FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Katie Hopkins to pay £324,000
Katie Hopkins to pay £324,000
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. " this.. | |||
| |||
"Anyone fancy doing a whipround for Kate ? i have 23p in my car to start us off xx" Wouldn't piss oh her if she was on fire lol.  | |||
| |||
"I find it strange that the woman in question demanded she pay 5 large to a "migrant" charity and not just a charity." i don't... it was one of her newspaper columns after she famously compared asylum seekers to "cockroaches" anyway she has previous in this.... she cost the mail a lot of money where a muslim family sued her as she called them "terrorists" in another of her columns when a story came out about a family who were taken of a flight bound for a family holiday at disneyland... | |||
| |||
 but I don't mind her !  | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day." I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. " Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? | |||
" I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . " i'm sorry... but that is rubbish... well hopkins could have avoided all this by actually apologising... and do you think there would have been numerous attempts to do that before it got to this stage.... she still fought it in court.. it wasn't like she was there against her will kicking and screaming she is her own worst enemy, I don't sympathise with her a bit! | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day." It never gives me any pleasure to see anyone suffer financial hardship. | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? " Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you want to be a professional areshole and libel people, expect to get sued. | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? " she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..? | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. It never gives me any pleasure to see anyone suffer financial hardship. " you may want to appraise yourself of the issue, the person who she libelled received scores upon scores of hate filled messages from people who believed what Hopkins wrote.. | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? " I would definitely say that sports people all round make a lot more positive contributions to society than the hate filled witch that is Katie Hopkins, so yes. | |||
| |||
"Why is nothing said about the bile from the other side of the coin ? Say Germsine Greer or Jasmine Alibi Brown ? " have either of them just been found guilty of libel? or do you just not like their opinions, there is a difference.. | |||
"Why is nothing said about the bile from the other side of the coin ? Say Germsine Greer or Jasmine Alibi Brown ? " Have they incorrectly accused anyone of supporting the desecration of war graves? | |||
| |||
"Why is nothing said about the bile from the other side of the coin ? Say Germsine Greer or Jasmine Alibi Brown ? " You can start a topic about that if you want. This was started because there was a newsworthy event but there doesnt have to be if you want to discuss it. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!!" They can't. You do realise that there is a diffeence between "having an opinion" and libel/slander, don't you? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!!" They cant, the law applies to everyone. | |||
| |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..?" I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!!" It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life" The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.." Oh well | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life" Yes, thanks for reminding us, 'enemies of the people'. Honestly what would they know, all those years of experience and studying. Prosecuting, defending, considering arguments and sentencing. Poor Ms Hopkins treated so unfairly by an unjust system. Lets see, KH libelled someone from a military family declined an offer to settle out of court. When you play stupid games, you may well win stupid prizes.  | |||
| |||
" I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs" She incorrectly accused someone of supporting the desecration of a war memorial and you want to pay for that? Why? | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . " yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..? I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs" Yes there is. It has already raised about five grand which has been given to a foodbank instead .... for people who are living in the real world | |||
| |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!!" What utter and complete nonsense. Hopkins is guilty of libel the other two you mention arent. It isnt that complicated to understand | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..? I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs" If you like her so much why don't you set one up? You could offer perks, donate £50 and get your own tailor made prejudice ready to use.  | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life" Are you being deliberately dim? Do you actually understand how our legal system works? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life" You know why it feels like that? Because the Daily Mail is lying to you. | |||
" Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? " Yes. I mean, it's not hard to contribute more than someone like Hopkins. But I think footballers probably get some unfair criticism anyway. Some of them do a lot for their communities. And no one gets upset about actors or musicians getting paid millions, so there's definitely some snobbery involved. | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..? I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs" There is. But it's also going to a charity for immigration. | |||
" Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? Yes. I mean, it's not hard to contribute more than someone like Hopkins. But I think footballers probably get some unfair criticism anyway. Some of them do a lot for their communities. And no one gets upset about actors or musicians getting paid millions, so there's definitely some snobbery involved. " Part of many footballers contract includes giving back to the community. Many remember where they came from and give back. Not sure about Bon Geldof though ... | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! " that's the legal system for you.. the actual question should be (the fact that Hopkins is a vile troll and appeals to those with similar deluded and stone age views is known) is why would she be so stupid to carry it on when her counsel would have laid out her position at the start.. her own arrogance has led to the costs being what they are.. | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day." The only people who really won here are the lawyers. She made a mistake, and was stubborn enough not to apologise, so 24 grand is a decent slap.... the rest is just rich dicks getting richer.  | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! that's the legal system for you.. the actual question should be (the fact that Hopkins is a vile troll and appeals to those with similar deluded and stone age views is known) is why would she be so stupid to carry it on when her counsel would have laid out her position at the start.. her own arrogance has led to the costs being what they are.. " Exactly. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have to admit that I smiled. Its not every day one of the UK's biggest trolls get called to account. The migrant charity demand was probably on account of KH cockroaches column." Dude come on.... Just an opinion piece right? | |||
"I find it strange that the woman in question demanded she pay 5 large to a "migrant" charity and not just a charity." I think Jack Monroe asked for a payment to a charity for migrants to redress some of the bile that has come from Katie Hopkins. Both women had a choice, though one is a decent human being and the other... I can't find the words to describe it. The court decided that one of them had done wrong. Justice served. | |||
"How do I go about sueing feminist trolls for slander against all men? "There the opposite side of the coin, they got a different target audience but its the same scam | |||
"How do I go about sueing feminist trolls for slander against all men? "Why don't you try it? | |||
"How do I go about sueing feminist trolls for slander against all men?
