M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Gorton and Denton for me as I'm not as rich as some of the other fuckers on here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media discussion - 2024/25
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
BlindEyeSeesAll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 753
..Or west Chorlton .........House for sale, ‘Chorlton border’
That’ll be Whalley Range then.
... Stretford !
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Cunts, so they write a rule down, Leicester abide by it but, then they say 'oh we didn’t mean it like that' not surprised it was kicked out. Can you imagine if everyone treated contracts like that.They did on 5 live at 7am.
Their view is that Leicester exploited a loophole.
The explanation was along the lines of 'that was how the rule was worded, but not how it was intended.
They then said that the Premier League were surprised and disappointed in the outcome
Neither the BBC or the Premier League are fit for purpose.
Bald fraud
Well-Known Member
Lots of boiled piss this morning! Talksport can’t make their minds up. One minute they’re fuming about Leicester then mcoist says it’s “brilliant” what Leicester have done! No mention of the rags 75 mil losses though! Funny that no outrage there. One things for sure they’ll be determined we get done now
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Denton is the new Heaton Moor…Gorton and Denton for me as I'm not as rich as some of the other fuckers on here!
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It’s actually unbelievable.So basically, the PL write their rules poorly, Leicester expose the badly drafted rules and win their case, the PL league then moan that they meant something different than the wording and Leicester should know that.
If it is a loophole then the PL are grossly incompetent. There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at. Why is this not being raised by the BBC, given the existence of this ‘loophole’?
I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.
One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.
It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The contra proferentem doctrine is kindergarten stuff, mate.I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.
One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.
It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
Self humiliation seems to be what the PL excel in, let's hope it continues for the next couple of months.I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.
One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.
It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.