kevinjohnsonmbe

How far back do you want to go? And how "un-far-right-wing" examples would satisfy? Pope John Paul II: "...John Paul had increasingly spoken harshly about Islam and the dangers he believed it contained in its fundamentalist form. Visiting the Olivetti factory at Ivera, Italy, John Paul had astonished the workers by inserting into his speech an impromptu passage: "What the Koran teaches people is aggression; what we teach our people is peace. Of course you always have human nature which distorts whatever message religion is sending. But even though people can be led astray by vices and bad habits, Christianity aspires to peace and love. Islam is a religion that attacks. If you start by teaching aggression to a whole community, you end up pandering to the negative elements in everyone. You know what that leads to: such people will assualt us..."" Ill leave you to cross check / reference it, and decide if is from a suitable source.... PS that was BEFORE he was shot by an Iranian trained & sponsored Islamic fundamentalist BTW

Oi, oi, oi, oi......! You're not slipping that one in without being pulled up! I won't have you put yourself down like that!

He knows he knows that you know that he knows what you mean..... We're not falling for that!

That was exactly what I meant Ed. That's not a quote from the LA strategic plan is it Ed??? As do we all! I won't argue that that which has been sold as "austerity measures" has been wholly effective (it would be foolish to do so since the numbers don't really stack up) but I might think (a) that I welcome the consequential examination and scrutiny of historic processes which has resulted in saving where previously there was waste / inefficiency and (b) I reject the Labour party stance of simply throwing more (borrowed) money at the problem without examining the problem first. I like your parable Ed, it's entirely appropriate..... But you started at the end rather than at the beginning! In the beginning, the donkey was lean, keen, efficient and effective.... He worked hard and was appreciated by his master for the valuable contribution he made... The donkey enjoyed the benefits of a reasonable work / life balance, he was secure in the knowledge that he would have some work everyday (but not too much) and his reward was adequate. If he needed kit, equipment or additional training for a task, it was provided and he didn't even have to work any harder to get it, often, he'd even get his training AND his pay, but didn't have to do the days work as well! He was a VERY HAPPY donkey - one of the best looked after donkeys in the paddock. If he was sick he would be taken care of, he had plenty of rest and holiday where he'd still be fed and watered but didn't need to do any work. The donkey knew his long term plan was safe and that he'd be provided for in his later life where he would gradually slide into the twilight of his years in comfort and contentment. What the donkey didn't realise, was that his master was BORROWING the money he needed for all the advantages the donkey was enjoying over and above his fellows in the paddock. He was a kind and generous master that did whatever was necessary to keep as many people as possible happy so that they all liked him. One day however, the donkey's master realised he'd made an almighty ass (giggle) of the whole thing. He'd spent way too much money trying to keep people happy. He hadn't saved any of the surplus money he had earned whilst business was good. He'd sold the family gold. He'd borrowed way too much money and now he couldn't borrow any more. The donkey's master, Gordon, had made an almighty balls up of the entire happy situation. One of his friends left a note saying there was no money left and that Gordon had to go back to the barren lands in the North. The donkey's new master was astounded to see how Gordon had behaved so recklessly and then run away. The new master faced a serious decision - should he be like Gordon and "find" more money to keep people liking him, or should he try to be just a little bit more responsible - after all, it wasn't his money he was spending! Don't be like Gordon, Gordon made an ass of it..... (cheered me up writing that! Big of a giggle!! It needs some VI or Steve or Eggs input for the 'middle' before we get to your 'end')

There's a book for that Gary, if more "arb's" had a copy.... (notwithstanding the debate about it being perceived as being cost prohibitive!) I think the issue (at least in part - and the golden key to the opposite argument is "central government funds are cut so we have to do less") is that LA's aren't driven to seek more efficient / streamlined processes in the same way that the commercial sector is. For you and me, time is money, for public sector, the money is the same regardless how the day is filled. There's no incentive to make the day more efficient, perhaps even the opposite could be true where staff and resources are under scrutiny - more workload appears to be a safeguard to the status quo whereas if you can't appear to fill your day, you're under threat.

Could I ask a couple of questions here....? What I'm reading here "appears" to be a case for a points based system of immigration. There's no denying that appropriate skill shortages filled by appropriately skilled migrants, for a predetermined period, is an advantage to the receiving country (we'll have to leave a side for the moment the potential for brain drain in the donor country.) Is it possible that the nation could have a sensible debate about immigration without one section of society seeming to scream Nazi, Fascist, xenophobe if anybody mentions limits / quota's, timescales and the other sector not seeking to demonise all of a particular cultural / religious group? That would be a start.... ....towards remedying the obvious disadvantages of long term, uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration that has resulted in the current dysfunctional, potentially explosive situation that prevails? And separating migration from asylum. Why, for example, does asylum = citizenship rather than refuge and return? If we continue down the current path it will end in tears.