Why don't you try it?"One man against the darlings of the media.. I wouldn't have a hope. There would be a "but but but he's a misogynist because he doesn't buy our shitetalk" twitter missile pointed at my head and blue haired lynch mobs in the street | |||
"I have to admit that I smiled. Its not every day one of the UK's biggest trolls get called to account. The migrant charity demand was probably on account of KH cockroaches column. Dude come on.... Just an opinion piece right?" No it wasn't an opinion piece, KH directly accused JM of vandalising a war memorial on twitter. Ms Hopkins was given the opportunity apologise and donate to a charity of Ms Monroe's choosing. The courts found that KH was guilty of Libel. She now gets to pay damages and costs. | |||
"How do I go about sueing feminist trolls for slander against all men?
Why don't you try it?
One man against the darlings of the media.. I wouldn't have a hope. There would be a "but but but he's a misogynist because he doesn't buy our shitetalk" twitter missile pointed at my head and blue haired lynch mobs in the street "This wouldn't happen at all. They are hardly the darlings of the media .... where have you been? | |||
| |||
"They are in Ireland unfortunately " Flash, its a bloody stretch to equate KH with feminist columnists. Gender is of no relevance whatsoever to this issue. | |||
"They are in Ireland unfortunately Flash, its a bloody stretch to equate KH with feminist columnists. Gender is of no relevance whatsoever to this issue. " Same thing, deliberately inflammatory media types | |||
"They are in Ireland unfortunately Flash, its a bloody stretch to equate KH with feminist columnists. Gender is of no relevance whatsoever to this issue. Same thing, deliberately inflammatory media types " Are there any men who are deliberately inflammatory media types? | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day." It will hopefully make some realise that what they say has consequence's, and perhaps some will think before they quote | |||
"They are in Ireland unfortunately Flash, its a bloody stretch to equate KH with feminist columnists. Gender is of no relevance whatsoever to this issue. Same thing, deliberately inflammatory media types " . YouTube is full of them, yer have black dudes with inflammatory talk over black dudes, feminazis with inflammatory talk about men, women slagging off feminazis, Blacks calling whites, whites slagging off Blacks they all have a different target audience, they all wanna get people outraged for money and its always the same scam. They know what the world needs to be better and they cant do it coz of xyz if only you could join them the world will be lovely yak yak yak yak.
Are you on with me or against me , its not much difference than this forum | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! " Come on Mr Suit, who caused these costs? Be honest now, could this have all been sorted with a donation to charity and no legal costs? Yes or No? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.." However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. " Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..  | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there.. "Theres little point arguing this with Pat. He spent hours yesterday arguing that paedophiles shouldnt have their kids taken into care because preventing further abuse is too "complex" a decision to make. Hes beyond any sort of reason. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there.. "Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap? "Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows.. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
"We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change  | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change "And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so.. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. " So, what you saying? That judges should only be involved in cases that personally affect them? Hrmmm... yeah, I can't see any flaws in that at all! (In case the sarcasm of that went over your head, the judiciary should be independent and neither the costs nor their personal interests should be any factor in their reasoning) -Matt | |||
"Personally, I hope it bankrupts her but what's really said is that she'll probably be able to pay it, whilst anyone else would lose everything they had if hit with a bill like that. The fact that you can earn that kind of a living by contributing nothing to society and just spewing hate says in a nutshell everything that's wrong with western society. Her contribution is writing in news papers and the fact that people like to read her columns regardless of whether they agree or disagree. No one is compelled to purchase a newspaper and people would not buy them unless they found the content interesting . Footballers probably earn a lot more than she does . Do they contribute more ? she is a vile person and writes for a paper albeit online that has a history of having to pay compensation.. you sound like you want to defend her..? I like the girl, does any body know if there is a just giving page where I can donate to her costs Yes there is. It has already raised about five grand which has been given to a foodbank instead .... for people who are living in the real world" | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
"Even to romans knew the dangers of asbestos, as it was killing so many slaves | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change "Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. " | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
Even to romans knew the dangers of asbestos, as it was killing so many slaves"Shh don't tell Pat.. | |||
| |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer
We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid". Thats not true, they bought an awful lot of guns and got a lotta billionaires out of it .
