Are RSS Ltd. crooks?
Discussion
It seems so, offering legal advice when not licensed to do so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050671/Dr...
However I can guarantee exactly how this will pan out, there will be some success in the lower courts giving people hope that they are finally getting one over on the sneaky rats and the tide is turning but when the ultimate case comes before the highest court then the decision will go 100% in favour of the money men. It happend with the S172 case, the bank charges case, the taking your kid out of school case, the Beavis case and probably many more where its obvious you can see whats happened.
It will all be a waste of time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050671/Dr...
However I can guarantee exactly how this will pan out, there will be some success in the lower courts giving people hope that they are finally getting one over on the sneaky rats and the tide is turning but when the ultimate case comes before the highest court then the decision will go 100% in favour of the money men. It happend with the S172 case, the bank charges case, the taking your kid out of school case, the Beavis case and probably many more where its obvious you can see whats happened.
It will all be a waste of time.
Countdown said:
Who exactly have they been offering "legal advice" to?
If it's the Police or CPS I'd suggest that they are more than Qualified to judge the capability of the people advising them. It's not as if they were selling their services to the Public, is it?
Selling advice to colleagues & ex-colleagues, paid for with taxpayers' money or perhaps the revenue from speed camera practices.If it's the Police or CPS I'd suggest that they are more than Qualified to judge the capability of the people advising them. It's not as if they were selling their services to the Public, is it?
There's at least a slight taint of corruption there, although I'm confident that anyone suggesting this will be accused of hating police or similar.
Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
Who exactly have they been offering "legal advice" to?
If it's the Police or CPS I'd suggest that they are more than Qualified to judge the capability of the people advising them. It's not as if they were selling their services to the Public, is it?
Selling advice to colleagues & ex-colleagues, paid for with taxpayers' money or perhaps the revenue from speed camera practices.If it's the Police or CPS I'd suggest that they are more than Qualified to judge the capability of the people advising them. It's not as if they were selling their services to the Public, is it?
There's at least a slight taint of corruption there, although I'm confident that anyone suggesting this will be accused of hating police or similar.
TL:DR - lots of experienced Public Sector staff leave and set up on their own behalf. And in relation to the OP, I'm still not sure why they are supposed to have acted unlawfully....
Countdown said:
Well it does seem quite tinfoil-hattery if you don't mind me saying. Pretty much every Planning advisor I've used has been Ex-LA. There are countless Doctors doing work for the NHS on a private basis. There are several Solicitors I know that provide advice both "for" and "against" the LA when paid to do so. I am aware of some cases of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving where the expert witness for the defence has been exTraffic Police.
TL:DR - lots of experienced Public Sector staff leave and set up on their own behalf. And in relation to the OP, I'm still not sure why they are supposed to have acted unlawfully....
Have you read the article or don't you ever read the DM under any circumstances because a PH hero once called it the daily hate.TL:DR - lots of experienced Public Sector staff leave and set up on their own behalf. And in relation to the OP, I'm still not sure why they are supposed to have acted unlawfully....
Have you ever wondered why you are so easily triggered by Daily Mail articles? As I have suggested to you before, the Mail plays its readers like banjos. It's rightly regarded as an unreliable source of information, and it has a distinct agenda which involves promoting outrage, fear, and so on on. Check out some other sources.
mickmcpaddy said:
Have you read the article or don't you ever read the DM under any circumstances because a PH hero once called it the daily hate.
I've read it and can't see anything there to suggest RSS have acted differently to any other organisation which acts as expert witnesses in court cases. Looking at this particular article, all that has happened is that a company has been accused of acting unlawfully. That allegation may or may not be upheld. If it is upheld, then it might but would not necessarily follow that convictions that the company has been involved in were unsafe. If the company's involvement had caused some injustice, a conviction might be set aside, but outcomes would depend on circumstances.
On your more general rant, OP, you seem to suggest that courts are biased in favour of "the money men", whoever they are, although I am not sure what that has to do with school holidays. The UK is, however, internationally regarded as having independent courts. Judges being human are of course influenced by various factors, but there is no grand conspiracy to do down Joe Public.
This broadcast was brought to you by Intergalactic Illuminati Space Lizards PLC.
On your more general rant, OP, you seem to suggest that courts are biased in favour of "the money men", whoever they are, although I am not sure what that has to do with school holidays. The UK is, however, internationally regarded as having independent courts. Judges being human are of course influenced by various factors, but there is no grand conspiracy to do down Joe Public.
