danot Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 I agree 101% without getting into the legal issues (unlike the Perry Masons here) to me the moral issue is far more important. Common decency won the day. You're entitled to think that, so is the judge, but judges shouldn't allow their personal feelings to cloud their judgement. The judges personal feelings counted for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Well that's avery profound remark. 10/10 for grasping the obvious. Nothing profound about it..I'm just not that surprised that you were so bitter that your mothers wishes were carried out to the letter. "Bitterness" just sounds like......well it sounds a bit messed up really. Maybe the fact that your sibling wasn't around stood him in good stead. Maybe she wanted a bit of peace and quiet from you. I could understand that:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 I don't find animal cruelty the least bit funny. I was laughing at the contradictory comment you made.. I still am actually:hihi: I havent made any contradictory comment. Ive said the same things throught the thread. Now how we going with that adult supervision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Sorry Bassman, For some reason I was under the impression that your mother was influenced by your aunt into signing her property over to your brother and yourself. I'm not sure what gave me that idea. What would have happened if your aunt hadn't spoke to your mother? Actualy she'd spoken to me before my aunt mentioned it to ask me my views on the matter, I told her that as an interested party it wouldn't be right for me to pass an opinion and that she should go and consult a solicitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 I havent made any contradictory comment. Ive said the same things throught the thread. Now how we going with that adult supervision? You claimed the animal rescue organisation 'RSPCA' is a con. The very same animal organisation that you routinely make telephone calls to regarding the welfare of two dogs that your neighbour is systematically beating. Your reason!:- Because they make expensive tv adverts and glossy brochures. Tatman. Stop it pleeease, my sides are hurting:hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 Actualy she'd spoken to me before my aunt mentioned it to ask me my views on the matter, I told her that as an interested party it wouldn't be right for me to pass an opinion and that she should go and consult a solicitor.Why did you say your aunt talked her into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Why did you say your aunt talked her into it?Because for a few months after speaking to her solicitor she did nothing until in a phone conversation my aunt told her that she had allready done so and like her solicitor advised her to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 You claimed the animal rescue organisation 'RSPCA' is a con. The very same animal organisation that you routinely make telephone calls to regarding the welfare of two dogs that your neighbour is systematically beating. Your reason!:- Because they make expensive tv adverts and glossy brochures. Tatman. Stop it pleeease, my sides are hurting:hihi::hihi: Then you should see a doctor. If you find something you just manufatured for your wn amusment funny, then i think you may have issues. Good luck with them. I hope you get sorted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 The Daily Mail report of this case describes Christine Gill working long hours on the family farm without pay. This is entirely normal for most farming familys. It is also normal for most family farms to be passed down through the generations. My guess in this case is that the father considered the daughter's partner to be a gold digger who was more interested in the farm than her, and was determined he wouldn't get his hands on it. This is a perfectly valid reason, even if nasty and misguided, not to leave it to her. The daughter employed one of the most expensive legal firms to fight her case and in the end it paid off, though she was going for broke. The RSPCA do some good work but I've no sympathy for them here. She offered them 250 acres to settle out of court but they wanted everything. I hope they get caned over the expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 I hope they get caned over the expenses. I wouldnt worry. They can easily afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.