Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are lawyers such disgusting people?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61


    Originally posted by Mr Tinkles View Post

    "Thailand Lifer"....you do understand how pathetic that sounds?
    You're an idiot.
    Last edited by Cujo; 04-30-2021, 10:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      ^^^ Ask Tiny to help you with that Friday night drool cujo.

      images (1).jpeg

      Originally posted by Arthur Daley View Post
      Tiny thinks he needs to try to look creepy

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cujo View Post
        You mean like the London Central Employment Tribunal, or something like that?
        Yes, certainly, that's a good example.

        It's important to keep those records so that a clear timeline of the decision can be established -- people have a habit of lying about these things.

        Comment


        • #64
          ^ Whoops. Someone seems to be driven by a "massive narcissist injury"

          Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post

          It would be illogical to do so but no doubt.

          Some especially peculiar types might even suffer massive narcissistic injury over it.

          Comment


          • #65
            The thing about legal documnts is that they can be so confusing.
            For example what would a lawyer make of this?

            "The Claimant asked the Tribunal to call a member of the Respondent’s HR
            department, of the Tribunal’s own motion, rather than on his application, so that the
            Claimant could cross examine them. He said that the Respondent had made
            assertions in its Response for which there was no evidence. The Claimant wanted
            to cross examine a Respondent HR witness, to prove that the assertions were
            incorrect. The Tribunal said that, if there was no evidence to support some of the
            Respondent’s contentions, then the Claimant could make submissions about that.
            It was not necessary for a fair hearing for a witness to be called, and cross
            examined, to prove that lack of evidence. It would not be in accordance with the
            overriding objective to order a witness to attend to prove an absence of evidence
            – this would increase the length of the hearing and costs, and would not alter the
            state of the evidence.The Claimant asked the Tribunal to call a member of the Respondent’s HR
            department, of the Tribunal’s own motion, rather than on his application, so that the
            Claimant could cross examine them. He said that the Respondent had made
            assertions in its Response for which there was no evidence. The Claimant wanted
            to cross examine a Respondent HR witness, to prove that the assertions were
            incorrect. The Tribunal said that, if there was no evidence to support some of the
            Respondent’s contentions, then the Claimant could make submissions about that.
            It was not necessary for a fair hearing for a witness to be called, and cross
            examined, to prove that lack of evidence. It would not be in accordance with the
            overriding objective to order a witness to attend to prove an absence of evidence
            – this would increase the length of the hearing and costs, and would not alter the
            state of the evidence."

            Comment


            • #66
              Hmmm, well that seems to me to be a clear cut case of someone suffering Dunning-Kruger and demanding procedural matters they weren't entitled to.

              Doubtless the type of person tripped-up by their own haughty arrogance.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post
                Hmmm, well that seems to me to be a clear cut case of someone suffering Dunning-Kruger and demanding procedural matters they weren't entitled to.

                Doubtless the type of person tripped-up by their own haughty arrogance.
                Shouldn’t the claimant have counsel?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post

                  Shouldn’t the claimant have counsel?
                  In most cases yes however it's a right to represent yourself.

                  And there are many legitimate reasons for doing so but also others like Dunning Kruger, a sense of entitlement and narcissistic rage that can mean that someone would end up representing themself and having an idiot for client.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Cujo View Post
                    For example what would a lawyer make of this?
                    Try asking a lawyer instead of the trapped "miserable & disillusioned" overseer of a developing world factory office, and you might get an accurate answer.

                    Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post
                    procedural matters they weren't entitled to.


                    Anyway, carry on recreating your dribble with the other two muttpack muskahounds that built the "let's preserve smeg info and obsess over it" TD thread of a decade ago. It's clearly far more interesting than your miserable jobs and parenting responsibilities, so don't blame me when you end up with a choking amount of egg on your face.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Arthur Daley View Post
                      of a decade ago.

                      nope, this hypothecal example was pretty much last month.

                      You know, when you were in Phuket, so cannot possible apply to you.

                      Besides, this hypothetical example couldnt afford a 64 quid train fare to London, so it couldn't possibly be a high-flying retired business man like you, eh smeagles?

                      Comment


                      • #71

                        In most cases yes however it's a right to represent yourself.

                        And there are many legitimate reasons for doing so but also others like Dunning Kruger, a sense of entitlement and narcissistic rage that can mean that someone would end up representing themself and having an idiot for client.
                        I should add that in the cases I have researched for my thesis on Narcissistic Injury such a person would also likely be inclined to develop a whole fantasy scenario behind such devastating a blow to their ego. Maybe even go so far as reporting it themselves spun with fantasy elements, casting themselves as the hero of the piece, and developing an entire narrative based on fantasy, lies and distortions.

                        Sad but true.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post

                          I should add that in the cases I have researched for my thesis on Narcissistic Injury such a person would also likely be inclined to develop a whole fantasy scenario behind such devastating a blow to their ego. Maybe even go so far as reporting it themselves spun with fantasy elements, casting themselves as the hero of the piece, and developing an entire narrative based on fantasy, lies and distortions.

                          Sad but true.
                          I read similar research for my thesis. I also found out that English teachers parasitically climb rungs on the social lady by virtue of their clientele. But are still losers!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post
                            64 quid train fare to London,
                            That seems on the high side?

                            What sort of salary would you need to be earning to justify that expense I wonder.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen View Post

                              That seems on the high side?

                              What sort of salary would you need to be earning to justify that expense I wonder.
                              £30K+ ... at least!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post

                                £30K+ ... at least!
                                Oh yeah? That's not bad money I suppose, for someone starting out at least.

                                It's certainly not retirement-level money or enough to be spending £60+ a day on trains.

                                Comment

                                antalya escort
                                istanbul escort maltepe escort
                                hdredtube sxe video rettube video sex abg xxxs
                                antalya escort bayan
                                Working...
                                X