For all the brexit doom mongers

[Jackov Altraids]

I took this picture with the express intent of finding out if anybody would spring to his defence. Congratulations!
I won't waste any time telling you on how many counts he is wrong. He was not disabled, I watched him climb down from the cab and walk away as I approached.

Please do tell me, I've asked you twice already so hardly wasting my time.
What did he say when you politely asked him why he had parked there?
I have only got your photo on which to make comment so please tell me which of the points I have made are wrong.
We often comment on how there is not enough common sense used these days and I suspect the driver used theirs to reluctantly park there as the best available option.

 

[caveman]

If the likes of Ken Clark and Micheal Hesaltine where in charge we would be, and controlling the excesses of the EU as well. But unfortunately we have a load of limp-wristed useless toss-pots who can't even form a cohesive party, let alone a government to take on the world.

If the likes of Clarke and Tarzan weren't such losers...... they'd be in power now.

 

[bobk]

Gotta beat my boys from the Pink City tomorrow night first.

We're oiled up and ready

 

[caveman]

We're oiled up and ready

"Bend over and take it like a man".

Kevin Bloody Wilson.

 

[czechmate]

They will probably put you on a plane back to Africa then.

Better than Blighty

 

[Walterp]

show us the evidence

That's easy - six things:

1. counsel by dint of training and experience have certain professional habits of reticence and balance, because they can usually be called upon to advise either side of an argument;

2. I have never, ever, encountered a bullying or unpleasant counsel (a few solicitors, very rarely);

3. Then a few chance remarks were made that were unlikely ever to be made by counsel;

4. professionals rarely miss the chance to reflect and pass on their life experiences, they can't help it, as one of the great spectator professions.

5. no professional reminiscences - haven't you noticed?

6. no details proffered - this 'third party' secrecy stuff is avoidance. What, if there is anything to be shy about (which there is, assuredly) is objectionable to some professional details?

After all, everybody knows my name, address, where and when I practised, with what result, whether I have any disciplinary action taken against me (no, if you need to ask), that I subsequently worked as an investigator for the Law Society, etc.

Maybe it is my time as an investigator, but the guy is hiding something - he is pretending to be something that he is not.

 

[Osca]

Actually, I have always noted the tendency to discuss clients' confidentialities as a sign of a sign of a LACK of professionalism.

A true professional just doesn't do that.

For a professional person to recount clients' cases on a public forum for the entertainment of others is surely a sign that that person was not fit to be trusted with those confidentialities in the first place.

 

[baabaa]

That's easy - six things:

1. counsel by dint of training and experience have certain professional habits of reticence and balance, because they can usually be called upon to advise either side of an argument;

2. I have never, ever, encountered a bullying or unpleasant counsel (a few solicitors, very rarely);

3. Then a few chance remarks were made that were unlikely ever to be made by counsel;

4. professionals rarely miss the chance to reflect and pass on their life experiences, they can't help it, as one of the great spectator professions.

5. no professional reminiscences - haven't you noticed?

6. no details proffered - this 'third party' secrecy stuff is avoidance. What, if there is anything to be shy about (which there is, assuredly) is objectionable to some professional details?

After all, everybody knows my name, address, where and when I practised, with what result, whether I have any disciplinary action taken against me (no, if you need to ask), that I subsequently worked as an investigator for the Law Society, etc.

Maybe it is my time as an investigator, but the guy is hiding something - he is pretending to be something that he is not.

if that bullocks is your only "evidence", you just lost!
surely you can do better?

as the actress exclaimed to the lawyer "IS THAT IT!"

 

[rob1]

he has shown his evidence to a third party and admin here, wally just accept he is wrong

 

[stevedave]

Can someone point me to where this argument took place I don't know what is going on.

 

[Danllan]

Can someone point me to where this argument took place I don't know what is going on.

Trust me, you really don't want to, it's just what my Mrs has referred to as 'handbags at dawn'; I'm bored of it and I've been wielding one of them...

 

[Danllan]

he has shown his evidence to a third party and admin here, wally just accept he is wrong

No, not to admin, needing to retain impartiality on the forum, llamedos quite rightly recused herself. Just to @alex04w on a discretionary basis.

 

[alex04w]

After all, everybody knows my name, address, where and when I practised, with what result, whether I have any disciplinary action taken against me (no, if you need to ask), that I subsequently worked as an investigator for the Law Society, etc.

No we don't. Can you point to the post where you gave this information.

I am the one who has seen the evidence that @Danllan is a barrister. Danllan has offered to Walter a means of providing independent proof of his status, but Walter is too scared to accept the challenge.

The argument started over a claim by Walter that both barristers and solicitors are officers of the Court. That is quite simple wrong. A solicitor is an officer of the Court, a barrister is not.

Walter cannot accept he was wrong on both counts - who is an officer of the Court and that Danllan is a barrister.

It says more about Walter than anyone else.

 

[linga]

That's easy - six things:

1. counsel by dint of training and experience have certain professional habits of reticence and balance, because they can usually be called upon to advise either side of an argument;

2. I have never, ever, encountered a bullying or unpleasant counsel (a few solicitors, very rarely);

3. Then a few chance remarks were made that were unlikely ever to be made by counsel;

4. professionals rarely miss the chance to reflect and pass on their life experiences, they can't help it, as one of the great spectator professions.

5. no professional reminiscences - haven't you noticed?

6. no details proffered - this 'third party' secrecy stuff is avoidance. What, if there is anything to be shy about (which there is, assuredly) is objectionable to some professional details?

After all, everybody knows my name, address, where and when I practised, with what result, whether I have any disciplinary action taken against me (no, if you need to ask), that I subsequently worked as an investigator for the Law Society, etc.

Maybe it is my time as an investigator, but the guy is hiding something - he is pretending to be something that he is not.

But you are not quite sure enough of your evidence to test it to the benefit of charity as suggested by the “old fraud “

 

[Henarar]

Perhaps there is only one old fraud on TFF

 

[rob1]

No, not to admin, needing to retain impartiality on the forum, llamedos quite rightly recused herself. Just to @alex04w on a discretionary basis.

yes meant to put offered to admin, use as few words as poss on the phone as fingers too fat and lots of typo's

 

[Ashtree]

So dear leader TM was right all along. Brexit does actually mean Brexit. Shame on you for doubting the dear leader.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...arnier-speech-talks-david-davis-a8064836.html

 

[ollie989898]

It is all bluster. They are throwing their toys out of the pram, but can't escape the fact London is an international trading hub.

Firms relocate their entire operations bases across the channel, where they are stuck with the Euro? Are you having a laugh.

 

[Ashtree]

It is all bluster. They are throwing their toys out of the pram, but can't escape the fact London is an international trading hub.

Firms relocate their entire operations bases across the channel, where they are stuck with the Euro? Are you having a laugh.

Where is it mentioned about relocation of entire operations to EU? It’s not.
It points to the income London generates from its Euro denominated transaction business. A cool £9 billion.
That’s obviously lever which EU will use in the negotiations.

 

[ollie989898]

Where is it mentioned about relocation of entire operations to EU? It’s not.
It points to the income London generates from its Euro denominated transaction business. A cool £9 billion.
That’s obviously lever which EU will use in the negotiations.

9 billion! Come along now, London plays host to an international trading market that does around £1 trillion a year.