mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Apr 12, 2024 17:08:33 GMT
Not when they're up against azzie seekers.
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,236
|
Post by voice on Apr 12, 2024 18:05:22 GMT
Fuckme! Did she fall on her face? It would be interesting to see what the men commenting on her look like… Well mids is Scottish so he's probably short, red haired, fat, pasty and very unhealthy looking... |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 12, 2024 22:16:59 GMT
Like your Mum?
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Apr 13, 2024 12:41:28 GMT
I thought this retort was the preserve of schoolchildren. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 13, 2024 13:16:17 GMT
Sorry, Gran.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 14, 2024 13:05:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhammerhead on Apr 17, 2024 13:04:12 GMT
If only the bomber was more successful, then there'd be fewer people taking legal action.
Useless Muslim wanker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Apr 17, 2024 14:58:53 GMT
For doing their job? A right to legal representation in all matters pertaining to legal action is a fairly normal part of society. You should be angrier at the laws that permit this kind of legal action. And why would you hate the lawyers and not the actual plaintiffs? |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 15:53:01 GMT
I hate them both. They are all disgusting people.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Apr 17, 2024 16:05:29 GMT
As are Labour.
|
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,674
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Apr 17, 2024 16:17:09 GMT
For doing their job? A right to legal representation in all matters pertaining to legal action is a fairly normal part of society. You should be angrier at the laws that permit this kind of legal action. And why would you hate the lawyers and not the actual plaintiffs? Sheesh - were baloo to hate the plaintiffs in this case, then that really would be proof-positive of his continued bell-endedness. Oh wait ... It's not big nor smart nor macho to be seen to be so utterly hard-headed in the face of evidence that MI5 indeed was asleep at the wheel on this one. Even the Manchester Inquiry chairman, Sir John Saunders, highlighted significant missed opportunities to apprehend Abedi (the bomber) - 22 of them actually - besides which Ken McCallum, the boss of MI5, has already apologised for the failings of his agency. In fairness, he wasn't in charge of MI5 at the time, so whilst one could argue that apologies like this come cheap, I'd like to think he realises he needs to improve his agency; I hope and trust he will. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 16:50:14 GMT
Why shouldn't I despise the putative plaintiffs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Apr 17, 2024 17:39:37 GMT
Why shouldn't I despise the putative plaintiffs? Why would you? This seems especially deranged even for you. If they can prove MI5 sloppiness meant a tragedy that could have been averted, was not, then why should they not pursue damages? |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Apr 17, 2024 17:39:50 GMT
I hate them both. They are all disgusting people. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 18:29:49 GMT
They're trying to take pecuniary advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 18:30:10 GMT
Why shouldn't I despise the putative plaintiffs? Why would you? This seems especially deranged even for you. If they can prove MI5 sloppiness meant a tragedy that could have been averted, was not, then why should they not pursue damages? What damages? |
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,674
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Apr 17, 2024 19:39:08 GMT
Why would you? This seems especially deranged even for you. If they can prove MI5 sloppiness meant a tragedy that could have been averted, was not, then why should they not pursue damages? What damages? Non-contractual (or general) damages, as opposed to contractual damages, are to cover for things apart from financial loss, and the first category through the gate on this is "damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity". If you can't see how this fits with the Manchester case and those left with severe life-changing injuries or those facing ongoing mental anguish through the loss of a child or other relative, then you really are the heartless person I don't actually think you are. A wrong has been committed here through omission and a certain dereliction of duty; consequently, there must needs be some level of compensation following on from the admission of MI5's boss that things may well have turned out differently had they done their job(s) properly. The award of damages (general or contractual) under English Law is not actually supposed to be a punishment on the defendant, in spite of some people referring to 'punitive damages'; in this case damages should be awarded to compensate for the hurt that has occurred due to MI5's problems - hurt that, for some, will last a lifetime. I, like you baloo, have a problem with the ambulance-chasing mentality of some in the legal profession, but have a heart; I genuinely do not believe that that is what we are seeing here. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 20:32:39 GMT
That's pish, surely? This is ambulance-chasing of the worst sort qv Hillsborough, Grenfell Tower, Kenyan rapees.
I feel terribly sorry for the families who have lost kids. The person to blame is the bomber, but I doubt he has deep pockets.
The families haven't lost breadwinners and you can't really monetise grief. You can rake in fees over a few decades though, as many solicitors have done, and continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 17, 2024 20:34:34 GMT
Also, I think you're reading way too much into "MI5"'s mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Apr 17, 2024 20:46:03 GMT
Non-contractual (or general) damages, as opposed to contractual damages, are to cover for things apart from financial loss, and the first category through the gate on this is "damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity". If you can't see how this fits with the Manchester case and those left with severe life-changing injuries or those facing ongoing mental anguish through the loss of a child or other relative, then you really are the heartless person I don't actually think you are. A wrong has been committed here through omission and a certain dereliction of duty; consequently, there must needs be some level of compensation following on from the admission of MI5's boss that things may well have turned out differently had they done their job(s) properly. The award of damages (general or contractual) under English Law is not actually supposed to be a punishment on the defendant, in spite of some people referring to 'punitive damages'; in this case damages should be awarded to compensate for the hurt that has occurred due to MI5's problems - hurt that, for some, will last a lifetime. I, like you baloo, have a problem with the ambulance-chasing mentality of some in the legal profession, but have a heart; I genuinely do not believe that that is what we are seeing here. Even if it were ambulance chasing I would not see an issue. The lawyers are doing their jobs of offering legal representation. |
|
