Kerrangaroo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 If he is unhappy he must welcome the news that the planes at Heathrow and Gatwick do in fact fly both ways ! ..........or he can go peasant class clinging to the chassis beneath an 18 wheeler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I wonder if I can sue Camelot (lottery) for not making me happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 ..........or he can go peasant class clinging to the chassis beneath an 18 wheeler. Don't be silly that's the way in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Is that because we have incompetent and lax border controls? No, it's because people are prepared to try and swim the channel if need be, just to get here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What I love about this is the logic that will follow from some people...cough Daily Mail cough. He's suing the UK for £11million?! He's going to win £11million! That's just wrong. The country has gone mad. The law is just wrong letting him do that. Can't believe some solicitors would do that. It's typical journalism in a rag at its best. What it actually means is that some nut has decided to go to his local court, get a claim form, and lodge it, thinking he'll win. He won't, then nothing much will happen. That's not as good a story though really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What I love about this is the logic that will follow from some people...cough Daily Mail cough. He's suing the UK for £11million?! He's going to win £11million! That's just wrong. The country has gone mad. The law is just wrong letting him do that. Can't believe some solicitors would do that. It's typical journalism in a rag at its best. What it actually means is that some nut has decided to go to his local court, get a claim form, and lodge it, thinking he'll win. He won't, then nothing much will happen. That's not as good a story though really Good point, next thing you know they'll be telling us that a Moroccan bigamist convicted of selling cocaine to undercover police will appeal against deportation on the grounds of his right to family life under the Human Rights Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 No, it's because people are prepared to try and swim the channel if need be, just to get here. But surely not very many would make it and would die trying, which would go some way to solving the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What I love about this is the logic that will follow from some people...cough Daily Mail cough. He's suing the UK for £11million?! He's going to win £11million! That's just wrong. The country has gone mad. The law is just wrong letting him do that. Can't believe some solicitors would do that. It's typical journalism in a rag at its best. What it actually means is that some nut has decided to go to his local court, get a claim form, and lodge it, thinking he'll win. He won't, then nothing much will happen. That's not as good a story though really I will probably loose but it will still cost us £11million in legal fees, unless you think he already has a few million to pay for the court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I will probably loose but it will still cost us £11million in legal fees, unless you think he already has a few million to pay for the court case. It will cost very little in fees. The treasury solicitors will defend the case, as they do with any case against the crown/government. The treasury solicitors are employed by the state, therefore, the only thing that will be lost is their time. No actual expense at all. The state, as defendant, don't pay court fees, and the lawyers fighting it (even though it won't get that far) are salaried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 With the state of UK law he will probably win!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4377278/Migrant-to-sue-UK-for-11million-for-making-him-unhappy.html I`m thinking 99% of SF can then get a mass lawsuit going.It will be worth trillions. Or is everyone a happy bunny. What irks me, is that how on earth can this bloke 'just' get it to high court? You have to move mountains to get something to high court, and it costs a serious amount of money! You can't just pop in there for any old grievance. How the hell do they do it? No win no fee??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.