I dont support foreign aid for that reason, most of it is just wasted or used for corruption, remove the aid and the despots wont be able to afford guns and then the people can revolt and have a chance of having a decent country for once | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" your happy to be in agreement with someone so wrong its just cost them £324k..? crack on by all means.. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech "it has responsibilities and in the case in discussion, high financial costs.. | |||
| |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Theres little point arguing this with Pat. He spent hours yesterday arguing that paedophiles shouldnt have their kids taken into care because preventing further abuse is too "complex" a decision to make. Hes beyond any sort of reason."That is a fairly cowardly comment to make but probably not unexpected from someone like yourself . What I said was that Christopher Booker was entitled to comment on the various legal issues concerning the case . Only social workers , the police , solictors and barristers would hsve sufficient knowledge of the case to make a decision. I make no apologies for commenting on the various legal processes involved . A barrister representing someone who has committed a crime does not condone the crime committed . Maybe you should be better informed on the workings of the court of protection before comnenting on tbe forum. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it?" Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. So, what you saying? That judges should only be involved in cases that personally affect them? Hrmmm... yeah, I can't see any flaws in that at all! (In case the sarcasm of that went over your head, the judiciary should be independent and neither the costs nor their personal interests should be any factor in their reasoning) -Matt" It must be one of the few scenarios then where costs can be ignored . In reality not all tbe Judicary are independent . | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. " Can we have one thread free of brexit please | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. " You poor thing. Sue me. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Theres little point arguing this with Pat. He spent hours yesterday arguing that paedophiles shouldnt have their kids taken into care because preventing further abuse is too "complex" a decision to make. Hes beyond any sort of reason. That is a fairly cowardly comment to make but probably not unexpected from someone like yourself .
What I said was that Christopher Booker was entitled to comment on the various legal issues concerning the case . Only social workers , the police , solictors and barristers would hsve sufficient knowledge of the case to make a decision.
I make no apologies for commenting on the various legal processes involved .
A barrister representing someone who has committed a crime does not condone the crime committed .
Maybe you should be better informed on the workings of the court of protection before comnenting on tbe forum. "Pat, there are a lot of people very interested in you on here ..... | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! Come on Mr Suit, who caused these costs? Be honest now, could this have all been sorted with a donation to charity and no legal costs? Yes or No? " Yes it could ! And yes she should have ! But I still say the Media is left wing Biased ! | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. " Not sure anyone has ever said they 'hate' anyone regardless of how they did vote or those who didn't vote.. lots of passionate debate but on such an issue that's to be expected.. hate, not that no.. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" You are thinking of accusing innocent people of desecrating war graves? Why would you want to do something like that? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
"I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have . If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine . I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks . | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! Come on Mr Suit, who caused these costs? Be honest now, could this have all been sorted with a donation to charity and no legal costs? Yes or No? Yes it could ! And yes she should have ! But I still say the Media is left wing Biased ! " Its got nothing to do with the media, it was on twitter. She has no one to blame but herself. | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! Come on Mr Suit, who caused these costs? Be honest now, could this have all been sorted with a donation to charity and no legal costs? Yes or No? Yes it could ! And yes she should have ! But I still say the Media is left wing Biased ! Its got nothing to do with the media, it was on twitter. She has no one to blame but herself. " I must admit she would have been better off holding her hands up on this one ! | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. " Lol... oh the irony... it buuuuuuurns
-Matt | |||
| |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" Its an interesting phenomenon that research shows that racists/sexists believe that their opinions are far more popular than they actually are. If the overwhelming majority didnt disagree with these things then it wouldnt be condemned like it is. For example there are Unionist politicians that routinely post discriminatory things on social media about catholics and get away with it because a large section of their voterbase is ok with it. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it?" It's not lies it's fact | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap? "The whole process needs to be streamlined and made more accountable . I have sued a public authority as a litigant in person and some of the tactics used are little short of disgracefull. Examples include failing to file pleadings on time and non disclosure of evidence . The whole process was in my opinion a complete waste of money . | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? It's not lies it's fact" I think you will find the reason she paid up was because it was untrue .... it was a lie because she had mixed two people up. | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . yes , surely the absurd cost should be the main story here ! Come on Mr Suit, who caused these costs? Be honest now, could this have all been sorted with a donation to charity and no legal costs? Yes or No? Yes it could ! And yes she should have ! But I still say the Media is left wing Biased ! " Because the various billionaires that own the media are proper little Bolsheviks.... | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? It's not lies it's fact" Libel..... Say the word a few times... Any closer? | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? It's not lies it's fact" Maybe its alternative fact. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks . "Asbestos removal..? but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue? why would you need to remove it then..? on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'.. without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff.. oops i just did.. so to summarise Pat; yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said.. and you had thrown his book away..? and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate).. today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal.. smells fishy Pat.. like your making it up on the hoof.. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer
We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid.
