spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 I've admitted nothing and apologised for nothing. Any personal injury laywer has been refered to as an ambulance chaser by my lot. Clearly. And I've asked you, three times, for the evidence that the QC acts in the way you describe. You've failed to offer any, and are now apparently admitting you only used the description because of your own personal prejudice. It's a free country, you're entitled to slag people off based on your own irrational temperament, but don't expect to get away with posting false claims then defending them by saying "I have no evidence, it's just the way I feel". An Ambulance Chaser is a term for an unethical lawyer, that's a serious accusation, but bravo for admitting you make it purely out of your own personal prejudice and no actual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 People who go out on bicycles on busy roads are asking for trouble. They should stick to cycle tracks as they do not pay tax to go on the road. Here's a stick, over there's a dead horse, fill your boots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Do you have the evidence you were getting that Martin is an "ambulance chaser", a potentially libellous comment that could get the forum in legal trouble? If not, you're a liar. You failed to provide the evidence on the other thread, presumably you have it now? An "ambulance chaser" is a lawyer who tries to gain clients by encouraging accident victims to sue for damages. It is a very serious literal accusation. Where have you seen the evidence that the QC does this? Theres this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chaser and this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3709380/Judge-attacks-120000-lawyers-bill-for-3000-win-over-typing-injurtyy.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Here's a stick, over there's a dead horse, fill your boots! That reply has been done to death too though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franglais Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Here's a stick, over there's a dead horse, fill your boots! So what is that supposed to mean? Cyclists do not pay to use roads do they? If you had paid £12 to go into the cinema and saw someone sneaking in for free wouldn't you be annoyed too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 As 'road tax' has been used as vernacular for 74 years after it was abolished the campaign won't convert common-or-garden militant motorists. Nothing will. However, a lot of the 'road tax' argument is unthinking. Blissful ignorance, in the main. My main target is to get motoring organisations, police forces, HMRC, DirectGov, MPs and others to call the duty by its proper name. There's no excuse for official bodies to call VED 'road tax' yet all of those mentioned have done so. DVLA used to run TV ads with the phrase 'road tax'. It now doesn't. When people hear 'car tax' over and over again, from official organisations, it will start to become as normal as 'road tax'. Now, this won't stop some drivers from being aggressive towards cyclists but it removes part of the anti-cyclist argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 An Ambulance Chaser is a term for an unethical lawyer, that's a serious accusation, but bravo for admitting you make it purely out of your own personal prejudice and no actual evidence. Have I ever stated otherwise that my use of the term ambulance chaser describes any personal injury laywer? And clearly by the fact that my so called actionable posts still stand I'm abiding by the stringent legal arse covering that the forum mods employ. Come on, admit it. You're loathe to be proved wrong and feel that you have to score a point somehow .... Just not today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 So what is that supposed to mean? Cyclists do not pay to use roads do they? If you had paid £12 to go into the cinema and saw someone sneaking in for free wouldn't you be annoyed too? Why do you believe no cyclists pay any tax? Do you know how the roads are paid for? Reading the thread would help dispel your confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 Have I ever stated otherwise that my use of the term ambulance chaser describes any personal injury laywer? I've no idea, but you did use it to describe Martin Porter QC, and you've since admitted you have no evidence to back up your allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Theres this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulance_chaser and this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3709380/Judge-attacks-120000-lawyers-bill-for-3000-win-over-typing-injurtyy.html Hang on a second: "But Sir Anthony said it was "a gloomy feature" of the case that Mrs Slevin's lawyers' bills come to £120,000 - more than 40 times the value of her award." You think that's ethical? What planet are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.