Yet more Tory sleaze….

[swansonj]

...
Still, that's more entertaining than your wordy sub-CSE level sociology lectures.

A little bird tells me that our TheClaud is educated to just slightly above sub-CSE level. You are, on occasion, capable of expressing your right-wing views in a reasonably articulate and coherent, one might even say thoughtful, way. Your more frequent descent into puerile and not even very witty insult is a sure sign that you know you have lost the argument.

 

[Pale Rider]

A little bird tells me that our TheClaud is educated to just slightly above sub-CSE level. You are, on occasion, capable of expressing your right-wing views in a reasonably articulate and coherent, one might even say thoughtful, way. Your more frequent descent into puerile and not even very witty insult is a sure sign that you know you have lost the argument.

There is no argument to lose.

Claud's main modus operandi is to sneer at others.

No point in pretending otherwise - the posts on here and in the other place tell their own story.

As I said, it's quite entertaining at times.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

More crap - not everyone follows your dumb 'the government is always at fault' line.

Get over it.

The court cases run along more along the lines of ''the government is always accountable''. Hence their pretty good success rate in the courts so far.

And one day we'll get to integrity in government.

Get over it.

 

[mudsticks]

That'll be everyone on here then?

You really do like to use the broad brush don't you??

The court cases run along more along the lines of ''the government is always accountable''. Hence their pretty good success rate in the courts so far.

And one day we'll get to integrity in government.

Get over it.

I like the GLP for their environmental stance too..
https://goodlawproject.org/case/energy-policy/

A little bird tells me that our TheClaud is educated to just slightly above sub-CSE level. You are, on occasion, capable of expressing your right-wing views in a reasonably articulate and coherent, one might even say thoughtful, way. Your more frequent descent into puerile and not even very witty insult is a sure sign that you know you have lost the argument.

You do get the feeling that our Claude has done her homework pretty thoroughly..

I'd definitely want her on my side in a fight.

Just as well I'm a totally lily livered pacifist eh??

 

[Mr Celine]

Claud's main modus operandi is to sneer at others.

 

[mudsticks]

View attachment 306

Have a heart..
Although I heartily concur with the sentiment

- the 'Contemptor in Chief' accusing others of sneering, does almost define hypocrisy.

But at the same time this image is a tad distressing for those of us whose living relies on protected cropping.

🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱🌱

 

[Hitchington]

Twatington slagged me off in several threads, so he got a dose back.

Sometimes I ignore abuse, sometimes not.

That may, or may not, meet with your approval.

I really couldn't give a toss one way or the other.

Oooh, you're 'ard.

If you're going to give me a "dose" then try doing it directly and not by proxy.

 

[cookiemonster]

There is no argument to lose.

Claud's main modus operandi is to sneer at others.

No point in pretending otherwise - the posts on here and in the other place tell their own story.

As I said, it's quite entertaining at times.

C’mon @Pale Rider you’re one of the sneeriest people ever to exist. Every comment is an insult or a sneer at who you think is less intelligent than you. Then, if someone fires back, you clutch your pearls in fake horror and complain that you’ve been insulted.

 

[stowie]

Tactics, as ever.

The Good Law Project has been out manoeuvred by the government on the costs cap.

It's a bit like me trying to set up a team to beat one managed by Guardiola, but it shouldn't be.

If the Good Law Project want to play in the Premier League they need to up their game.

Is there a reason why the GLP would not seek a costs cap? If eligible, what is the downside?

There was a local council court case a while ago. Even in my uneducated eyes, the case was incredibly poorly thought out, had no understanding of the remit of the law, and was - in my eyes - a frivolous nonsense. It was thrown out by the high court judge with almost every point being deemed without merit. They had court costs capped at £10k. Speaking with a councillor, they seemed rather OK with this case being brought despite it costing a lot more than £10k to defend (as even the most stupid of law action costs ££££ to defend) and the claimant only being liable for a small proportion. Because this allows citizens to hold government at all levels to account. Without this mechanism, most people would be unable to risk losing against the resources of government organisations. It levels the field between David and Goliath.

This government appears on the surface to be ratcheting up costs to intimidate those trying to test them in the courts. It is the exact opposite of the case I mentioned above. I don't think that seems a good idea. Most governments at all levels understand that accountability - especially through the courts - is a core part of our democracy. We are in dangerous times with a national government that thinks something different.

