Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Assuredly.. your judgement is bonkers -):

i'm very happy for others to think what they will of me as i'm very comfortable with myself - within my own skin as is the rather horrible current phrase

re #51556


Is that Tanker to the bottom left of the photo?

Seems like your to frigging comfortable to me, when are you actually going to do any work to earn your crust eh.. come on answer the question -):

The court case about the pleb comment does NOT mean Mitchell is guilty. It was a civil case and it was just the judge's opinion. What the judge said was that he 'probably' said it. As it was a civil case there is no burden of proof. It is about a balance of probability in the judge's eyes. The judge has to choose one or the other. I hope he appeals the verdict.

I hope this one isn't Max.

The absense of a cut in oil production will be a severe blow to several oil producing nations, one of which is Russia.

"It is about a balance of probability in the judge's eyes."

Yes H/S and about 20 millions others as well.

No such thing as a guilty verdict in a civil case.

Oh do belt up H/S you apologist for just about everything that's nasty about the "Condemned Party/Government.

It is the Conservatives that are the nice party. Labour are the nasty party. They represent the real meaning of a fascist party where state control of everything is the ultimate aim. Luckily the public are not enamoured of Labour's Il Duce.

How do you run up a £3m legal bill over what someone said to someone else?


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/andrew-mitchell-counts-costs-plebgate-libel

Mitchell has no expenses on his side as his solicitors took the case on a contigency basis. It was a no win, no fee deal. The costs are the other side and I am sure the figure will come down a lot. There is a process called taxing fees, where they have to be justified pound by pound.

Haze,

Get back to your bunker, Goebbels may arise again and give you some suggestions on propaganda. Take Chappy with you, he would benefit from the ghost of times past!

-------

Max.

The cost of arrogance, privilege, pride and stupidity.

He could just have thought, apologised and moved on.

But he was like other members of this government too conceited to do so!

The public are the plebs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not questioning you Haystack (in the Stan and Fred mode)


But how can that be?

OK, the no win no fee thingy works for Mitchell's end, but what about the losses (legal fees) incurred by the opposition??

I think you might be right Fred (swoon)

Mitchell will have to pay the other side's expenses but the current estimate will probably come down.

Save the Fatcats

These are the top salaries at the Save the Children fund.

CEO Justin Forsyth £139,950
COO Anabel Hoult £139,950
COO / CFO & Strategic Initiatives Rachel Parr £131,970
Global Programmes Director Fergus Drake £113,300
Fundraising Director Tanya Steele £112,200
Marketing & Comms Director Sue Allchurch £111,920
Policy & Advocacy Director Brendan Cox £106,029
CFO Peter Banks £102,000
HR Director Paul Cutler £100,980

The UK average salary is 26,500.

StC has just given Tony Blair its “Global Legacy” award. What kind of people like Tony Blair? People who earn over 100,000. I am not sure that if you put money in a tin, or bought from their charity shop, you thought you were paying that many fat salaries. There are also gold plated pensions and other benefits. Justin Forsyth, the CEO, of course worked in Tony Blair’s neo-con policy unit.

As I have written before....

Http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/11/31577/

Your mate doesent sound too popular Haystack.