Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:10 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 107  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7169
How much could someone hope to earn from such a claim? It'll never be enough to buy a new reputation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and ambulance chasing at its worst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4672
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and hearse chasing at its worst.


Fixed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18579
The driver was drunk iirc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16249
I don't know common law but under Dutch law to be eligible for compensation in such a circumstance you would need to prove you were treated 'onrechtmatig' which translates loosely to unjustly. You would have a hard time proving that as simply witnessing something is not someone behaving unjustly towards you, it requires an action or deliberate inaction resulting in harm.

On a side note the eggshell skull rule is also creeping into Dutch law which is a major step back. Its one of the major causes of inflating compensation IMO as when anyone is in line for a payout they become a mentally as strong as jelly and develop spontaneous whiplash.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and ambulance chasing at its worst.

One can presume that the persons who saw a family drown are going to allege they have suffered psychological injuries. In that context, their only avenue for pursuing compensation for such injuries would be to sue whosoever caused the accident.

I can only speculate that there would be disagreement between whether the CC or the driver would be at fault.

If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18579
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and ambulance chasing at its worst.

One can presume that the persons who saw a family drown are going to allege they have suffered psychological injuries. In that context, their only avenue for pursuing compensation for such injuries would be to sue whosoever caused the accident.

I can only speculate that there would be disagreement between whether the CC or the driver would be at fault.

If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.

You really are shameless parasites.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and ambulance chasing at its worst.

One can presume that the persons who saw a family drown are going to allege they have suffered psychological injuries. In that context, their only avenue for pursuing compensation for such injuries would be to sue whosoever caused the accident.

I can only speculate that there would be disagreement between whether the CC or the driver would be at fault.

If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.

My great fat hairy arse !

:lol: :lol:

So living life causes psychological injuries ? This is tosh of the most laughable kind, encouraged by the legal-medico-insurance cabal to keep the fat fees flowing.

PS. Can I sue for the psychological trauma of seeing real life accidents, in which real people died, replayed on TV ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
As per the law surrounding Hillsborough, only if you knew somebody involved.

Are you really that surprised that somebody who watched a family die during a failed rescue attempt might suffer psychologically afterwards? That's hardly a surprise.

And all of this is pure speculation on my part, but it would seem the most logical cause of action.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
As per the law surrounding Hillsborough, only if you knew somebody involved.

Are you really that surprised that somebody who watched a family die during a failed rescue attempt might suffer psychologically afterwards? That's hardly a surprise.

And all of this is pure speculation on my part, but it would seem the most logical cause of action.

I don't have a problem with that bit, as I said that's life. Having the legal right to sue someone for simply witnessing what is an awful tragedy beggars belief though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:10 pm
Posts: 561
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 78746.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-5-3297087-Mar2017/

happens a fair bit normally family members though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
As per the law surrounding Hillsborough, only if you knew somebody involved.

Are you really that surprised that somebody who watched a family die during a failed rescue attempt might suffer psychologically afterwards? That's hardly a surprise.

And all of this is pure speculation on my part, but it would seem the most logical cause of action.

I don't have a problem with that bit, as I said that's life. Having the legal right to sue someone for simply witnessing what is an awful tragedy beggars belief though.

[url]
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/w ... 51717.html[/url]

There's the family's view.

Are you saying that if you watched your family get killed by an errant driver your inevitable psychological damage should just be accepted? That's a bit of a reach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14271
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
We all forgotten about car insurance? One would presume that's the target.

On what basis though ?

The lawyers surely aren't trying to argue that people have a responsibility not to die tragically, in other to save others stress and distress ?

That's ludicrous, and ambulance chasing at its worst.

One can presume that the persons who saw a family drown are going to allege they have suffered psychological injuries. In that context, their only avenue for pursuing compensation for such injuries would be to sue whosoever caused the accident.

I can only speculate that there would be disagreement between whether the CC or the driver would be at fault.

If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.



Something is very rotten in our legal state of Denmark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
As per the law surrounding Hillsborough, only if you knew somebody involved.

Are you really that surprised that somebody who watched a family die during a failed rescue attempt might suffer psychologically afterwards? That's hardly a surprise.

