This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 13 Feb 24 8.37am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by XKudu
Wisbech I think everyone would have more respect if you said you hated Trump but then didn’t defend any even bigger rouge and dementia riddled lunatic. It doesn’t have to be one camp or another for most intelligent thinking adults. For what it’s worth, the Hur report was very well choreographed with an eye not so much on the documents stored in his garage but the much more serious allegations/crimes of his family receiving +m for buying his influence when he was Vice President, something that will be shown he was fully complicit in. The Special Counsel and DOJ will again brush this under the carpet with the mental incapacity defence which they have now wheeled out and will polish further. Utterly disgusting and predictable. As I have said many times I don’t hate Trump. I feel sorry for anyone who so obviously has such a character deficiency. What I hate is Trumpism. The phenomenon that allows so many to believe he represents the saviour of their country. It’s a symptom of a very distorted and sick society. I also feel sorry for Biden. Any man of his age ought not be under the kind of pressures he is. I don’t think he should be running and actually don’t believe he will be, when the election day arrives. His primary role in 2020 was to stop another 4 years of Trump. His primary role in 2024 is exactly the same. That you have bought into the him being complicit assertions just demonstrates how successful Trumpism has been in spreading propaganda and why it must be countered. As I have repeatedly said if there is evidence of that then let’s see it tested in a court. Right now, despite all the fishing and smears, there isn’t any.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
HKOwen  Hong Kong 13 Feb 24 8.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Insurers who are genuinely scammed are rare as are Insurers who litigate and lose. More likely an idiotic insured will somehow badger his insurer to defend in order to protect a no claims bonus or some other self interest. These type of situations are invariably involving indemnifying the liability of the insured.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Feb 24 8.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Very true, the 10K Boris cheated from him and now an insurance scam. Let's hope he is not incurring lots of cost Edited by HKOwen (13 Feb 2024 12.28am) My only costs are time and effort. I offered to pay my own costs to attend the hearing as a gesture of good will but my insurers have insisted on covering them. This was a “soft” personal injury car fraud. Very clever and very expensive for the insurer. It would have been avoided with a dash cam, which I didn’t have then but have now bought and will attempt to fit today. Lesson learned! The £10,000 grant withheld on a technicality remains an open case with my MP. The problem is that the Minister responsible keeps changing!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Feb 24 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Insurers who are genuinely scammed are rare as are Insurers who litigate and lose. More likely an idiotic insured will somehow badger his insurer to defend in order to protect a no claims bonus or some other self interest. These type of situations are invariably involving indemnifying the liability of the insured. This just isn’t true. Insurers often settle fraudulent claims because it’s cheaper to do so than fight and win when they know the claimant has no resources to meet a costs award. Only when those Solicitors who encourage fraudulent claims with “no win, no fee” conditional contracts are required to meet the insurers costs themselves will this stop. I knew little about this until quite recently but my experience has taught me a lot. It’s a fast growing problem and one of the reasons car insurance premiums are rising so sharply.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 13 Feb 24 9.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This just isn’t true. Insurers often settle fraudulent claims because it’s cheaper to do so than fight and win when they know the claimant has no resources to meet a costs award. Only when those Solicitors who encourage fraudulent claims with “no win, no fee” conditional contracts are required to meet the insurers costs themselves will this stop. I knew little about this until quite recently but my experience has taught me a lot. It’s a fast growing problem and one of the reasons car insurance premiums are rising so sharply. For once I agree with you. The scales of justice are not level when it comes to no win no fee. Some lowlife makes up a story about a celebrity or big company and gets an ambulance chasing lawyer to sue for compensation. They have a good chance that the other side will settle before court and if it's a celebrity they can threaten to drag up all sorts of muck. All free publicity for the lawyers. If they win their costs and compensation are paid by the other side. If they lose where is the compensation for the other side? The lowlife will have no assets so even if the judge awards costs they will never be paid. It's all weighted to the complainer and their scumbag lawyers. In these cases the lawyers should be made joint defendants with the complainer. If the lawyers thought they might lose and have to pay costs and compensation they might look a bit harder at their clients case before taking it on. Edited by Badger11 (13 Feb 2024 9.14am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| HKOwen Hong Kong 13 Feb 24 9.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