Thats not true, they bought an awful lot of guns and got a lotta billionaires out of it .
I dont support foreign aid for that reason, most of it is just wasted or used for corruption, remove the aid and the despots wont be able to afford guns and then the people can revolt and have a chance of having a decent country for once"This statement, and the one previous, is not true. Some aid has definitely not been effective, but a lot has, and some parts of Africa are now booming. I suggest you try and look past the stereotype on Africa. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap? The whole process needs to be streamlined and made more accountable . I have sued a public authority as a litigant in person and some of the tactics used are little short of disgracefull. Examples include failing to file pleadings on time and non disclosure of evidence . The whole process was in my opinion a complete waste of money . "That may well be true but then it's even more reason Hater Hopkins should have apologised to begin with. She could then have avoided the costs. | |||
| |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. Can we have one thread free of brexit please " Freedom of speech mate - up yours | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer
We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid.
Thats not true, they bought an awful lot of guns and got a lotta billionaires out of it .
I dont support foreign aid for that reason, most of it is just wasted or used for corruption, remove the aid and the despots wont be able to afford guns and then the people can revolt and have a chance of having a decent country for once
This statement, and the one previous, is not true.
Some aid has definitely not been effective, but a lot has, and some parts of Africa are now booming.
I suggest you try and look past the stereotype on Africa.". Thats why i said most aid not all aid, yes some makes an impact however most gets squandered onto regimes that cause most of the problems, its how Africa is kept fucked up while the money men strip its assets. Its not a secret its quite open, unless you think the entire continent is just fucked up by chance or culture? These are probably true to to an extent but they dont drive it. They use your empathy to keep the situation on going | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer
We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid.
Thats not true, they bought an awful lot of guns and got a lotta billionaires out of it .
I dont support foreign aid for that reason, most of it is just wasted or used for corruption, remove the aid and the despots wont be able to afford guns and then the people can revolt and have a chance of having a decent country for once
This statement, and the one previous, is not true.
Some aid has definitely not been effective, but a lot has, and some parts of Africa are now booming.
I suggest you try and look past the stereotype on Africa..
Thats why i said most aid not all aid, yes some makes an impact however most gets squandered onto regimes that cause most of the problems, its how Africa is kept fucked up while the money men strip its assets. Its not a secret its quite open, unless you think the entire continent is just fucked up by chance or culture? These are probably true to to an extent but they dont drive it.
