Brexit Watch

Open my eyes to what? You’re commenting on an ongoing court case with complete certainty but no evidence. What do you think this proves?

Maugham always reminds me of Mr Frankland, a minor character in Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles.
Mr. Frankland is an elderly resident of the Devonshire County who enjoys frivolous lawsuits. He scans the moor with his telescope to find the escaped convict and inadvertently discovers the mysterious man on the tor.
The villagers are either carrying him shoulder high through the streets, or burning him in effigy, depending on his latest lawsuit.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Open my eyes to what? You’re commenting on an ongoing court case with complete certainty but no evidence. What do you think this proves?

Eh???

You've clearly not read the links or you certainly would not posted what you have!

The links are to the court papers presented in evidence to the judge ffs!!!

I was trying to open your eyes to there being two sides to every story.

Try reading them and come back and tell me the company dragged into this by Maugham's agenda against the government hasn't got open, honest, factual  and compelling reasons for his allegations against them to be kicked out - which they will - as they seem determined to defend themselves by putting their case in to the public domain by publishing it all on the front page of their company website for all to see!!!

I think they would actually love to have their day in court given the chance!

I’ve no idea what’s gone on, but actual evidence would be the release of emails and private phone records - not a statement from one of the actors in the affair. 

Can’t believe you would just take their statements as gospel to be honest, very loose.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’ve no idea what’s gone on, but actual evidence would be the release of emails and private phone records - not a statement from one of the actors in the affair. 

Can’t believe you would just take their statements as gospel to be honest, very loose.

Hahaha!

What, you believe a reputable medical company with an international reputation, being represented by a Queens Counsel, with evidence of all their dealings with the government in all forms (phones, emails, social media, etc, etc, etc) to be provide as evidence if required at a full hearing, are telling porkies to a high court judge???

You really are showing your ignorance and naivety once again.

I don't have to take their statement as gospel, I know how the system works, unlike you.

If the judge in his pre-trial review, where he reads the submissions from all sides - which would include the documentation from Abbington Health - which we can read because they've voluntary put it into the public domain has any doubts he can (and will) order them to present the evidence they state they have - and they say they have everything!

This isn't social media behaviour you realise?

It wouldn't surprised me if GLP either drops their allegations in respect of Abbington Health or at least not purse it (as they didn't pursue elements of other JR they've done recently) and that's even if the judge doesn't strike it out first!

'This isn't social media behaviour you realise?'

Love how you try and frame anyone you disagree with as a social media obsessed loon these days.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to manufacture here but i don't want any part in it. Maybe it is all a waste of time on Maugham's part but I'll be interested to see what comes out eventually either way.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:'This isn't social media behaviour you realise?'

Love how you try and frame anyone you disagree with as a social media obsessed loon these days.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to manufacture here but i don't want any part in it. Maybe it is all a waste of time on Maugham's part but I'll be interested to see what comes out eventually either way.

Probably because many, many people are utter loons when it comes to social media.

I can't get over how so many who claim that they have responsible jobs on their twitter bio's (of course it may well be lies - I know that) seem to switch their brains off and believe utter bollocks on social media and don't even bother to verify what they take as gospel/simply on trust - because it fits in with what they want to hear.

I'm not manufacturing any argument by the way, I merely point out that I have read both sides of the case and I would guess that not many others have who blindly follow just what Maugham tweets on social media.

That certainly seems to be normal social media behaviour to me - believing without checking simply because it fits in with what they want to hear - and rejecting without even hearing the other side of the story.

Did you read it for instance before typing what you did...?

Anyway it is what it is, and I don't really think most people are as impartial and interested enough to listen to both sides as I do. In fact I'm sure there aren't.

There's one born every minute or so they say and most of them seem to have unaccompanied social media access these days!

If the Sluffy character is a work of fiction it’s a comedy masterpiece and full credit to you.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:If the Sluffy character is a work of fiction it’s a comedy masterpiece and full credit to you.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, even if I doubt it was intended to be.

I am, who I am.

If you or anyone else wants to believe I'm real or fake, then please go right ahead, it doesn't bother me either way!

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Time for government ministers and some newspapers to finally do the decent thing and admit that Brexit was a disastrous idea built on lies and exaggeration....

Come to think of it, they need to start being honest about their many failings whilst in power....and apologise, rather than try to shift the blame.

okocha wrote:Time for government ministers and some newspapers to finally do the decent thing and admit that Brexit was a disastrous idea built on lies and exaggeration....

Come to think of it, they need to start being honest about their many failings whilst in power....and apologise, rather than try to shift the blame.

Time for you to change the record.

Brexit was always going to be short/medium term pain for long term gain.

Anyone who regularly uses HGV drivers has had 5 years to prepare for this day. In that time they could have trained thousands of new drivers. But that costs money. And all these big companies don't want to spend money on British drivers because that means higher wages and better benefits/conditions.

So, of course, they put pressure on the government to let in foreign drivers who are, of course, cheaper and expect less.

Brexit will eventually lead to better wages for all, but especially those currently earning minimum wage. And that is a good thing.

So instead of blaming the government, blame the lack of investment from these huge companies that make millions in profit every year.

If only the issue was only about shortage of lorry drivers!

okocha wrote:If only the issue was only about shortage of lorry drivers!

Right now it's the shortage of labour that is causing the most grief.

Too many companies have a business model based on cheap labour from abroad. They're soon going to realise those days are over.

Long term we will be a stronger.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Right now it's the shortage of labour that is causing the most grief.

Too many companies have a business model based on cheap labour from abroad. They're soon going to realise those days are over.

Long term we will be a stronger.

Too many lying Governments have a business model based on trade deals they were never going to and never will get and imaginary revenue sources that the people will be taxed for instead.

Long term we will all be poorer and have less choice and freedom.

‘Project fear’ beginning to look understated. Has anyone managed to find a benefit of Brexit yet?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘Project fear’ beginning to look understated. Has anyone managed to find a benefit of Brexit yet?

Ask that question again in 5 years and the answer will be relevant.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Ask that question again in 5 years and the answer will be relevant.

Wasn't the "jam tomorrow" argument used 5 years ago?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Ask that question again in 5 years and the answer will be relevant.

Even if that were true, too much irredeemable damage would have been done to UK citizens' lives. Look around you at the immediate effects right now, and name one benefit we have had from the folly of Farage and Johnson.....and The Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph.

okocha wrote:
Even if that were true, too much irredeemable damage would have been done to UK citizens' lives. Look around you at the immediate effects right now, and name one benefit we have had from the folly of Farage and Johnson.....and The Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph.

And while you're at it, name one cabinet minister that you can respect and feel has made a positive, worthwhile contribution to our daily lives.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Ask that question again in 5 years and the answer will be relevant.

Fair point, but so far I can’t see any positives - and nothing really on the horizon either.