General Chit Chat

[Bruce Rioja]

So you should be, Tango.

[BWFC_Insane]

They suspended football. Could have just done a fitting tribute like this one…

https://twitter.com/ichlugebullets/stat ... z8Zv0bC2mA

[TANGODANCER]

With the amount of re-called and "Do not eat" products put out by supermarkets etc, it's a wonder humanity has managed to exist so long without them. We managed quite nicely with corner shops and local market products.

[TANGODANCER]

The Bubble Bath Company have pulled another master stroke by matching Ellie Symonds (just four feet tall) with professional dancer Nikita Kumzin (five feet eleven tall) in Strictly come dancing. No reason at all why Ellie shouldn't compete, as an equal,but at least give her a comparable (in height) partner. Are the show producers exhibiting equality, or do they see a novelty angle to gain viewers? The question isn't just mine, but being asked by quite a few. In the first show Nikita looked almost on his knees. The girl herself seems fine with it all, but it still seems unfair?

[Gooner Girl]

More importantly Tango, did you see Tony Adams with the best dance I’ve ever seen on Strictly? Admittedly I don’t really watch it much but they might as well just cancel the rest of the series and give him the trophy now. Nothing will top that!

[TANGODANCER]

More importantly Tango, did you see Tony Adams with the best dance I’ve ever seen on Strictly? Admittedly I don’t really watch it much but they might as well just cancel the rest of the series and give him the trophy now. Nothing will top that!

Ha ha...Odds on poor old Tony will be the first casualty to be leaving this weekend. They've given him "My old man's a dustman" as music and even a sell-out crowd at Emirates won't save him. Sorry, but he's a goner, not a Gooner...

[TANGODANCER]

Bolton's plan to reduce costs.. Great thinking.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/22 ... ave-money/

[BWFC_Insane]

Bolton's plan to reduce costs.. Great thinking.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/22 ... ave-money/

There is no money. And more cuts to public services are on the way after Truss crashed the markets and forced the Bank of England to spend £65Bn if it’s reserves to ensure pension funds didn’t collapse.

So whilst it’s fine to blame the council who have their failings. All the cuts to public services like this that force the council to do these ridiculous things are down to the government and their abject failure.

I have a conservative councillor who does their best. I don’t blame him at all. The problem is as I’ve no doubt all the councillors will say is that the government have wrecked the economy in a way we’ve never seen before and councils are going to be squeezed like oranges once again.

[TANGODANCER]

Bolton's plan to reduce costs.. Great thinking.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/22 ... ave-money/

There is no money. And more cuts to public services are on the way after Truss crashed the markets and forced the Bank of England to spend £65Bn if it’s reserves to ensure pension funds didn’t collapse.

So whilst it’s fine to blame the council who have their failings. All the cuts to public services like this that force the council to do these ridiculous things are down to the government and their abject failure.

I have a conservative councillor who does their best. I don’t blame him at all. The problem is as I’ve no doubt all the councillors will say is that the government have wrecked the economy in a way we’ve never seen before and councils are going to be squeezed like oranges once again.

All these things I know. You tell me them every day. Maybe somebody should paint a giant mural on the town hall so we can all see the big picture. It's answers we need, not somebody getting killed on icy roads because the grit waggons are on embargo.

[BWFC_Insane]

Bolton's plan to reduce costs.. Great thinking.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/22 ... ave-money/

There is no money. And more cuts to public services are on the way after Truss crashed the markets and forced the Bank of England to spend £65Bn if it’s reserves to ensure pension funds didn’t collapse.

So whilst it’s fine to blame the council who have their failings. All the cuts to public services like this that force the council to do these ridiculous things are down to the government and their abject failure.

I have a conservative councillor who does their best. I don’t blame him at all. The problem is as I’ve no doubt all the councillors will say is that the government have wrecked the economy in a way we’ve never seen before and councils are going to be squeezed like oranges once again.

All these things I know. You tell me them every day. Maybe somebody should paint a giant mural on the town hall so we can all see the big picture. It's answers we need, not somebody getting killed on icy roads because the grit waggons are on embargo.

But the council can’t provide answers as they don’t control the budget.

The only answer is to replace the government. There isn’t any other magic to be performed.

[Prufrock]

Saw someone estimate around £1m in each in legal fees (which sounds ball-park to me) with Vardy getting £15-40k damages if she wins (no idea).

If you're successful you usually get an order for the other side to pay your costs, but no-one ever gets 100% of their costs awarded. Roughly 75% or so.

So if Rooney wins, she'd get about £750k from Vardy (so £250k down), or Vardy would get that plus damages if she wins

So the loser is going to be the best part of £2m down, and the *winner* £200-250k down.

Bonkers.

I have more sympathy for Rooney, in that the only way she could stop it going to court would be to admit liability and she clearly doesn't accept that. Vardy is the one who choose to bring the claim.

Cracking entertainment, mind. Checking Twitter for the day's court sketch of Wayne is the new Wordle.

Interesting breakdown. Seems harsh if, as seems likely, Vardy is found to be full of shit. Rooney had to defend herself, so what is the thinking behind making her foot some of the costs if she is found to be in the right?

Never came back to this, sorry!

The official line is that you're supposed to go through and see if there would be a reduction for any particular bit. So you might win, and be right in pretty much everything you say, but the judge might not be convinced by one minor bit, or decide that you didn't need it to make your case.

In reality, I think it's also largely a policy decision to stop people racking up unnecessary costs. If you're in the hook for a small % of it you're incentivised to keep them down.

Anyway, the order is out and Colleen is getting 90% of her costs which she's assessed at £1.67m!