And all of this is pure speculation on my part, but it would seem the most logical cause of action.

I don't have a problem with that bit, as I said that's life. Having the legal right to sue someone for simply witnessing what is an awful tragedy beggars belief though.

[url]
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/w ... 51717.html[/url]

There's the family's view.

Are you saying that if you watched your family get killed by an errant driver your inevitable psychological damage should just be accepted? That's a bit of a reach.

I'd suffer the same psychological trauma if I saw them killed by a bolt of lightning or a freak wave. Unfortunately since neither the heavens nor the seas carry insurance so I doubt any firm of solicitors would try sueing. No pot to pay their fees.

Accidents are accidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5650
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
As per the law surrounding Hillsborough, only if you knew somebody involved.

Are you really that surprised that somebody who watched a family die during a failed rescue attempt might suffer psychologically afterwards? That's hardly a surprise.

And all of this is pure speculation on my part, but it would seem the most logical cause of action.

I don't have a problem with that bit, as I said that's life. Having the legal right to sue someone for simply witnessing what is an awful tragedy beggars belief though.

[url]
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/w ... 51717.html[/url]

There's the family's view.

Are you saying that if you watched your family get killed by an errant driver your inevitable psychological damage should just be accepted? That's a bit of a reach.

I'd suffer the same psychological trauma if I saw them killed by a bolt of lightning or a freak wave. Unfortunately since neither the heavens nor the seas carry insurance so I doubt any firm of solicitors would try sueing. No pot to pay their fees.

Accidents are accidents.

+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30907
Quote:
If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


You cannot be serious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30907
anonymous_joe wrote:
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.


I meant about the family suffering


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21729
Duff Paddy wrote:
Quote:
If a person has clear psychs, it's not that surprising an action. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


You cannot be serious

I witnessed the passing of this poor young fellow and helped his brother administer CPR before the ambulance came. Was fairly shook after.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-23- ... 0?mode=amp

What a dope I was. Should have sued "somebody" to make myself feel better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.

And, like whiplash, the only measurable symptoms are entirely subjective and, given the very large sums at stake, prone to extreme exaggeration. I suspect mental trauma after viewing an accident is, like whiplash, a medical area that Ireland has more sufferers than any other country in the EU. Wasn't there a recent study that found that whiplash basically doesn't exist in France because there's no compo available for claiming you are suffering from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7169
It's one of those attitudes that if we all adopted it then society would crumble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.


I meant about the family suffering

Ah. Well in practical terms, the solicitor who is acting as the executor will be the person the insurer talks to. I can only presume that the real argument in this case will be as to whether this was the fault of the council or the driver. As far as I understand it, a number of cases have already been instituted in regards to this accident, and, there will be the necessity of an inquest as things stand.

This case will be unlikely to have anything to do with the family.

Furthermore, the family have - as per the Indo - demonstrated a degree of sensitivity and kindness to this woman. It would not appear that they bear any animus towards her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.


I meant about the family suffering

Ah. Well in practical terms, the solicitor who is acting as the executor will be the person the insurer talks to. I can only presume that the real argument in this case will be as to whether this was the fault of the council or the driver. As far as I understand it, a number of cases have already been instituted in regards to this accident, and, there will be the necessity of an inquest as things stand.

This case will be unlikely to have anything to do with the family.

Furthermore, the family have - as per the Indo - demonstrated a degree of sensitivity and kindness to this woman. It would not appear that they bear any animus towards her.

And what the fúck has that got to do with the price of a periwig ? Are you suggesting that the law be administered on the basis of sentiment ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
What...?

I'm suggesting that the law exists to spare families the unpleasantness of engaging in a case where a dead family member's mistakes are litigated.

The woman alleges she suffered injuries caused by the negligence of another. She is more than entitled to sue if that is correct. That's what I'm suggesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14271
anonymous_joe wrote:
Of course I'm serious. If the person can show that their injuries were caused by the actions of the deceased, and there's a duty of care and standard of care, then they can claim against the deceased's estate, and - by extension - the insurance policy.

