£2million will left to RSPCA is overturned in favour of daughter.

[danot]

Of course it was deary now drink your Ovaltine time for beddy bys.

I sense your line of argument is being extinguished:D

[Bassman62]

I sense your line of argument is being extinguished:D

Your line of opinions (not facts) were extiguished some time ago, come back when you've read the transcript and have something factual to write.

[HeadingNorth]

And that is what the judge decided is it?

So two of you are now saying that a crown court judge doeasn't know the law.

 

 

I'm not. I admitted on page one that I do not know the facts of the case. What disturbs me is that some people are saying the judge's decision was right because the RSPCA don't deserve the money; that is flatly incorrect, because whether an heir deserves money is not a factor in law.

[danot]

How do you know he's keeping the reasons to himself? were you there at his summing up? you seem to make a lot a rash statements.

Ive asked you before have you read the transcript of the trial yes or no?

No! I don't need to have read it in this instance.

 

With reference to my earlier question- do you have an alternative explanation for the judges ruling yet? or does being a judge make him right regardless.

[HeadingNorth]

Incidentally, the appeal has been rejected. The appeal judges have said that they will publish their reasons for rejecting it, but they have not done so yet.

[danot]

So are you saying that after an expensive trial the judge doesn't know the law?

I'm sure he does know the law. It appears that he has no respect for it though.

[danot]

Your line of opinions (not facts) were extiguished some time ago, come back when you've read the transcript and have something factual to write.

I have all the factual evidence I need.. it's called 'the law'. Google it!

[HeadingNorth]

I have all the factual evidence I need.. it's called 'the law'.

 

 

The law and the facts are two different things. We know there are only certain specific grounds under which a judge can overturn a will. The judge decided that those grounds exist; I've never seen a transcript of his reasons for doing so.

 

The appeal judges have now come to the same conclusion. We have a promise that they will release their reasons, but I don't know if they have specified a date. I'll try to find an online copy of the article I read.

[Alien]

No you need knowledge of the law to dispute the legality of the outcome which is what danot is doing, judges are in the same catagory as experts regarding knowledge of the law, danot says that in the letter of the law the judge was wrong.

 

That's why we have a right to appeal..because judges sometimes do get it wrong, even when following the letter of the law.

 

Just out of interest and still within the confines of the debate...why didn't you contest your mothers will considering the repercussion of that decision was bitterness?

[Tatman]

I thought that's what you said. I'll send you one of my glossy brochures. I'll expect a phone call soon:hihi:

 

Im happy you find the aduse and neglect of 2 innocent animals so funny.

Im also happy that you see no problem with the inaction of the rspca dispite their lies about caring for animals.