LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jul 17, 2015 13:16:14 GMT
Do you mean to say you can't? Sadly not I'm afraid, I think it's age related but I'm not certain. Seems a tad belligerent of you to have brought it up then doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 13:46:12 GMT
Yes it was, I hope you don't mind but I fixed a typo in your comment, you had the word 'law' in inverted commas for some reason. I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 13:53:32 GMT
Yes it was, I hope you don't mind but I fixed a typo in your comment, you had the word 'law' in inverted commas for some reason. I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club.
|
|
strung out
Administrator
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758
|
Post by strung out on Jul 17, 2015 13:56:02 GMT
I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 17, 2015 13:56:53 GMT
I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore. I think it reasonable to assume at least two walk away proposals were made by Sainsburys both of which would have left us significantly better of than we are now....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 13:59:48 GMT
I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club. I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Perhaps that the problem with living in the real world and not a modern day bubble?
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 17, 2015 14:09:07 GMT
I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club. I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Who wrote Rotherham!? You did you complete knob! What are you twelve!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:11:45 GMT
I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Who wrote Rotherham!? You did you complete knob! What are you twelve! I did yes but point out where I discussed it you knob jockey?? He said I discussed Rotherham... I didnd. The comparison with the laws an ass not the Rovers case! f**k me...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:12:24 GMT
I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Who wrote Rotherham!? You did you complete knob! What are you twelve!
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 17, 2015 14:15:54 GMT
I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore. There is now more information in the public domain. We don't have everything but we probably have the salient points. It is clear that Sainsbury's wanted out of the contract a long time ago, possibly as long ago as late 2013. At that stage Rovers had two options:- 1) Try to agree a settlement (at some stage and timing might be critical) and get as much out of Sainsbury's as possible or 2) Push on to enforce the contract with a "hostile partner" - although I'm not really sure there is such a thing. If this option is taken you do so at your peril and have to double check and triple check your facts and everything you do. You have to ensure you do EVERYTHING on time. You cannot make even the slightest mistake. The other party is now looking for any opportunity so you cannot give them one on a plate. In my opinion Rovers have the moral high ground but that counts for nothing when you are trying to satisfy a contract. I am (and will be) more than happy to be proven wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 17, 2015 14:16:49 GMT
Who wrote Rotherham!? You did you complete knob! What are you twelve! You total tool comparing this trivia with a sex abuse scandal going on for a decade and then attempting to deny it...its in print knob now go and do your paper round and leave the adults to grown up talk.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:25:13 GMT
You total tool comparing this trivia with a sex abuse scandal going on for a decade and then attempting to deny it...its in print knob now go and do your paper round and leave the adults to grown up talk. Tool, knob bring it on my friend. Once again, just for you and anyone else....I discussed nothing did I? Not that I give a flying f**k what you think, don't make out I compared the rovers case with the Rotherham sex scandals!! Again it was a reference to the law of this wonderful land and if you want to set your warped mind to read what I wrote any different to what is there in black and white then carry on. It is in print and will stay there.....adult talk?? Knob, tool? Big man lol. Over to you....my 'adult' friend...
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 17, 2015 14:25:40 GMT
I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore. There is now more information in the public domain. We don't have everything but we probably have the salient points. It is clear that Sainsbury's wanted out of the contract a long time ago, possibly as long ago as late 2013. At that stage Rovers had two options:- 1) Try to agree a settlement (at some stage and timing might be critical) and get as much out of Sainsbury's as possible or 2) Push on to enforce the contract with a "hostile partner" - although I'm not really sure there is such a thing. If this option is taken you do so at your peril and have to double check and triple check your facts and everything you do. You have to ensure you do EVERYTHING on time. You cannot make even the slightest mistake. The other party is now looking for any opportunity so you cannot give them one on a plate. In my opinion Rovers have the moral high ground but that counts for nothing when you are trying to satisfy a contract. I am (and will be) more than happy to be proven wrong though. Indeed. I dont think Sainsburys have acted decently at all, but if you are going to try and make them honour the contract dont slip up and give them any wriggle room. From the judgment it seems Sainsburys did all they had to do (however little) and Rovers even heloed them acheive it as we had to okay their appeal
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:28:46 GMT
I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club. I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Perhaps that the problem with living in the real world and not a modern day bubble? Your exact words: "The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys..." Leaving aside the idea of law as an 'ass' (which is a really odd sentence), I agree that failures of the justice system to provide justice, or failures of the institutions to create an environment where justice can be available, should encourage us to question those who exercise the states authority. However, the claim that any miscarriage reduces law, even mundane matters relating to contracts and planning permission, to the lesser status of 'law' is a very poor logic and something else I'm actually in a mood to challenge. Your comment about Rotherham was an attempt to lash out after your argument can under scrutiny, it was totally irrelevant to the point you were, supposedly, trying to make and it added nothing to the debate at all. Just accept it was a daft comment and move on. Back to the discussion on the appeal though and this supposed miscarriage of justice. I'd like it if you could explain exactly why you think there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, and also, I'd be interested to know why you think we occupy some sort of moral high ground. So far as I can see we have tried to force an unwilling party to fulfil a contract which was no longer commercially viable and we forced the matter into the court system instead of negotiating a decent walkaway settlement. Effectively we tried to force Sainsbury's to build a store they didn't want to build, which the area didn't need and was opposed by many people in the local community.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:30:18 GMT
I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club. So tell me where I discussed Rotherham sex scandal?? Comparison?? Easy to twist words like the pack mentality has in an instant!!
