spilldig Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Who? Ken? Bill? Or Neil? They've ALL lost court cases Ken Barlow (the fictional character in Corrie) lost the court case against his former son-in-law (the one who owns the undergarment company, dunno his name, Mike something-or-other, I think he's dead now) over custody rights of Ken's grandkid. Bill Roache himself lost a case against the Sun - he took them to court after they called his boring character Ken Barlow a boring character. He won £50,000 but had to pay his own costs of £120,000! A case of life imitating art Them bloody lawyers, eh Bill? Neil Hamilton lost his MPs seat and a court case against Mohamed Al-Fayed, who had accused the now-disgraced money-grabbing sleazebag Hamilton of accepting cash to table parliamentary questions. Hamilton's greed not only cost him his safe Tory seat and reputation, but it arguably helped bring down John Major's Conservative government, ushering in three-terms of the venal traitor to his own population and party principles, Saint Tony Blair. That Hamilton is a morally and financially bankrupt, lying, greedy, unprincipled scumbag of the highest order doesn't matter a jot to UKIP, who have welcomed him with open arms into their National Executive Committee. Yes! Really! So remember to vote UKIP folks! Their politicians are of the highest integrity Since I was replying to a post by Jasonbourne about Bill Roache it should be obvious which one we mean, but why should he have had to pay costs if he won the case, those costs should be paid by the party that lost, but either way you should not be able to just go bankrupt when you still have assets and a wage coming in ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Since I was replying to a post by Jasonbourne about Bill Roache it should be obvious which one we mean, but why should he have had to pay costs if he won the case, those costs should be paid by the party that lost, but either way you should not be able to just go bankrupt when you still have assets and a wage coming in ? How do you know 'we' paid the costs in the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Since I was replying to a post by Jasonbourne about Bill Roache it should be obvious which one we mean, but why should he have had to pay costs if he won the case, those costs should be paid by the party that lost, but either way you should not be able to just go bankrupt when you still have assets and a wage coming in ? As I am of limited intelligence, you need to be more specific as to who you are referring to when we're discussing more than one person. I mentioned Bill Roache and Neil Hamilton in same sentence (I think I need another shower) while you mentioned no names in your reply but referred to a "he" three times. Anyway, you can read as to why as to why Bill Roache had to pay his own costs of £120,000 here: Although a jury found in Roache's favour in 1991, they only awarded him £50,000, the same amount the paper had offered to settle out of court. By the rules of libel, Roache was adjudged to have wasted the court's time and was thus responsible for his own £120,000 costs. Devastated, he sued his solicitors, Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners, claiming he had been given bad advice. The High Court thought differently, and so his legal bills grew and grew. He is said to now owe £300,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I did hear on the news today that one of the lawyers for one of the accused complained that the alleged victims came forward because they want the publicity. I very much doubt it, they'll have their lives crawled over by journalists who work for newspapers which operate double standards. Who will then offer them £50K for their story. ---------- Post added 16-01-2014 at 16:20 ---------- You claim to be a law student Uptowngirl so you should know the principles involved in investigating (and charging) historic reports of sexual abuse. Indeed I do, but in recent years the principal seems to have changed to one of splatter it all over the media and see what comes out of the woodwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 As I am of limited intelligence, you need to be more specific as to who you are referring to when we're discussing more than one person. I mentioned Bill Roache and Neil Hamilton in same sentence (I think I need another shower) while you mentioned no names in your reply but referred to a "he" three times. Anyway, you can read as to why as to why Bill Roache had to pay his own costs of £120,000 here: Although a jury found in Roache's favour in 1991, they only awarded him £50,000, the same amount the paper had offered to settle out of court. By the rules of libel, Roache was adjudged to have wasted the court's time and was thus responsible for his own £120,000 costs. Devastated, he sued his solicitors, Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners, claiming he had been given bad advice. The High Court thought differently, and so his legal bills grew and grew. He is said to now owe £300,000 O'k. The one who you mentioned twice then, and the last one you mentioned but to answer boyfriday as far as I understood it if the court can't get the money then the government covers it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Indeed I do, but in recent years the principal seems to have changed to one of splatter it all over the media and see what comes out of the woodwork. But that doesn't alter the burden of proof and the standard required to convince a jury of a defendant's guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 But that doesn't alter the burden of proof and the standard required to convince a jury of a defendant's guilt. What do you imagine would have happened to Lord McAlpine if his secretary didn't hang on to 10 year old diaries and someone had jumped on the bandwagon in search of a bit of compo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 What do you imagine would have happened to Lord McAlpine if his secretary didn't hang on to 10 year old diaries and someone had jumped on the bandwagon in search of a bit of compo? Do either of those events point to his guilt or innocence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Don't know whether Bill Roach is innocent or guilty. What I don't understand is why the 15yr old 'rape victim' has claimed to have been raped on two different occasions at two different addresses. Surely if you've been raped once.... you wouldn't go and put yourself in a dodgy situation again !!!!! Doesn't make sense to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Don't know whether Bill Roach is innocent or guilty. What I don't understand is why the 15yr old 'rape victim' has claimed to have been raped on two different occasions at two different addresses. Surely if you've been raped once.... you wouldn't go and put yourself in a dodgy situation again !!!!! Doesn't make sense to me at all. Do you understand the nature of the relationship between a child and an adult that is sexually abusing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.