This is one of the reasons we're all required to have insurance to drive. It means that in a situation such as this, a person who has suffered injuries can sue without the difficult choice of ignoring their own injuries or suing the family of a deceased person.



:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6370
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24889
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6370
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?


Well I struggle to see either accepting liability, and struggle to see a non-involved 3rd party being able to justify a case.
In the meantime the remaining family will have to pay €,000's of legal bills from their own pockets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20868
Leinster in London wrote:
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?


Well I struggle to see either accepting liability, and struggle to see a non-involved 3rd party being able to justify a case.
In the meantime the remaining family will have to pay €,000's of legal bills from their own pockets.

Why would the family have to pay legal fees?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6370
anonymous_joe wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?


Well I struggle to see either accepting liability, and struggle to see a non-involved 3rd party being able to justify a case.
In the meantime the remaining family will have to pay €,000's of legal bills from their own pockets.

Why would the family have to pay legal fees?


If the insurance companies are not liable, but she wins a case then that leaves the estate exposed.
The remaining family will have to protect their interests in the estate. (Is there property involved ?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?

Also for there to be any sort of payout surely negligence has to be proved, ie some one was negligent towards her ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?

So the slipway was slippy, that's like saying water is wet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24889
camroc1 wrote:
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?

So the slipway was slippy, that's like saying water is wet.


Was it covered in algae, was it in disrepair, was there sufficient signage etc etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42327
danthefan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
danthefan wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Quote:
on. It's not as though the family suffer, the insurance will cover this.


I'm interested in this insurance. I think I may have a problem because I may not be insured for this risk.
Which policy did he have ?
Was it part of his mobile phone insurance, or his household goods ?
That must be it, the lawyers arguing that the children are household goods.

Does anyone else have a policy that covers them for slipping down a slipway ?


Public liability insurance of whoever maintained the slipway?
Car insurance of the deceased?

So the slipway was slippy, that's like saying water is wet.


Was it covered in algae, was it in disrepair, was there sufficient signage etc etc.

It's a f**king slipway that is tidal. The sea goes in and out over it twice a day. Of course there's algae on it; that's called the natural fúcking world.

Its purpose is to allow people put boats in the water without having to drop them from the pier, not act as a car park for idiots.


Last edited by camroc1 on Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8341
Fvck me ..... what an unreal discussion :lol:

AJ is an intelligent fellow but hes obviously suffering from Stockholm syndrome .....

hey, maybe he can sue the law library over the mental distress caused from continually having to trot out the party line ...... and we, the people, can cover the cost of his giant payout through increased premia.

The legal profession view of the insurance system (i.e. that it’s simply an ATM with unlimited cash), will inevitably lead to a collapse of the sector.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52854
In light of the recent discussion about social media, AJ would be bonkers to give his heartfelt personal opinion on any legal matter, IMO. So he really has no choice but to play a straight bat as long as he wants to continue to work in the legal profession.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8341
CM11 wrote:
In light of the recent discussion about social media, AJ would be bonkers to give his heartfelt personal opinion on any legal matter, IMO. So he really has no choice but to play a straight bat as long as he wants to continue to work in the legal profession.


So, you’re saying the legal profession are incapable of regulating themselves and that it’s about time the Oireachtas did something about them?

I agree wholeheartedly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52854
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
In light of the recent discussion about social media, AJ would be bonkers to give his heartfelt personal opinion on any legal matter, IMO. So he really has no choice but to play a straight bat as long as he wants to continue to work in the legal profession.


So, you’re saying the legal profession are incapable of regulating themselves and that it’s about time the Oireachtas did something about them?

I agree wholeheartedly


:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14271
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
In light of the recent discussion about social media, AJ would be bonkers to give his heartfelt personal opinion on any legal matter, IMO. So he really has no choice but to play a straight bat as long as he wants to continue to work in the legal profession.


So, you’re saying the legal profession are incapable of regulating themselves and that it’s about time the Oireachtas did something about them?

I agree wholeheartedly


Hear hear


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 107  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AD345, Bert, Google [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, pigaaaa, Sards, Tecumseh, Toro, Working Class Rugger, Zico and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group