Announcement from Glinner

[AdultHuman]

medium.com/@glinner/please-note-13b56fdee612

I would also, if I had such money, quite happily chuck £28k at a lawyer to bring things to a close.

True. Also, all glinner had to do to see Hayden off was pay someone to tell Hayden to go away. Similar to a householder calling rentokil.

But why did Glinner agree to pay the 28k? I wouldn’t if i were him!

but why did Glinner agree to pay the 28k? I wouldn’t if i were him!

We don't actually know what was or wasn't paid, we have, and will probably only ever have one side of the story.

The £28k was fees (wages) for the lawyer who saw Hayden off. Not a penny to Hayden. Which is interesting.

£28k out of pocket, but far from being the loser.

(Pope Ted!?! YESSSSS!!!)

You don't know when that 50:50 offer was made and rejected- it would be interesting to know if it was pre or post Miranda Yardley's trial.

Regardless it's pretty hard to agree to split costs 50:50 when you might not actually be able to meet your share. If Hayden if is acting as a litigiant in person then, presumably, their costs will be relatively low compared to Glinner, even if it does progress to trial.

So at the end of the day, Hayden took that "deal" where Glinner bore his own costs even though they could progress the matter to trial at little cost (and if you believe their chat, little in the way of intellectual effort) to themselves. So what does that tell you about what they reckoned about the realistic chances of success?

I understood the £28,000 figure to be a guesstimate by Hayden as to how much Glinner's legal fees will have been.

Phrased by Hayden in a way which obfusticates .

Great news Glinner; I suspect the insistence for 100% costs may have been half of it or all of it sadly.

£28k?
What is that in father Ted episodes, a year of channel 4 repeats?

The way it works is that Graham instructs his lawyers, he is responsible for paying their fees.

If Stephanie instructed anyone she would have to pay their fees.

Sometimes as part of litigation you can obtain a court order that the other party reimburse you for your fees. Usually at the end of a trial, the loser of the trial pays the fees of the winner of the trial. Where parties settle litigation they would also reach an agreement on costs.

Here, Stephanie has “discontinued”, she’s basically dropped her claim and won’t receive a penny. The usual legal position is that a party who discontinues their claim, such as SH, pays the legal costs of the other party. Here, GL seems to have agreed that he will bear his own costs in return for SH discontinuing, so it is a compromise of sorts but he is very much the winner in all of this.

If Stephanie has incurred any solicitors/counsel’s fees of her own she will have to pay them. If not she will have invited court fees etc so will be out of pocket but not to the tune of £28,000!

I’m now afraid that having tried and failed to go after people, Hayden and co will be desperate for a victory and will pursue Kate with vigour in order to prove their righteousness.

I do hope that she has first rate legal support - and the necessary funds for it.

Great news, Glinner

Best wishes to Mrs Glinner and the rest of the family.

Pope Ted, you say? FWR meet-up, obvs

Blimey, I've had one of my first deletions on this board, ever.

For using a name. If I'd have said 'Simon/James/Neil/Martin' it would have probably stood as a post.

But by using the name I used, it seems it can only be connected to the person who no longer chooses to use the word I used.

And that someone was very keen to obliterate any connection to the name I used on my post and any connection with that name to the subject of this thread.

And reported me for using that name.

So I'll try again, whilst adhering to MNHQ guidelines. My previous post:

Yep person, this is a great look on you. You wear it well. Keep on keeping on the good fight.

That's it. That was my post, but with person in a different version.

Is this version OK?

Why, oh why, I wonder, would this person want to delete, time and time again, the links?

And hey, person, how were you so sure I was referring to you, given that's not, apparently, your name?

And hey, person who shall not be named, I see you and know why you don't want to be linked with your previous names and convictions.

What an amazing 'get-out' clause, to be able to report and delete any references to you as the person who is linked to that other life.

Just a woman trying to 'woman' with problematic people like Kate and Glinner pointing out facts, eh?

FFS

Yes! A FWR meet-up at Pope Ted would be awesome!

Maybe Glinner could do a Mumsnet webchat to promote the play too?

Get us reported, get us deleted. Won't work. It hasn't worked, it's not working. We're talking. #NoDebate has failed.

Joins Toe in waving!

Hey there!

See you furiously tap tap tapping away in reporting!

Doesn't work!

We just keep on talking. (And lots of us get what you're trying to hide - in fact, it just amplifies it!)

Must be shit. Sorry about that.