Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Meghan Wins!
18 Answers
Meghan won unexpectedly in the Appeal court today.
Warmby J 's decision to give to summary judgement was upheld. Sorry to use such long words on AB. The Appeal Court judgement was given by three old men - one of whom was in my year at Law School - the other one is Master of the Rolls.
31 pages of mainly indigestible stuff BUT - criteria for giving summary judgement revisited, and current law of privacy summed up.
AB heads tend to explode like that scene from Scanners if I dont pose a question:
anyone interested?
https:/
Warmby J 's decision to give to summary judgement was upheld. Sorry to use such long words on AB. The Appeal Court judgement was given by three old men - one of whom was in my year at Law School - the other one is Master of the Rolls.
31 pages of mainly indigestible stuff BUT - criteria for giving summary judgement revisited, and current law of privacy summed up.
AB heads tend to explode like that scene from Scanners if I dont pose a question:
anyone interested?
https:/
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it's always pleasant to see deliberately intrusive news media given a smack.
There's an assessment here
https:/
"Duchess’s case did not change privacy law, but it was a departure from royals tending to settle out of court"
There's an assessment here
https:/
"Duchess’s case did not change privacy law, but it was a departure from royals tending to settle out of court"
yes - no
it doesnt change the law - - but it sums it up
which for us failed ex law students is like god dust
I thought she would lose hands down - esp with the arch - "oops what happens if is LEAKED!!!" signed Prince Harry haw haw
and their lordships said - doesnt affect her obvious right to privacy
it doesnt change the law - - but it sums it up
which for us failed ex law students is like god dust
I thought she would lose hands down - esp with the arch - "oops what happens if is LEAKED!!!" signed Prince Harry haw haw
and their lordships said - doesnt affect her obvious right to privacy
Well mercy me, is anyone else confused regarding the post from Peter Pedant above and his expertise?
Peter refers to himself above on this thread as being a failed ex law student.
Curious, because yesterday at 1345 here:
https:/
he refers to himself as an OAP law graduate.
I wonder which it is. Will the real Peter Pedant please stand up if just to provide some credence to his wisdom.
Peter refers to himself above on this thread as being a failed ex law student.
Curious, because yesterday at 1345 here:
https:/
he refers to himself as an OAP law graduate.
I wonder which it is. Will the real Peter Pedant please stand up if just to provide some credence to his wisdom.
er no it all makes sense
the master of the rolls who was in my year was Peregrine Simon - he's retired.
honestly I was in law school with some ( er very entitled men) who made it. I didnt.
I thought my obvious regretful, plausible and inspiring humility wd be applauded not derided - ------- ---- - - (by the usual malicious and spiteful suspects)
no no I take that back as it is Mr Peter Nice-Guy today, BA ( failed)
jesus it is hard uphill work being mr Nice-guy
no - OK - none of you would know that .....
the master of the rolls who was in my year was Peregrine Simon - he's retired.
honestly I was in law school with some ( er very entitled men) who made it. I didnt.
I thought my obvious regretful, plausible and inspiring humility wd be applauded not derided - ------- ---- - - (by the usual malicious and spiteful suspects)
no no I take that back as it is Mr Peter Nice-Guy today, BA ( failed)
jesus it is hard uphill work being mr Nice-guy
no - OK - none of you would know that .....
No idea where the simon comes from !
hur hur hur - snorts one prole - triumphantly, takes a swig of cider or echo falls, and spits dismissively in the corner
John Simon was Lord Chancellor, topry MP and Judge
https:/
who begat Jocelyn Simon
https:/
who begat Peregrine Simon
https:/
who was in my year - distantly
God you proles are ruled by the great and good
and dont even know their names ! - Sir or M'Lud will do
Similarly for Bean LJ - ( that's enough appeal ct judges, - ed)
hur hur hur - snorts one prole - triumphantly, takes a swig of cider or echo falls, and spits dismissively in the corner
John Simon was Lord Chancellor, topry MP and Judge
https:/
who begat Jocelyn Simon
https:/
who begat Peregrine Simon
https:/
who was in my year - distantly
God you proles are ruled by the great and good
and dont even know their names ! - Sir or M'Lud will do
Similarly for Bean LJ - ( that's enough appeal ct judges, - ed)
Barmaid, the last time I looked, "to pontificate" was defined as expressing one's opinion in a pompous or dogmatic way.
Where did I express my opinion on Peter's legal studies or otherwise as you put it? Where was I dogmatic or pompous?
I requested clarification of the situation given that a previous post yesterday seemed to contradict the information in this thread.
Turning to the issue of this being the law section, when clarification of such a matter is required, I cannot see that the section involved is of the slightest consequence.
Where did I express my opinion on Peter's legal studies or otherwise as you put it? Where was I dogmatic or pompous?
I requested clarification of the situation given that a previous post yesterday seemed to contradict the information in this thread.
Turning to the issue of this being the law section, when clarification of such a matter is required, I cannot see that the section involved is of the slightest consequence.
Given Peter's, albeit enjoyable, flights of whimsy I have to ask what so special about 'the law section'?
We're on t'internet and a sleepy backwater at that, not a court of law where frowns and gowns abound.
As to her privacy, Mrs Harry is perfectly entitled to choose who gets access to her troubled life when she needs funds or a tsunami of virtual love.
We're on t'internet and a sleepy backwater at that, not a court of law where frowns and gowns abound.
As to her privacy, Mrs Harry is perfectly entitled to choose who gets access to her troubled life when she needs funds or a tsunami of virtual love.
-- answer removed --
1 to 18 of 18