They use your empathy to keep the situation on going"Sorry but while this may have been more true in the past there's been a much bigger focus on good governance in the past 10-15 years. There's also a big difference between aid from governments and overall aid through independent organisations and the public. | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . " Pat, I am really surprised that you would like to see a cap in costs. The costs are on the basis of professionally qualified self-employed barristers. I thought you liked people to earn what they are worth, working for themselves? You want to limit their success? How surprising. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech" Under that sort of 'free speech' I could call you a murderer and it would be ok would it? She accused someone of something they didn't do and did it in a way that inflamed hatred from her followers to send death and sexual abuse threats to Munroe. But according to you that's what people were thinking so it's ok and just free speech. | |||
"If you actually listen to her she really says what most of us are thinking. Whatever happened to freedom of speech She may say what you are thinking, not me. Free speech doesn't mean you can incite hate or lie about people though, does it? Remoaners incite hate against Brexiters all the time, especially on here. " And vice versa from what I have read. Just calling people who voted to remain Remoaners is part of that. | |||
"Anyone else happy to see Katie Hopkins ordered to pay £24k in compensation, plus £300k legal fees today. The funniest part was she could have settled the case for an apology and a £5k donation to a migrant charity. Made my day. I do not see anything being funny if legal fees of £300, 000 have been incurred . The law needs to be amended to cap legal fees at a sensible level of say £20, 000 per case . It never ceases to amaze me the issues which people take to court and the costs incurred . It appears to be a case of mistaken identity . Pat, I am really surprised that you would like to see a cap in costs. The costs are on the basis of professionally qualified self-employed barristers. I thought you liked people to earn what they are worth, working for themselves? You want to limit their success? How surprising. " An interesting comment and point taken . However it is difficult to see how arguing out cases in court ( and I am referring to civil litigation as opposed to criminal prosecutions ) at unlimited costs is of any real benefit to anyone . ( except to lawyers and solicitors ) A case in point is one in todays paper . The National Coal Board were sued on behalf of 97,000 miners whose health had been damaged . The lawyers made £115 million while tens of thousands of the miners had been awarded damags of less than £1000 , one of them only 50 p . We have the potential scenario now where in certain cases Doctors may refrain from saving someones life for fear of being sued . | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof.. "Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people . Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach ) | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach ) "His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not.. several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations.. also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times.. safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of.. again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks.. your contradicting yourself, again.. question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ? | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach ) "that approach seems very similar to when you thought professional pest controllers were over stressing what was needed in one of your properties and not worth the money so you did your own research on here..? and to a point such things can be sorted but with asbestos removal that's a different level of risk.. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
Foreign aid should have been scrapped years ago, it serves no purpose and delivers next to nowt for the end user and bears little or no resemblance to the huge cost incurred to the UK tax payer
We should target natural distasters like the earth quakes in Italy, not Africa which is basket case, always has been always will be. I was giving tin foil to blue peter for Africa when I was 10 and that was 44 years ago. Nothing has changed and it has sucked up 1000's of millions in aid.
Thats not true, they bought an awful lot of guns and got a lotta billionaires out of it .
I dont support foreign aid for that reason, most of it is just wasted or used for corruption, remove the aid and the despots wont be able to afford guns and then the people can revolt and have a chance of having a decent country for once
This statement, and the one previous, is not true.
Some aid has definitely not been effective, but a lot has, and some parts of Africa are now booming.
I suggest you try and look past the stereotype on Africa..
Thats why i said most aid not all aid, yes some makes an impact however most gets squandered onto regimes that cause most of the problems, its how Africa is kept fucked up while the money men strip its assets. Its not a secret its quite open, unless you think the entire continent is just fucked up by chance or culture? These are probably true to to an extent but they dont drive it.
They use your empathy to keep the situation on going
Sorry but while this may have been more true in the past there's been a much bigger focus on good governance in the past 10-15 years.
There's also a big difference between aid from governments and overall aid through independent organisations and the public.
". But i was talking about oversees foreign aid given by governments not private charity work, i agree theres a big difference. But thats not what Im saying,im saying the entire system that runs aid on a governmental level including UN and IMF bank bailouts are designed to keep places fucked up while the rich extort the place for its wealth, they rely on your empathy for sad pictures of dying kids to keep that going. South America, Africa, most of the middle East, Russia, Baltic states these are just places designed to be kept shit by a system while being exploited. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
that approach seems very similar to when you thought professional pest controllers were over stressing what was needed in one of your properties and not worth the money so you did your own research on here..?
and to a point such things can be sorted but with asbestos removal that's a different level of risk.."I do not think that I would ever be relying on advice from an internet forum such as this . We are simply in Cyberland and far removed from the real world . Any information on here is simply a discussion topic . A topic or thread may be started to engage in conversation , this forum can hardly be considered an area from which to obtain serious advice . That is why I am so surprised that some posters are so eager to post links to the documentation from which they obtain they opinions ? Unless someone has two much time on their hand I cannot see anyone looking back to the relevant supporting documentation. . Regarding advice , a lot of members are extremely helpful and in the case of one of the issues to which you refer about ten pmed me . I would hope that it is not just a one way feed and where relevant I have provided help and guidance on other issues in return . Christopher Booker is a distinguished author and I am happy to rely on his advice as are many other people . No one is compelled to accept what he says , you are not compelled to accept anything that I say as being true , and vice versa I am not compelled to accept anything which you say as being true .We are all quite capable of carrying out our own risk assessment . The information which Christopher Booker has in his book plus the various weekly newspaper columns which he writes give me sufficient information on the issue . The climate change lobby will of course attempt to discredit him becauses it damages their money making gravy train . In any event the dangers of asbestos were ingrained into me at a very young age by my father . I do not doubt the validity of his advice . If you are approaching the issue from an employee perspective you may have a different view . In any event , whatever peoples views are o the issue , it does not make much difference to me . | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
that approach seems very similar to when you thought professional pest controllers were over stressing what was needed in one of your properties and not worth the money so you did your own research on here..?
and to a point such things can be sorted but with asbestos removal that's a different level of risk..
