Bassman62 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I dont see why it couldnt have been split - fathers half to rspca as he wanted and leave the mothers share up for discussion. least everyone gets something. i'd feel pretty bad though being the daughter essentially taking 2mil away from a charity..I agree that some kind of agreement could have been reached, bearing in mind the charity never had the money that the daughter naturaly ecpected to be coming to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Stop moving the goal posts. That's what Danot is doing all the time, one minute claiming to be quoting the law and the next post claiming it only to be a viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 But you haven't been expressing your view you've been claiming to quote from the law and from evidence given at the trial.There is no evidence. If there is... where is it? and why are the RSPCA even bothering to contest the judges decision which was reached on the strength of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 You know the law but the judge doesn't HmmmRegarding wills? It would appear so yes. Do you have an alternative explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 Your wrong, the rspca is a con and those dogs will continue to suffer at the hands of a violent bully.Why do you phone them then?.. think carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 That's what Danot is doing all the time, one minute claiming to be quoting the law and the next post claiming it only to be a viewpoint.Don't take my word for it, Type google! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 There is no evidence. If there is... where is it? and why are the RSPCA even bothering to contest the judges decision which was reached on the strength of it?How do you know when you haven't read the transcript you're just summising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Regarding wills? It would appear so yes. Do you have an alternative explanation?So why aren't you a judge if you're as you claim more learned in the law than this particular judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Don't take my word for it, Type google!You mean the judge should have googled it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 How do you know when you haven't read the transcript you're just summising.No, the judge was surmising, Because the RSPCA wouldn't be appealing otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.