My feed

to access all these features


The Politics of Envy

43 replies

handlemecarefully · 02/03/2006 23:34

\link{,,2-2065550,00.html\pensioner sued for scratched Merc}

Why the misplaced sympathy (in the reporting style)? The woman's obviously a fruit cake. Criminal damage is criminal damage; irrespective of whether it's a toff's car or a Fiat Uno....

OP posts:
tallequineinafedora · 02/03/2006 23:58

criminal damage is criminal damage. but why did he bother pursuing her? My car was maliciously damaged by someone right before my eyes. (probably to a similar extent- a small dint, rather than a scratch) It was awful and I was gutted and very upset. However I decided it was not worth any of my time and effort (or that of inurance companies, lawyers or courts) to pursue the woman. I think it's rather pathetic of him tbh.

handlemecarefully · 03/03/2006 00:06

Good lord - how did you stop yourself from throttling them? I truly admire your composure!

Fair point - why did he bother pursuing it when £1k was a trifling sum for him ; but as he said, it was more the point of principle.

OP posts:
tallequineinafedora · 03/03/2006 00:13

it was truly horrid - the only time in my life I have had a public row with someone. A friend of mine who is a solicitor said something to me that really helped me just forget the whole thing and feel very superior. These days she works in an area of law that actually matters, when she was a trainee she had to work on a case involving a supermarket carpark row between middle class waitrose shoppers - she described it as the absolute nadir of her career. It just make me think there's more to life. the dint's still there and it gives me a pang of smugness Grin

handlemecarefully · 03/03/2006 00:18

I am literally wetting myself now - would you believe that I was involved in middle class waitrose supermarket car park row not so long ago (thankfully it didn't come to blows). I might try and find the link for you and post it to give you a belly laugh!

Very healthy perspective - there is more to life!

OP posts:
Cristina7 · 03/03/2006 06:28

People get very territorial when it comes to their drives. Or their cars. As both in this stody did.

When I picked DD up from nursery on Wednesday I had her in a sling. I stopped to rearrange the lid on a pot of yoghurt she'd made at nursery. I put the pot on the back of a parked car. The owner walked past with a group of friends, going from one building to another (in a churchyard) and said something to them about me. I wasn't paying attention, just caught "using this as a table. Never mind." I ignored her. It was only a pot of yoghurt, hardly going to damage her BMW.

HMC - can you find that link? Sounds fun (if not involved in it).

Freckle · 03/03/2006 07:01

Actually, I wouldn't call this malicious damage, as there was no intent. It was an accident. And I don't think she was being territorial. She struggled to get into her own home and he parked on her garden destroying her flowers. To be honest, he sounds more like a self-righteous, up his own *rse fruitcake to me. Principle indeed. I bet he'd be the first to lose his rag if someone parked across the drive to his home in Sunningdale.

ScummyMummy · 03/03/2006 07:09

agree freckle. he sounds most unpleasant.

koolkat · 03/03/2006 08:05

I have nothing against very rich people with big flash cars (I have loads parked right in front of my door here in North London), but personally I think that someone so rich should have the decency NOT to take a pensioner to court, criminal damage or not.

I have had my second hand audi broken into and scartched right in front of my door. I doubt it is the work of a pensioner (more like tosser hoodie), but if it had been a pensioner I would have thought twice about taking them to court.

Also, on the facts, it seems that there is contradictory evidence. She may have had no "intent" and her pen simply scratched when she did not intend to do this.

Cristina7 · 03/03/2006 08:07

Getting confused here, she lived in a flat above THE SURGERY BUT Had a front garden too.

I suppose that's how the rich get rich, not passing any occasion to be nasty.

monkeytrousers · 03/03/2006 09:07

I feel sorry for her.

Avalon · 03/03/2006 09:27

I agree she shouldn't have written the note on the car, but don't think she intended to damage it.

But why didn't she counter sue for criminal damage to her garden?