I hear you Bro! I hide it well, but there's a fairly generous dose of (l) liberal social democrat in my thinking....

You mean 'im on LBC Mr E? He does talk some sense, and he can certainly quote and interpret scripture 'an that, and holds no sway with Islamist apologist etc, what with 'im having been an Islamist an all. Quite like his show, find myself agreeing and disagreeing in almost equal measure. Prefer Farage's show though.... never manage to find any issue with what Sir Nigel presents

Made a slight amend, hope you don't mind.... the evidence of patience having already ready run out is displayed (almost) daily on our TV screens... Absolutely agree with you, "tribes" evolve to suit their prevailing circumstances - that's perfectly reasonable, evolutionary progression. Those evolutionary characteristics are best suited to the location they have evolved to exist in. Superiority (over others that have not evolved in that location) is inevitable. No good trying to fight it, nature will always prevail.

PS just had a pair of TPO app's approved at week 6, never happened before 8th week before, BZ LA (just got some scheduling issues to overcome now)

Looking online at the abysmal standard of some of the TPO apps that are validated and processed by my LA, and therefore take up TO / PO time & resource to consult on, I can't help thinking a good chunk of time could be saved by an early rejection of inadequate submissions rather than letting them progress through the system exhausting resources along the way to the inevitable refusal. But there in lies some of the problem with most public sector organisations - they need to show "workload" to safeguard jobs / resources so it would be foolish to find ways of reducing loading and become more efficient because that could result in less staff / resource. Hate to say it, but maybe it IS time that 211/TPO apps were a pay to use service, might result in some better standard submissions.

Amen!

If only I believed you.....

Mark, we've had some banter and some fairly enthusiastic disagreements, but I just can't find the energy, enthusiasm or interest to engage with you. We're just too far removed to make it worthwhile. No disrespect, we'll both just be banging our heads against a wall. Maybe another time / another place...

We've locked horns in the past, and that's all cool, we're all allowed to disagree (despite what some radical factions might believe) but you've got the measure of this...

Yes, I get that and it would have been my reposte had the Judge not stopped the baffoon before he'd even got part way into the start of the counter claim sentence with the stern look and a "get back in your box tosser" expression (only my interpretation of the facial expression) and the words "counter claim costs are discretionary and I won't even consider it..." words! Truth be told, there was always the potential for a counter claim and it did sow a seed of doubt. My reasoning was, worst case scenario, 5k counter claim, I could have taken that on the chin but it would have shattered my belief in natural justice (the Magna Carta) and driven me, irrecoverably further down the road to social rebellion and natural justice. Read your post again, second reading, and a moments thought (albeit through a mist of vino tinto) reveals a depth of knowledge and previous experience, appreciate your input

Wether it's work or otherwise, questions that leave a part unanswered do tend to gnaw away... Figured you'd understand!

There must be a way Gary. I tried the moneyclaiminline.com route and it was allocated to small claims Court track. Legislation dictates that SCC track precludes claims for litigation costs. Leaves me wondering, since it was 'by value' allocated to SCC track, should I have insisted it went to an alternative track where litigation costs are permitted - since without that there was very little (£2.50) to actually claim? Possibly, but I didn't know that until during/after the hearing. Im done with it now, it's run it's course. I may, just for peace of mind and the learning experience, discuss it further with some legal heads. Dont like it it when things feel like they are incomplete.

You're appearing to conjoin attending the rally with carrying the flag there Mr E. What if you attended the rally, a perfectly lawful and reasonable right, but didn't carry the flag. (applies equally to all sectors of the political spectrum attending a lawful rally) If a person attended a "Free Palestine" rally would that make them Hezbollah?

I haven't got the brass neck for that Mark...... It was parked and unoccupied!! Maybe if I said I had 40 illegal imm's in the back of the van I could go for a Dianne Abbot commendation??

That was me pursuing the the other party.... It seems it can't really be done via Small Claims.

