Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

The Politics of Envy

43 replies

handlemecarefully · 02/03/2006 23:34

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,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:
monkeytrousers · 03/03/2006 20:28

Civil not crim? - my mistake Grin

Freckle · 03/03/2006 20:59

Er, excuse me, but statements and sworn affidavits are used in civil cases. She may have raised it as part of her defence, etc. Clearly, his parking in front of her front door was not a one-off mistake on his part. He must have been doing it on a number of occasions. Which, IMO, means he is a total sh*t who thinks he can do what he likes even if it means totally inconveniencing someone else.

harpsichordcarrier · 03/03/2006 21:18

yes but freckle his lawyer said she HADN'T raised it
this would have been the small claims courts (District Judge) I expect so there would have been exchange of witness statements where she didn't mention it

WideWebWitch · 03/03/2006 21:22

What a tosser the guy sounds. Sorry, I'm with her on this one.

Caligula · 03/03/2006 21:31

Yes but if she's a bit of a thick old biddy (massive assumption here, she may not be) her idea of "raising it" and the court's idea of raising it may by no means co-incide.

My mother is like this. She has an argument with someone at the gas board because her bill is too high and then decides that it's all settled to her satisfaction. Is then surprised and indignant that they threaten to cut her off because she hasn't done anything through the proper channels. Perhaps this woman was similar.

Freckle · 03/03/2006 21:31

Maybe she hadn't raised it before, but, when faced with a court case, how many people get flustered and omit to do things which others might think should be done?

I think the dentist has some culpability here if indeed he gave Mr. Leat permission to park where he did knowing it would seriously inconvenience the defendant.

Caligula · 03/03/2006 21:32

pmsl - let's have a mumsnet witchhunt of the dentist! Grin

(He's probably not accepting any more NHS patients either)

WideWebWitch · 03/03/2006 21:35

Hmm and his company had gross revenues of £22m in FY2005 and his salary details are \link{http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ghLmEOpPDBIJ:portal.nasstar.com/269/pdf/2005%2520Corvus%2520Accounts%2520Final.pdf+john+leat+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=11\here on the directors renumeration page - bit better than a pension!}

WideWebWitch · 03/03/2006 21:36

And they're registered in the BVI, hmmm. Tax efficient, do we think?

harpsichordcarrier · 03/03/2006 21:38

hold on though
because he's rich, it was OK for her to damage his car?

Rowlers · 03/03/2006 21:45

I hate this kind of journalism - deliberately painting a picture of each in order to build more of a story than there is.

Truth is we know nowt about either of them - she could be a complete loon or a sweetheart. He could be a corporate wanker or a highly successful but still very decent man.
Who knows?
(I reckon she did it though Grin)

WideWebWitch · 03/03/2006 21:46

No, but it sounds even stevens to me, as Caligula said. He damaged her flowers too. And he went to the more expensive garage to get it done too! He could afford the initial outlay.

harpsichordcarrier · 03/03/2006 21:48

if he damaged her flowers she could have counter claimed. dead easy. fill out a form.
or, even, mentioned it Wink

Caligula · 03/03/2006 21:49

Harpsi, dealing with authority is not dead easy if you're thick. (Which she may not be - as Rowlers says, we don't know)

Anyway I blame the dentist

WideWebWitch · 03/03/2006 21:50

I don't think I care enough about this to argue about it so I think I'll blame the dentist too, tosser :)

ScummyMummy · 04/03/2006 07:50

Dentist is a twatmaggot, clearly.

monkeytrousers · 04/03/2006 09:47

lol. Bloody dentist, bet he only does private too!

I though in civil cases the statement is part of evidence, where in a criminal case it's only hearsay until it is confirmed by the witness in court on the day, therefore in civil cases all the witness will be asked is 'is this your statement, is it true?' and that's about it - not asked to reiterate it in any way. Therefore if it isn't in the statement it isn't admissible, whereas it's the opposite in criminal cases. I think anyway. Bloody compl;icated, isn't it?

harpsichordcarrier · 04/03/2006 09:56

in the small claims court the rules of evidence would be very relaxed, especially if the lady did not have any legal representation and the gentleman did (not clear if she did from the report I don't think)
and the judge would prob use his discretion

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread