question
>without stating that an injured diver situation existed, and even then she
>certainly was not told that a DAN member is not covered when the truth is
>that DAN members are fully covered for diving accidents anywhere in the
>world.
>
>In conclusion, you would be well advised not to slander DAN Europe on your
>website or on any other media as you would force us to take legal action
>against you for slander and libel and ask to be awarded damages.
>
>This mail is being copied to our legal office for any action they see fit in
>the circumstances. However if you desist from continuing with this
>unjustified behaviour we are prepared not to proceed on what has already
>been published as long as this is removed from circulation.
>
>I hope you now realise that what happened was at the very best a
>misunderstanding and that your action is unjustified and unfair
>
>sincerely
>
>Dr R. Cali-Corleo MD MSc
>Area Medical Director
>Vice President, DAN Europe
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: pop pop [mailto:multispeed_p@yahoo.co.uk]
> Inviato: venerdì 17 ottobre 2003 11.35
> A: michael@daneurope.org
> Oggetto: IMPORTANT - Pete Steggle
>
>
> Please be aware, Michael, that all your messages to Peter Steggle are
>being published on the uk.rec.scuba newsgroup.
>
> Whilst I was with Pete when he had his accident, and I know that DAN did
>refuse help at that time, I always assumed that this was because he was
>already being treated by the DDRC in Plymouth. May be you shoudld speak to
>DDRC and then put that hypothosis to him?
>
> How much help does one person need? He was already being treated!
>
> I've always assumed that this was a missunderstanding between yourself and
>Pete's wife, and that as an "already being treated" situation that DAN would
>not need to be involved.
>
> I'd be grateful if you could find out why you didn't give him help so that
>he can publish something positive on DAN, rather than setting up a negative
>web site about DAN as he proposes to do tomorrow.
>
> He didn't take kindly to your use of the word "accuse".
>
> Many thanks,
>
> A DAN Member.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
>Messenger

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:14:46 +0100, Pete S. <> wrote:

>Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
>
>I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.
>
hmmmm

Pete S. wrote:
> Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
>
> I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.
>
>> Dear Mr Steggle

Well for one he doesn't know the definition of slander
under British law... or maybe he does because I notice
that he does not accuse you of slander, which could be
slanderous if it were done publicly not in a private
email, merely cautions against it.

If you're still feeling miffed reduce the site to
incoming correspondence from DAN including this
one. Then all you are publishing is their denials.
Or drop it. We've got the message.

nigelH

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:02:54 +0000 (UTC), "Nigel Hewitt"
<nigelh@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.co.uk> wrote:

>Pete S. wrote:
>> Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
>>
>> I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.
>>
>>> Dear Mr Steggle
>
>Well for one he doesn't know the definition of slander
>under British law... or maybe he does because I notice
>that he does not accuse you of slander, which could be
>slanderous if it were done publicly not in a private
>email, merely cautions against it.
>
>If you're still feeling miffed reduce the site to
>incoming correspondence from DAN including this
>one. Then all you are publishing is their denials.
>Or drop it. We've got the message.
>

Yup, I think DAN have said all they need to about this for people to
form their own opinions without me doing any more......

Shame really, because all they ever needed to do was talk to me.

Pete S.

<Pete S.> wrote ...

> Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
> I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.

[My personal opinion]

That's sad Pete but it's your call. Even if you do remove some references
then I feel that the FACT of the matter should still be published,
especially if you can produce telephone records that show the call taking
place.

Initially it would seem that DAN denied all knowledge, now they seem to
admit that the call probably took place but that it wasn't clear what the
problem was (they suspect that you have phone records?). They are now waving
the big legal stick, it is a very big stick and I can understand your
concerns.

+ You can produce evidence of your incident - FACT
+ You can produce evidence of a call to DAN (I hope) - FACT
+ DAN have now admitted that the situation may have been misunderstood -
FACT
+ You have now been threatened with legal action - FACT

If you do withdraw your initial appraisal of the circumstances then WHY you
have had to do so is worth recording IMHO. Remove the offending parts by all
means, but consider replacing them with the purely factual account of why
you have done so. There probably isn't a land shark (lawyer) on the planet
who could make a case against you for stating simple and documented fact as
outlined above, could be worth thinking about if you've had enough of this.

One must also question the efficiency of the DAN hotline, in a stress
situation people cannot be relied on to utter the magic words "there is a
DAN member who needs urgent assistance" or some such phrase. Given the
correspondence so far it would seem that a misunderstanding could have taken
place, it takes two parties to create such a misunderstanding. I would
expect any medical hotline to be experienced in such matters and have the
procedures to dig beneath the stress to find out exactly what the situation
was, it would seem that in this case those procedures may have failed.

Even as a story of how easy it is to create a misunderstanding then your
tale still has value Pete, it would be a pity if that were all lost. It
would seem that DAN Europe do not even acknowledge any possible fault on
their part but are more than willing to put members money into lawyers to
make sure that their view prevails. That is a fact worth recording IMHO.

Thanks for your story Pete, I've been following it with interest as have
many others - there but for the grace of God go I. It would be a pity if
that experience were lost to the diving community because an American
corporation was prepared to throw big money into lawyers to prevent people
from sharing it.