Right then, I'll have a go at summarising it all.... Case won - correct Costs awarded - correct (but see below) Court fees reimbursed - correct No! Going right back to the beginning, it was because the other party denied liability that I was faced with either picking up the cost of repair or making a claim against my own insurance that I didn't initially give it to the insurance company to resolve. As a consequence of this, I did a bit (but not much) more phone calls / admin than would have been the case if it had all been done by the insurance company. The amount of hassle and admin involved either way was, frankly, staggering so I started to tot up all the time, miles, letters, emails and phone calls. I set an arbitrary rate of £25/hr for time, £0.50 per mile travelled, £0.50 per minute phone calls which all totted up to around £1600 which was the basis of the claim. No big deal and actually, it was never about the money - honestly. The other party engaged a legal firm to deal with it and they were a PITA from the outset making daft requests, asking stupid questions (all of which were rebutted and rejected) and generally dicking around. They declined to engage in mitigation prior to proceeding to a Court listing and on that basis I simply rejected their subsequent requests. They made a "Calderbank offer" prior to Court which I also rejected. It was, what they thought, a clever tactic since if the case had been lost, the refusal of the Calderbank offer can be presented to the Court as an example of "unreasonableness" on the part of the claimant and can be considered in awarding costs and considering the counter claim. I'd included in my Court bundle (papers submitted prior to hearing) details of the witnesses, photographs of the layout of the carpark, details of the D&C constabulary compulsory driver training in place of prosecution etc. The other side's legal team were still maintaining that the accident never happened (and liability was denied.) They started banging on about why the witnesses weren't present and the Judge looked at me.... I simply said "it's a fait accompli! Why drag in witnesses and tie up more time and resources when the D&C constabulary option of driver retraining requires both the victim of the crime to agree and the perp to admit liability and voluntarily pay and undertake the training?" It's done, it's a matter of record, maintaining the denial is indicative of the unreasonableness of the defendant's stance. Anyway's, Judge gave the impression of being pretty much 'on-side' and was showing signs of impatience with the bumbling fool presenting the defence - and a bumbling fool he was! It was like something out of a bad TV drama, grubby suit, stained tie, shuffling papers, mumbling incoherently, etc... (I think I may have slightly unsettled him in the waiting room though.... We're both sat in the waiting area for Court 4, the Usher told him who I was and he came over, hand extended for a shake and asked "is there anything you'd like to discuss prior to going in?" I left him blushing and farting with no desire to shake his hand and simply replied "you can make a settlement in full otherwise there's nothing to discuss" as I return to my book. Wife said it did raise a giggle from the goons sitting nearby ) The bottom line, in the Small Claims Track, you can't reclaim litigation costs and the time/admin associated with remediating the damage was deemed to be litigation costs. The Judge appeared (to me) to be quite sorry about this as he explained that he was bound by government policy in that respect despite what his personal thoughts were. So no, the exam answer is, you can't (in the Small Claims Track) recover your time and effort (or legal expenses if you have a firm do it for you.) What you can however recover are necessary disbursements. Because my insurance company would not release the name and address of the registered keeper of the other vehicle I had to submit form V888 to DVLA at a princely sum of £2.50. This is a necessary dispersement since it was the only means by which I could access the information. So the Judge found in my favour since I had incurred the cost of £2.50 to bring the case to Court. I was awarded £2.50 costs and reimbursed the Court fees since my action had been upheld. The Defence counter claim was dismissed. There's a lot more to it than that summary and I'll expand any points if anyone wants to. Would I do it all again.... Well, most of the work, time, effort would have happened anyway just to get the damaged fixed, all I did extra was tot it up, a moneyclaimonline submission, a few extra letters, prep some Court papers and drive 15 miles each way to have an hour in Court. The wife and nipper came along and sat in at the back - Nipper's first exposure to the legal system which may be the germ of a future illustrious legal career. Has it cost the other driver - yes, cost and ignominy of retraining and (hopefully) increased insurance premiums. Has it cost the other driver's legal firm - yes, much more than it has cost me, albeit probably through insurance, but hopefully that in turn will affect the driver's future policy. Has it been a cracking experience - yes. Would I do it all again..... In hindsight, the find 'em and hurt 'em approach would have been much quicker and more satisfying....

On the basis that it is the "Left" rather than the "Right" generally, that tends to favour unfettered immigration, and that racial tension is born from the tensions between different races trying to live in the same space, and that the "Left" are generally more inclined to support this insane concept of "multiculturalism", I'd say it is absolutely the fault of the "Left" for promoting and inflicting an insane concept upon the unwilling. Others may differ, but they would clearly be radical, Lefty, sandal wearing friends of Jeremy.....

Bloody Brexit!

Case won! Costs awarded and Court fees reimbursed. After some celebratory bacon sandwiches, and catching up on some work, I'll post a summary of, what might be, interesting and relevant reflections in case anyone finds them self in similar circumstances in the future. PS no stocks Mr E! Beak was very decent chap!!