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:36:12 GMT
You made the claim that the law had failed to provide rovers justice, and repeatedly said the 'law is an ass' (which again, makes absolutely no sense). Having established an argument that the law is less than it should be, you offered Freemasons and the Rotherham child abuse scandal as supporting evidence for your argument. Thereby drawing an indirect comparison between Rovers, who you believe were betrayed by the legal system, and the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, who certainly were betrayed by the legal system.
Just accept that you drew the comparison, accept that it was in bad taste and we can get back to talking about the court decision.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 17, 2015 14:36:17 GMT
You total tool comparing this trivia with a sex abuse scandal going on for a decade and then attempting to deny it...its in print knob now go and do your paper round and leave the adults to grown up talk. Tool, knob bring it on my friend. Once again, just for you and anyone else....I discussed nothing did I? Not that I give a flying f what you think, don't make out I compared the rovers case with the Rotherham sex scandals!! Again it was a reference to the law of this wonderful land and if you want to set your warped mind to read what I wrote any different to what is there in black and white then carry on. It is in print and will stay there.....adult talk?? Knob, tool? Big man lol. Over to you....my 'adult' friend... 'lol' you've just proved what a fool you are But you wrote it no point denying its you wrote it ,'Rotherham', you, not the man in the moon, not Basil Fawlty, not Bishop Desmond Tutu, not Shirley Basey, not Joe Root, not Larry Grayson but you. Now go do 100 lines, "mustn't write juvenile crap on forum"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:37:50 GMT
I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Perhaps that the problem with living in the real world and not a modern day bubble? Your exact words: "The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys..." Leaving aside the idea of law as an 'ass' (which is a really odd sentence), I agree that failures of the justice system to provide justice, or failures of the institutions to create an environment where justice can be available, should encourage us to question those who exercise the states authority. However, the claim that any miscarriage reduces law, even mundane matters relating to contracts and planning permission, to the lesser status of 'law' is a very poor logic and something else I'm actually in a mood to challenge. Your comment about Rotherham was an attempt to lash out after your argument can under scrutiny, it was totally irrelevant to the point you were, supposedly, trying to make and it added nothing to the debate at all. Just accept it was a daft comment and move on. Back to the discussion on the appeal though and this supposed miscarriage of justice. I'd like it if you could explain exactly why you think there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, and also, I'd be interested to know why you think we occupy some sort of moral high ground. So far as I can see we have tried to force an unwilling party to fulfil a contract which was no longer commercially viable and we forced the matter into the court system instead of negotiating a decent walkaway settlement. Effectively we tried to force Sainsbury's to build a store they didn't want to build, which the area didn't need and was opposed by many people in the local community. Do behave!! You know full well what was meant and like quite a few so called intellectuals on here decided to twist words and whip up a frenzy! Which is very easily done. No comparison was meant at all, you and that gobs**te mentors know that. But used it as a reason to round on me...As if I give a damn! Moving on...
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:40:05 GMT
Your exact words: "The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys..." Leaving aside the idea of law as an 'ass' (which is a really odd sentence), I agree that failures of the justice system to provide justice, or failures of the institutions to create an environment where justice can be available, should encourage us to question those who exercise the states authority. However, the claim that any miscarriage reduces law, even mundane matters relating to contracts and planning permission, to the lesser status of 'law' is a very poor logic and something else I'm actually in a mood to challenge. Your comment about Rotherham was an attempt to lash out after your argument can under scrutiny, it was totally irrelevant to the point you were, supposedly, trying to make and it added nothing to the debate at all. Just accept it was a daft comment and move on. Back to the discussion on the appeal though and this supposed miscarriage of justice. I'd like it if you could explain exactly why you think there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, and also, I'd be interested to know why you think we occupy some sort of moral high ground. So far as I can see we have tried to force an unwilling party to fulfil a contract which was no longer commercially viable and we forced the matter into the court system instead of negotiating a decent walkaway settlement. Effectively we tried to force Sainsbury's to build a store they didn't want to build, which the area didn't need and was opposed by many people in the local community. Do behave!! You know full well what was meant and like quite a few so called intellectuals on here decided to twist words and whip up a frenzy! Which is very easily done. No comparison was meant at all, you and that gobs***e mentors know that. But used it as a reason to round on me...As if I give a damn! Moving on... You may have missed this comment I have since posted so I've copied and pasted. You made the claim that the law had failed to provide rovers justice, and repeatedly said the 'law is an ass' (which again, makes absolutely no sense). Having established an argument that the law is less than it should be, you offered Freemasons and the Rotherham child abuse scandal as supporting evidence for your argument. Thereby drawing an indirect comparison between Rovers, who you believe were betrayed by the legal system, and the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, who certainly were betrayed by the legal system. Just accept that you drew the comparison, accept that it was in bad taste and we can get back to talking about the court decision.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 14:43:03 GMT
Tool, knob bring it on my friend. Once again, just for you and anyone else....I discussed nothing did I? Not that I give a flying f what you think, don't make out I compared the rovers case with the Rotherham sex scandals!! Again it was a reference to the law of this wonderful land and if you want to set your warped mind to read what I wrote any different to what is there in black and white then carry on. It is in print and will stay there.....adult talk?? Knob, tool? Big man lol. Over to you....my 'adult' friend... 'lol' you've just proved what a fool you are But you wrote it no point denying its you wrote it ,'Rotherham', you, not the man in the moon, not Basil Fawlty, not Bishop Desmond Tutu, not Shirley Basey, not Joe Root, not Larry Grayson but you. Now go do 100 lines, "mustn't write juvenile crap on forum" I said I wrote it knob jockey!! I'm not denying that you complete and utter fool!! What the f**k are you on?? what a complete bellend you are!! f**ks sake you had too much coke?? Weed?? I Will repeat for you again my bell ended friend...I did write the word Rotherham but not discussed it at all and in the vein said by Tim!! Do you get it now you thick ****?
|
|