I do not think that I would ever be relying on advice from an internet forum such as this . We are simply in Cyberland and far removed from the real world . Any information on here is simply a discussion topic . A topic or thread may be started to engage in conversation , this forum can hardly be considered an area from which to obtain serious advice . That is why I am so surprised that some posters are so eager to post links to the documentation from which they obtain they opinions ? Unless someone has two much time on their hand I cannot see anyone looking back to the relevant supporting documentation. .
Regarding advice , a lot of members are extremely helpful and in the case of one of the issues to which you refer about ten pmed me . I would hope that it is not just a one way feed and where relevant I have provided help and guidance on other issues in return .
Christopher Booker is a distinguished author and I am happy to rely on his advice as are many other people . No one is compelled to accept what he says , you are not compelled to accept anything that I say as being true , and vice versa I am not compelled to accept anything which you say as being true .We are all quite capable of carrying out our own risk assessment .
The information which Christopher Booker has in his book plus the various weekly newspaper columns which he writes give me sufficient information on the issue . The climate change lobby will of course attempt to discredit him becauses it damages their money making gravy train .
In any event the dangers of asbestos were ingrained into me at a very young age by my father . I do not doubt the validity of his advice .
If you are approaching the issue from an employee perspective you may have a different view .
In any event , whatever peoples views are o the issue , it does not make much difference to me . "As the OP of this thread I deem this post completely irrelevant. Thank you, that is all. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not..
several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations..
also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times..
safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of..
again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks..
your contradicting yourself, again..
question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ?"I never said that there is no risk , there is no risk in certain scenarios . ( namely asbestos enclosed within cement ) | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not..
several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations..
also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times..
safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of..
again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks..
your contradicting yourself, again..
question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ?
I never said that there is no risk , there is no risk in certain scenarios . ( namely asbestos enclosed within cement ) "Beeeep: still irrelevant. Beeeep: also incorrect, what happens when the concrete gets knocked down. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They made me take my shed down in the rain and i could only use a hammer and a saw. Then you have to double bag your bits of asbestos up and take it too the dump or have it collected by a registered firm. " Hopefully that will minimise the chances of you coughing your lungs up or having bits of them cut out when your older. I think you know that, but I guess it doesn't prevent you being cold and wet | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not..
several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations..
also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times..
safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of..
again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks..
your contradicting yourself, again..
question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ?
I never said that there is no risk , there is no risk in certain scenarios . ( namely asbestos enclosed within cement ) "The amount of asbestos in cement is low but still when reduced down for other uses is a risk and it's managed on site.. Where asbestos is concerned there is always a risk, managing it will in certain scenario's reduce it and make working with it or removing it safer.. | |||
"Back to Hopkins for a moment.... You would have thought she would have learnt her lesson after the last time her words got her into trouble when she ended up costing the daily mail 150k.... but that wasn't her money I suppose Only difference this time is that she did it on twitter rather than in a newspaper... and she had no one else to hide behind I can't believe people here tried to defend her... it was a horrible accusation to make, and when she knew it wasn't true all she had to do to make it right was to say sorry.... She couldn't even utter that!" Or it may be that we do not know the terms and conditions of the settlement offer made to her . It is quite possible that tbe conditions attached to it were unacceptable . We are simply guessing the issue on these forums . | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not..
several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations..
also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times..
safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of..
again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks..
your contradicting yourself, again..
question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ?
I never said that there is no risk , there is no risk in certain scenarios . ( namely asbestos enclosed within cement )
The amount of asbestos in cement is low but still when reduced down for other uses is a risk and it's managed on site..
Where asbestos is concerned there is always a risk, managing it will in certain scenario's reduce it and make working with it or removing it safer..