Kathy1972 · 03/03/2006 10:50

Where would she have found the money to sue? Most people don't just sue at the drop of a hat anyway - thank God.

Caligula · 03/03/2006 16:15

The judge is an arse. So she damaged the guy's car. Big deal. He damaged her flowers. Even stevens. He can afford to pay for the unintentional damage to his car, she can't afford to pay for the intentional damage to her flowers.

Avalon · 03/03/2006 16:42

Kathy - my reasoning was that if she had counter sued, the whole thing might have been dropped.

handlemecarefully · 03/03/2006 16:56

Ummm - unintentional damage - I think not; not to cause over £800 of damage. She had to scratch her pen backforwards and forwards to get it to work. Anyone using a dodgy biro knows that you have to press fairly hard to get it to work again. I can just imagine her doing this, her face a mask of fury.

I expect she has a chip on her shoulder about the rich; which is pretty prevalent in this country. Inverted snobbery and all that.....

I think it's a shame (the assumptions people make about others - rich and poor)

OP posts:
Caligula · 03/03/2006 17:06

OK so what if it was intentional. What about the damage to her flowers? She can't afford to sue the guy for this. And the judge should have taken that into account. (I'm only going on that Times report though, who knows what else might have been going on)

ScummyMummy · 03/03/2006 18:34

Car stuff costs a fortune, doesn't it? I'm always flabbergasted by how much it costs to rectify tiny dings on Judge Judy. And he's clearly a nasty scrote with no social conscience or sense of how rich and lucky he is. Sorry, hmc. Really can't see your beef with this one. Inverted snobbery notwithstanding.

GDG · 03/03/2006 18:41

I'm with freckle actually - the man sounds like a total arse to drag this poor woman through all this stress for, what to him is, a trifling amount. He probably drives a big merc and thinks he can park it where the hell he likes (I'm basing this on his treatment of the woman -not merc drivers in general of which I know a fair few!)

Flossam · 03/03/2006 18:47

Ok. I admit I am not always a reasonable person. I also have not the garden, time or probably patients for some beautiful flowers. BUT if I did, and had worked hard for my garden and loved my flowers I would be sooo cross, that no, I wouldn't have given thought to how hard I was holding that biro. I'd be shaking with rage TBH!!! Blush

Think he sounds like a right royal t*sser. Hope Karma gets him!! Grin

harpsichordcarrier · 03/03/2006 18:54

"Mr Lyons said that the matter of Mr Leat’s car crushing her flowers had not been raised before. “Well I’m afraid he did,” she said. “It’s been going on for so long now that I keep forgetting things.” She became flustered."

ah come on now, she only remembered about the flowers when she was in the witness stand.

after 32 months????

she became a bit flustered?????

her Pants are on Fire now, come on, surely?

she had the arse because he had parked in fron of her front door and "she didn't know the man..." and she got a bit cross and scratched his car.

just because she is a woman and not rich doesn't mean she can going around damaging property with impunity. even against a rich person.

monkeytrousers · 03/03/2006 19:38

Most people are very nervous when in the witness stand, and it's the defence's job to get the witness 'flustered' and try to highlight inconsistencies in evidence which I've always thought is a huge shitty trick. This is an OAP, she would have dictated her statement , like you said HMC, over a year ago; from then to now there are bound to be holes in her memory, there would be in mine!

monkeytrousers · 03/03/2006 19:39

HCC, I meant, soz! Grin


Don’t want to miss threads like this?


Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Caligula · 03/03/2006 19:42

I don't think that statement means she only remembered in the witness stand. It just means she kept forgetting and remembering it at different times. I know the feeling.

harpsichordcarrier · 03/03/2006 19:49

no no hold on
this isn't a criminal case
it is a civil one
so she probably never mae a statement at all
and that statement DOES mean that she hadn't raised it before AT ALL not just in this trial imo

donnie · 03/03/2006 20:04

the guy sounds like a total c**t IMO.
Hope his precious merc gets jacked !
Ditto the judge....they are two of a kind I expect.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.