For once I agree with you. The scales of justice are not level when it comes to no win no fee. Some lowlife makes up a story about a celebrity or big company and gets an ambulance chasing lawyer to sue for compensation. They have a good chance that the other side will settle before court and if it's a celebrity they can threaten to drag up all sorts of muck. All free publicity for the lawyers. If they win their costs and compensation are paid by the other side. If they lose where is the compensation for the other side? The lowlife will have no assets so even if the judge awards costs they will never be paid. It's all weighted to the complainer and their scumbag lawyers. In these cases the lawyers should be made joint defendants with the complainer. If the lawyers thought they might lose and have to pay costs and compensation they might look a bit harder at their clients case before taking it on. Edited by Badger11 (13 Feb 2024 9.14am) Here in Hong Kong contingent fees are not allowed and if discovered the lawyers will likely be struck off. In the UK no win no fee has it's tentacles in things like " did you own a diesel car " etc. The nonsense of the case quoted such as worst judgement in 20 years or barrister couldn't believe it is typical of someone in the wrong successfully pursued. Clearly the evidence of the poster was not believed.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ouzo Dan  Behind you 13 Feb 24 9.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Donald Trump has said he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills as part of the Western military alliance. At a rally on Saturday, he said he had once told a leader he would not protect a nation behind on its payments, and would "encourage" the aggressors to "do whatever the hell they want". The White House called the comments "appalling and unhinged". Trump is only 3 years junior to Trump and increasingly deranged. Quite a pair aren't they but I credit Biden on the economy and his experience. Trump has long said all NATO members should pay the agreed minimum 2% GDP on defence. Lets delve into this a little closer France - 1.9% Have all failed to commit to the agreed upon 2% GDP on defence. Let's look at a map, who has a land border with Russia or even by Proxy Belarus? None of them. Trump is being smart, he is well aware how popular it is within his voting base to demand all NATO members pay the agreed 2% on defence - I agree with him, I am on record of wanting UK army numbers to go back Exercise Lionheart numbers - actually I'd go further than that re numbers but I digress. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Trump said.
The mountains are calling & I must go. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Feb 24 10.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Here in Hong Kong contingent fees are not allowed and if discovered the lawyers will likely be struck off. In the UK no win no fee has it's tentacles in things like " did you own a diesel car " etc. The nonsense of the case quoted such as worst judgement in 20 years or barrister couldn't believe it is typical of someone in the wrong successfully pursued. Clearly the evidence of the poster was not believed. You weren’t there. Nor are you the barrister involved. He has a stella reputation as one of the UK’s leading specialists in dealing with car personal injury and fraud. The Judge was a deputy, a partimer whose day job is a family solicitor handling divorce. Guess who knew what they were dealing with? Not only the does barrister believe me, so do the insurer and the solicitors handling the case, who are also specialists. An appeal is being considered but economically it makes no sense, as any savings on having the award overturned and the costs disallowed would be wiped out by increased costs for the insurer that they know would be unrecoverable. My only hope is that the barrister is so angry that he might handle it “pro bono”. This type of behaviour needs to be fought. I know what happened. The Judge chose to believe lies despite there being clear evidence of them.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 13 Feb 24 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The scam was perpetrated by a fraudster against me, and my insurance company, who arranged the defence and covered the very considerable costs. I regret to say he got away with it. My barrister calls the worst judgement he has witnessed in his 20:years at the bar, thinks the Claimant the most obvious liar he has ever cross examined and that 99 out of 100 Judges would have found for us. He wants to appeal but the insurance company will settle because the scumbag has no money and getting even more costs back is impossible. I'm sorry to hear that. A painful lesson in why we cannot always trust the law to do the right thing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 13 Feb 24 11.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Hardly. My insurers have been scammed. Trump is the one scamming everyone with his lies, legal delays and contortions. LOL Edited by eaglesdare (13 Feb 2024 11.29am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Feb 24 11.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I'm sorry to hear that. A painful lesson in why we cannot always trust the law to do the right thing. Thanks. It was both painful and shocking. Neither my wife nor my friends could believe it when I told them and it's taking me a while to come to terms with. One of my friends, who because of her job has been involved in a number of personal injury cases, holds the view that the law these days exists to ensure criminals get a fair trial and not to protect the innocent. Cynical, but I suspect has an element of truth.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 13 Feb 24 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thanks. It was both painful and shocking. Neither my wife nor my friends could believe it when I told them and it's taking me a while to come to terms with. One of my friends, who because of her job has been involved in a number of personal injury cases, holds the view that the law these days exists to ensure criminals get a fair trial and not to protect the innocent. Cynical, but I suspect has an element of truth. Nonsense thats just a conspiracy theory. the law exists to give both people the accussed and the accuser a fair trial.....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.