"However Brooker never disputed this , his concern was about the issues being totally overstated in certain scenarios unnecessary extra costs being incurred in its removal. | |||
"Back to Hopkins for a moment.... You would have thought she would have learnt her lesson after the last time her words got her into trouble when she ended up costing the daily mail 150k.... but that wasn't her money I suppose Only difference this time is that she did it on twitter rather than in a newspaper... and she had no one else to hide behind I can't believe people here tried to defend her... it was a horrible accusation to make, and when she knew it wasn't true all she had to do to make it right was to say sorry.... She couldn't even utter that! Or it may be that we do not know the terms and conditions of the settlement offer made to her . It is quite possible that tbe conditions attached to it were unacceptable . We are simply guessing the issue on these forums ." stop it, your trying to justify or excuse the vile woman's behaviour.. again.. she had the chance to make it all go away by simply apologising and paying £5 k to a charity.. she chose not to.. she is not only a vile person she is also stupid and will be out of pocket .. | |||
"They made me take my shed down in the rain and i could only use a hammer and a saw. Then you have to double bag your bits of asbestos up and take it too the dump or have it collected by a registered firm. " Hi. What is the charge for taking it to a dump ? Is is per bag or per ton and whst type of bags do you have to use ?. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
His 'findings' are based on a proven liar called John Brindle who was successfully prosecuted for pretending he had qualifications he does not..
several other claims by Brindle have been shown to be false by professional bodies and organisations..
also your man Booker has been shown by the HSE to be quoting falsehoods, several times..
safety with asbestos is there because it kills people, end of..
again why are you saying you investigate the risks when you are also saying Booker is your 'go to' man and he says there are no risks..
your contradicting yourself, again..
question to you Pat, how do you explain the nearly 3000 deaths in this country in 2014 directly caused by mesothelioma/ asbestosis if there is no risk.. ?
I never said that there is no risk , there is no risk in certain scenarios . ( namely asbestos enclosed within cement )
The amount of asbestos in cement is low but still when reduced down for other uses is a risk and it's managed on site..
Where asbestos is concerned there is always a risk, managing it will in certain scenario's reduce it and make working with it or removing it safer..
However Brooker never disputed this , his concern was about the issues being totally overstated in certain scenarios unnecessary extra costs being incurred in its removal.
"he has no credibility in the area, his source is a proven liar with no qualifications and he has every time he opens his unqualified mouth corrected by the HSE.. that's the HSE who base their qualified professional judgement upon proven scientific evidence.. for someone who professes to have done research in this area and say's an open mind is needed you certainly don't put it into practise.. | |||
"I know I'm gonna get hammered for this but I don't mind her ! "She's the salt of the earth if you ask me. If we had more Katie Hopkins around this country wouldn't be the bloody mess it currently is ! Katie Rocks ! Love her. | |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. However all judges do is make a decision on the day . It has no impact on their own personal lives and they seem totally indifferent to the costs involved in cases ( in addition to all thr pomp and ceremony involved). Judges make decisions, it does not necessary mean it is the right one. Google or any other search engine as you seem to have problems finding common information will tell you that, juries hear the evidence presented under the stewardship of the judge during the case.. Then juries again under the guidance of said judge are sent to deliberate on the evidence etc.. Are you suggesting that in order to keep costs down that judges should keep it short? Also Google the principles of justice while your there..
Maybe Pat is suggesting that after Brexit the UK can no longer afford decent justice, instead we need to do it on the cheap?
Pat and his logic has been beyond me for several years, who knows..
We'll add that to the list of things we can no longer afford, including our foreign aid budget and a department for energy and climate change
And scrap all PPE and the regs on working with asbestos as it's all ok and no one has ever contracted mesothelioma or will do cos some eminent journo has said so..
I would guess that I hsve probably done more research into Asbestos removal than you have .
If making sarcastic comments keeps you happy or gives you satisfa tion that is fine .
I prefer to assess the risks and take action on those that represent danger . And not frighten people by quoting unnecessary risks .
Asbestos removal..?
but on the other thread you said asbestos was mainly in concrete and not an issue?
why would you need to remove it then..?
on that salient point you have not only exhibited a massive lack of knowledge about where in our homes, workplaces etc asbestos is present but you've also contradicted your view that Booker is 'spot on'..
without getting into the lamp post urination game you are lamely trying to introduce i did 22 plus yrs dealing with incidents involving asbestos where risk assessment was daily with the stuff..
oops i just did..
so to summarise Pat;
yesterday asbestos wasn't a problem because the journalist said so.. 'spot on' you said..
and you had thrown his book away..?
and its only in concrete so not a problem (grossly not accurate)..
today you have said you have done much research into asbestos removal..
smells fishy Pat..
like your making it up on the hoof..
Luckily no one compells you to accept the results of Christopher Bookers research . However I am happy to accept the results of his findings as are many other people .