Kind regards and all the very best to you Pete

Keith L

A note to DAN Europe : The name in this post is genuine, my correct email
address is keithl@ukrecscuba.org.uk. I am not worth suing but you are
welcome to try. I reserve the right to publish any correspondence that you
may send me as it would relate to a public posting on a public forum. I may
also pass on any such correspondence via email to other divers. By sending
me any correspondence you acknowledge and accept the above. I cannot be held
responsible for any use third parties may put this information to.

"Keith Lawrence" <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3f905c5a$0$15131$bed64819@pubnews.gradwell.ne t...
> A note to DAN Europe : The name in this post is genuine, my correct email
> address is keithl@ukrecscuba.org.uk. I am not worth suing but you are
> welcome to try. I reserve the right to publish any correspondence that you
> may send me as it would relate to a public posting on a public forum. I
may
> also pass on any such correspondence via email to other divers. By sending
> me any correspondence you acknowledge and accept the above. I cannot be
held
> responsible for any use third parties may put this information to.
>
Oh yes - what a sig.

Alun Harford

A note to DAN Europe : The name in this post is genuine, my correct email
address is ah402 [@t] cam.ac.uk . I am not worth suing but you are
welcome to try. I reserve the right to publish any correspondence that you
may send me as it would relate to a public posting on a public forum. I may
also pass on any such correspondence via email to other divers. By sending
me any correspondence you acknowledge and accept the above. I cannot be held
responsible for any use third parties may put this information to.

"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote ...

> Oh yes - what a sig.

[Personal opinion]

The point that I was trying to make Alun is that this is a public forum, if
DAN Europe wish to try and sue me over any comments that I may make then
they are going to have to do it PUBLICLY. Also this forum is propagated and
archived worldwide, are they going to sue Google and every news admin on the
planet - or do they only try and put the frighteners on the little guy?

If somebody, somewhere decides to pick up my comments and post them to a
free web site hosted in a third world country, administered by an anonymous
Hotmail account accessed from a cyber cafe, then that is DAN's problem and
not mine. I would only be making public domain in the first place what
should be public domain anyway IMHO.

I am of course commenting on third hand information, I have no direct
knowledge of the incident concerned. But I do know Peter Steggle, I have
know him for some years and I have stayed with him and his wife at his house
when diving in Littlehampton. I fail to see any motive he may have for
falsifying his story or any possible gain that he may have from doing so.

From the outside this would all seem to boil down to a breakdown in
communication -

+ Peter had a diving incident
+ His wife got a less than satisfactory response from DAN
+ Peter later tried to pursue the issue with DAN
+ He was ignored
+ Initially DAN denied all knowledge of the incident
+ They now acknowledge that it may have taken place
+ They have put all of the blame on Peter's wife
+ They have now threatened legal action if he publishes these facts

Now to me that stinks. Rather than acknowledge that mistakes can happen and
attempt to minimise them in what could be a life or death situation, DAN
Europe's response is to try and sweep it all under the carpet with threats
of legal action. Given their recent history with their founder in the USA I
think that their customers have every right to know that they would rather
spend members money on lawyers than doctors.

So even if Peter's original comments are withdrawn I feel that DAN Europe's
actions since are worthy of public note, they are clearly documented and
factual and deserve to be in the public domain. I am only commenting on
public domain information on a public domain forum. If DAN Europe have an
issue with that then they know what they can do, it is clearly stated in my
sig.

Regards

Keith L

A note to DAN Europe : The name in this post is genuine, my correct email
address is keithl@ukrecscuba.org.uk. I am not worth suing but you are
welcome to try. I reserve the right to publish any correspondence that you
may send me as it would relate to a public posting on a public forum. I may
also pass on any such correspondence via email to other divers. By sending
me any correspondence you acknowledge and accept the above. I cannot be held
responsible for any use third parties may put this information to.

Keith Lawrence wrote:

> From the outside this would all seem to boil down to a breakdown in
> communication -
>
> + Peter had a diving incident
> + His wife got a less than satisfactory response from DAN
> + Peter later tried to pursue the issue with DAN
> + He was ignored
> + Initially DAN denied all knowledge of the incident
> + They now acknowledge that it may have taken place
> + They have put all of the blame on Peter's wife
> + They have now threatened legal action if he publishes these facts
>
> Now to me that stinks. Rather than acknowledge that mistakes can happen and
> attempt to minimise them in what could be a life or death situation, DAN
> Europe's response is to try and sweep it all under the carpet with threats
> of legal action. Given their recent history with their founder in the USA I
> think that their customers have every right to know that they would rather
> spend members money on lawyers than doctors.

It stinks to me too. But then I've posted even before the incident that
DAN's insurance is very poor value for money even if it ever does pay
out.

If desperate DAN thinks it can solve this by legal action they
underestimate uk.rec.scuba.

- Keith S.

Pete S. wrote:
> Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
>
> I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.

No, just make sure what you put up is unedited correspondence
and not comments by you. They cannot sue you for publishing
their threatening letters.

- Keith S.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:09:46 +0100, "Keith S." <false@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Pete S. wrote:
>> Well, today I received the E Mail that is below.
>>
>> I will need to remove mentions of DAN from my web site.
>
>No, just make sure what you put up is unedited correspondence
>and not comments by you. They cannot sue you for publishing
>their threatening letters.
>
Sounds fair to me....

Pete S.