 

[BoldonLad]

Is there a reason why the GLP would not seek a costs cap? If eligible, what is the downside?

There was a local council court case a while ago. Even in my uneducated eyes, the case was incredibly poorly thought out, had no understanding of the remit of the law, and was - in my eyes - a frivolous nonsense. It was thrown out by the high court judge with almost every point being deemed without merit. They had court costs capped at £10k. Speaking with a councillor, they seemed rather OK with this case being brought despite it costing a lot more than £10k to defend (as even the most stupid of law action costs ££££ to defend) and the claimant only being liable for a small proportion. Because this allows citizens to hold government at all levels to account. Without this mechanism, most people would be unable to risk losing against the resources of government organisations. It levels the field between David and Goliath.

This government appears on the surface to be ratcheting up costs to intimidate those trying to test them in the courts. It is the exact opposite of the case I mentioned above. I don't think that seems a good idea. Most governments at all levels understand that accountability - especially through the courts - is a core part of our democracy. We are in dangerous times with a national government that thinks something different.

During my working life, I was involved in only one Court Case (thankfully, it was not an edifying experience). The case was between two PLC's, one (ours) significantly bigger than the other. Our Barrister openly used exactly the tactics bolded to intimidate the smaller player. As I said, it was not an edifying experience. I very much doubt that "the Government" has any part in the "strategy" it is (sadly) the way the Legal System and Legal Profession(?) works, "right" has nothing to do with it, "winning" is what counts, the means are not relevant.

Not saying that I agree with or find such tactics palatable or acceptable, but, they are the prevailing tactics, regardless of Party in power.

 

[FishFright]

C’mon @Pale Rider you’re one of the sneeriest people ever to exist. Every comment is an insult or a sneer at who you think is less intelligent than you. Then, if someone fires back, you clutch your pearls in fake horror and complain that you’ve been insulted.

Less intelligent than the Perv in chief ? A small target indeed.

 

[matticus]

C’mon @Pale Rider you’re one of the sneeriest people ever to exist. Every comment is an insult or a sneer at who you think is less intelligent than you. Then, if someone fires back, you clutch your pearls in fake horror and complain that you’ve been insulted.

This exchange is the NACA version of:
- You smell.
- Well YOU smell.
- You smell WORSE
...etc ...etc ... until teacher comes in and threatens them both with detention.

I have my own views on which child started it, but it's slightly depressing to see just how many members - and how often - join in with this childish behaviour.
<sigh>
Still, this is what the forum was designed for, so I guess no point in moaning about it ...

 

[qigong chimp]

Word is this will be the theme music for the next meeting of the Families Conservative Party Conference

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwxIY3E6Af0
​

 

[stowie]

During my working life, I was involved in only one Court Case (thankfully, it was not an edifying experience). The case was between two PLC's, one (ours) significantly bigger than the other. Our Barrister openly used exactly the tactics bolded to intimidate the smaller player. As I said, it was not an edifying experience. I very much doubt that "the Government" has any part in the "strategy" it is (sadly) the way the Legal System and Legal Profession(?) works, "right" has nothing to do with it, "winning" is what counts, the means are not relevant.

Not saying that I agree with or find such tactics palatable or acceptable, but, they are the prevailing tactics, regardless of Party in power.

By PLC I imagine that you are talking about companies. In these circumstances, money definitely talks. I remember a CEO once giving a speech saying he would defend patents aggressively through the courts unless it was ******* (biggest company in the sector at the time). They could have 'em as their pockets were so deep!

With government, I think it needs to be different, and think that many politicians believe this as well. Courts need to be able to test the legality of their actions and this is often brought by much smaller groups or charities etc. It is one of the checks in our democracy. The stakes are much higher for society than company litigation. The cost cap is designed to level this playing field. I guess my confusion is why the GLP wouldn't want to cap costs wherever possible. I guess there are downsides of which I am unaware.

If the government are doing this deliberately to the GLP it isn't because the GLP are taking the government to court. It is because they have been winning...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I note that Foxglove have 3 days in the Royal Courts of Justice on 22/3/22 about the legality of doing business on disappearing WhatsApp texts. They, in turn, will have noted the excessive legal cost ''inflation'' after the cost cap deadline.