Some people have incurred a lot of unnecessary expenses because of the various scare tactics used by the asbestos removal industry . I prefer to investigate the risks that I may be encountering and not necessarily accept blindly the advice given . ( i.e an open minded approach )
that approach seems very similar to when you thought professional pest controllers were over stressing what was needed in one of your properties and not worth the money so you did your own research on here..?
and to a point such things can be sorted but with asbestos removal that's a different level of risk..
I do not think that I would ever be relying on advice from an internet forum such as this . We are simply in Cyberland and far removed from the real world . Any information on here is simply a discussion topic . A topic or thread may be started to engage in conversation , this forum can hardly be considered an area from which to obtain serious advice . That is why I am so surprised that some posters are so eager to post links to the documentation from which they obtain they opinions ? Unless someone has two much time on their hand I cannot see anyone looking back to the relevant supporting documentation. .
Regarding advice , a lot of members are extremely helpful and in the case of one of the issues to which you refer about ten pmed me . I would hope that it is not just a one way feed and where relevant I have provided help and guidance on other issues in return .
Christopher Booker is a distinguished author and I am happy to rely on his advice as are many other people . No one is compelled to accept what he says , you are not compelled to accept anything that I say as being true , and vice versa I am not compelled to accept anything which you say as being true .We are all quite capable of carrying out our own risk assessment .
The information which Christopher Booker has in his book plus the various weekly newspaper columns which he writes give me sufficient information on the issue . The climate change lobby will of course attempt to discredit him becauses it damages their money making gravy train .
In any event the dangers of asbestos were ingrained into me at a very young age by my father . I do not doubt the validity of his advice .
If you are approaching the issue from an employee perspective you may have a different view .
In any event , whatever peoples views are o the issue , it does not make much difference to me .
As the OP of this thread I deem this post completely irrelevant. Thank you, that is all."Hello . I would like to apologise to you . It was not my intention to post irrelevant issues on your thread. However a few posters for reasons best known to themselves raised issues on other posts which I had made ( tbe posts to which they referred were completely irrelevant to the thread ). One again apologies and I hope that any further responses which you receive are specifically related to the thread . I will not make any more posts on it. Best wishes Patrick. | |||
"They made me take my shed down in the rain and i could only use a hammer and a saw. Then you have to double bag your bits of asbestos up and take it too the dump or have it collected by a registered firm. Hi. What is the charge for taking it to a dump ? Is is per bag or per ton and whst type of bags do you have to use ?. " Thought you had researched the issue? | |||
"I know I'm gonna get hammered for this but I don't mind her !
She's the salt of the earth if you ask me. If we had more Katie Hopkins around this country wouldn't be the bloody mess it currently is !
Katie Rocks ! Love her."Salt of the earth? Lordy. | |||
| |||
"I know I'm gonna get hammered for this but I don't mind her !
She's the salt of the earth if you ask me. If we had more Katie Hopkins around this country wouldn't be the bloody mess it currently is !
Katie Rocks ! Love her."I am not sure the country needs more hate filled liars does it? This is a woman who has discovered that she can be famous simply by being controversial. She knows all too well that lemmings lap up her controversy and make her popular. She is a modern day Bernard Manning and I am sure that we will all look back at her in the same way we now look back at Bernard Manning. The people who loved his "honesty" are the same type of people that lap up Hopkins "honesty." | |||
"I know I'm gonna get hammered for this but I don't mind her !
She's the salt of the earth if you ask me. If we had more Katie Hopkins around this country wouldn't be the bloody mess it currently is !
Katie Rocks ! Love her.
I am not sure the country needs more hate filled liars does it?
This is a woman who has discovered that she can be famous simply by being controversial. She knows all too well that lemmings lap up her controversy and make her popular. She is a modern day Bernard Manning and I am sure that we will all look back at her in the same way we now look back at Bernard Manning. The people who loved his "honesty" are the same type of people that lap up Hopkins "honesty.""Yes, I've noticed someone posting here is very fond of the expression 'lets be honest' would be representative of Bernard Manning school of diplomacy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not saying Hopkins I'd perfect but it riled me that left wingers can get away with saying anything they like !!! It certainly appears to be like that for sure, but let's be honest most judges are woolly backed lefties any way, who have no understanding or appreciation of day to day life The judicial susten is not your strong point it seems. Juries decide upon the evidence and the judge will pass sentence as part of their role in the court.. Libel is libel and regardless of what ones political stance if you commit it and it goes through the process then that's that.. It's pretty clear and obvious.. Oh well" Hahaha someone got told! | |||