So the whole palaver will end up costing Vardy about £3m, and Rooney about £500k (as she had some pre-litigation costs too).

Expensive business.

Entertainment aside, defamation law in this country needs looking at. £500k to defend yourself when you win!

[TANGODANCER]

^^

So, what does any of it actually prove?How must the multi thousands struggling to pay their food and heating bills see this nonsense, because nonsense it is in spades. Two fabulously wealthy women whose only real claims to fame are marrying footballers, instigating a lengthy, expensive "Oh yes you did, Oh no I didn't" spat about private lives business that kept a lot of media bloodhounds in a job. Farcial doesn't cover it.

p.s. Keep an eye open for the Wagatha Christie book; there's sure to be one.

[LeverEnd]

I think there's only one (now slightly less) fabulously wealthy woman to blame, Tango. Rooney tried to settle it apparently, but Vardy was absolutely convinced she'd win and pressed ahead.
I have absolutely no sympathy for her at all. She must be going through a rough time but absolutely deserves to.

Cheers for the explanation Prufrock, makes more sense now.

[TANGODANCER]

I think there's only one (now slightly less) fabulously wealthy woman to blame, Tango. Rooney tried to settle it apparently, but Vardy was absolutely convinced she'd win and pressed ahead.
I have absolutely no sympathy for her at all. She must be going through a rough time but absolutely deserves to.

Cheers for the explanation Prufrock, makes more sense now.

Can't imagine Jamie being too delighted, but what's an odd million or two? mere pocket money.

[Prufrock]

I think there's only one (now slightly less) fabulously wealthy woman to blame, Tango. Rooney tried to settle it apparently, but Vardy was absolutely convinced she'd win and pressed ahead.
I have absolutely no sympathy for her at all. She must be going through a rough time but absolutely deserves to.

Cheers for the explanation Prufrock, makes more sense now.

Yep. The only way out for Rooney was to settle by admitting she libelled Vardy (which it's been proven she didn't). And that would've cost her ~£100k.

She's fortunate enough to have the cash to prove she's right. It's a bad, bad, thing this. Lots of people with big pockets out there who will send letters before claim out to silence people who criticise them. Doesn't matter if you're right to most people when it's going to cost you six figures in costs just to be right.

Won't have made the mainstream news but last week the SRA (solicitors regulatory body) sent out a press release telling lawyers it was unlawful to tell people these letters before claim were confidential and that anyone who'd sent one should withdraw it. So what was happening was you criticise someone, and you get a letter on headed paper saying "delete that, and of you don't we'll take you to court (which will cost you £100k+) and what's more, if you tell anyone about this letter, we'll sue you for that too.".

Awful business.

[TANGODANCER]

Just a question Pru: Can the legal bods refuse to take on a case which they know is built on nonsense and silliness knowing full well (probably) what the outcome will be? See, it would seem that if so, the legal profession act safe in the knowledge they'll be paid anyway, take action when a high court judge could save a lot of time and expense by just telling the truth, ie, seeing the whole thing for what it is.



p.s. If your answer is governed by the Official Secrets Act, I'll understand your silence in not answering.

[Prufrock]

Just a question Pru: Can the legal bods refuse to take on a case which they know is built on nonsense and silliness knowing full well (probably) what the outcome will be? See, it would seem that if so, the legal profession act safe in the knowledge they'll be paid anyway, take action when a high court judge could save a lot of time and expense by just telling the truth, ie, seeing the whole thing for what it is.



p.s. If your answer is governed by the Official Secrets Act, I'll understand your silence in not answering.

Short answer is no...but I wouldn't be living up to the stereotypes if I left it there.

It's not up to the lawyers to decide the case. Our adversarial system is based on the idea that you have two sides motivated to argue their case as effectively as possible, and an impartial judge to decide. Plenty of cases over the years that looked unlikely at first glance have ended up winning.

Barristers are subject to something called the "cab rank rule" - that you have to take any case that is in your specialism, you have time for, and will pay your rates. I think there are similar principles for solicitors. Idea is then that anyone can get legal representation.

There are limits though, that TV often take dramatic licence with. Firstly, lawyers work on instructions, and there are rules on interviewing clients around not asking leading questions. So you shouldn't get lawyers suggesting people say such and such happened. You find out what they say happened, and then argue it to the best of your availability.

You have to have evidence to support certain allegations too, such as dishonesty.

You also aren't allowed to mislead the court, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't argue something unlikely.

E.g. if your client says to you that they didn't do the murder, martians did it, but they're invisible to CCTV, then you can and should stand up and argue that martians did it (assuming they're mentally competent). On the other hand, if your client says I did the murder but I want you to say I didn't, you're not allowed to go and argue that they didn't. You have to advise them to plead guilty and if they don't, you have to withdraw from the case.

[Worthy4England]

I hope you send him the £250 bill for that response!

Well it was you who mentioned stereotypes

But on a more serious note, I'm not sure where in the story, the legal profession would turn down either of the very rich clients that were slugging it out in the Wagatha case. I mean they were happy to present "the phone fell of the boat" in the case of Vardy's agent, then everyone hides behind the fact that it could have actually occurred with the timing it did allegedly occur....

[Prufrock]

£250?! Cheap bastard

No doubts you're right on Vardy - I'd have been happy for that gig! But to TDs wider point the system is specifically designed so that it isn't lawyers' jobs to decide this is nonsense I'm not bothering.

There are some safeguards on mad cases where you can get them kicked out early doors (by a judge) if they're absolute nonsense, but the bar is very high.

[TANGODANCER]

^^

Short answer..Thanks.