This broadcast was brought to you by Intergalactic Illuminati Space Lizards PLC.
You say that about the Daily Mail but its by far the most read paper in Britain, the Sun is second which is also a Tory paper. The first communist type is the Mirror which is way way down the list, I thought democracy rules.
As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
The OP is exactly the sort of person they target to fuel the click-bait monster. We all know the DM is the go-to source for insightful legal reporting and commentary and they pride themselves on balanced, neutral reporting...
After 10 years of operation I would speculate it's improbable Emma managed to find a 'smoking-gun' flaw no-one else has yet discovered, but we'll see.
After 10 years of operation I would speculate it's improbable Emma managed to find a 'smoking-gun' flaw no-one else has yet discovered, but we'll see.
mickmcpaddy said:
Have you read the article or don't you ever read the DM under any circumstances because a PH hero once called it the daily hate.
Yes I have.AFAICS it's suggesting that RSS have been providing services that they are not legally able to do. My guess is that the CPS and the Police are a reasonably good judge of what people can and can't do in terms of legal stuff. However possibly mistakes have been made. Let's see.
P.s. I don't know why you think I wouldn't read the Daily Mail. It's great. It helps me feel less inadequate about myself because I know my predicament is down to illegal immigrant Muslim asylum seekers who drive up house prices whilst dancing on Diana's grave.
mickmcpaddy said:
You say that about the Daily Mail but its by far the most read paper in Britain, the Sun is second which is also a Tory paper. The first communist type is the Mirror which is way way down the list, I thought democracy rules.
As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
The fact that the Mail has a large circulation does not make it a reliable or authentic source. Facts are not based on voting. If three people say the Earth is flat and one says it is round, the Earth is still round. The Mirror is not a communist paper. It supports the Labour Party. If you do not know what Communism is you can look it up on Wikipedia.As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
It may be an act (and if it is, well acted) but you come across as the stereotypical Mail reader, or should I say Mail victim. Try some other sources of info. The Mail does not have your best interests at heart.
As for the law, cases in which the financially weaker party wins are commonplace, and if you look at the field of public law, you will see numerous cases in which citizens prevail against the Government. You are only aware of cases that annoy you because that is all the Mail wants you to be aware of.
mickmcpaddy said:
As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secreta... ?I suspect that mickmcpaddy might regard the Miller case as an outrage, because the Mail has claimed it to be one. In fact, the case was a vindication of traditional Constitutional orthodoxy and the Sovereignty of Parliament, and so was about as sensible an example of citizen vs Government with the Courts on the side of the citizen as you get, but the Mail saw it differently.
I add that if concerned for the common man and opposed to "the money men", the Mail is a strange newspaper to favour. It is owned by some big money men, who screw around on taxes, and the Mail hasn't the slightest interest in the lot of "the common man". The common man is useful to the Mail as a revenue source, and is to be herded by fear and suspicion and anger to vote for whichever reactionary project the Mail is favouring at the moment.
silentbrown said:
mickmcpaddy said:
As for various court cases, can you name any where the common man has come of victorious against a high profile organisation or the government with a decision that seems a sensible one. I'm not saying there isn't one just none spring to mind like the ones I've mentioned above.
How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secreta... ?Please explain why the case was an outrage. NB: Try reading the case before opining on it. The Mail's report of the case is not reliable.
Would you prefer Ms Miller to have been an indigent claimant on legal aid? Is everything judged by how affluent a person is? If so, check out how affluent the owners and editor of the Mail are.
Would you prefer Ms Miller to have been an indigent claimant on legal aid? Is everything judged by how affluent a person is? If so, check out how affluent the owners and editor of the Mail are.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 5th November 13:00
Breadvan72 said:
Please explain why the case was an outrage. NB: Try reading the case before opining on it. The Mail's report of the case is not reliable.
Would you prefer Ms Miller to have been an indigent claimant on legal aid? Is everything judged by how affluent a person is? If so, check out how affluent the owners and editor of the Mail are.
It was a single person going against the wishes of millions and millions of people because she had something personal to lose and thought herself more important than anyone else. Its scandalous it ever came to court in the first place.Would you prefer Ms Miller to have been an indigent claimant on legal aid? Is everything judged by how affluent a person is? If so, check out how affluent the owners and editor of the Mail are.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 5th November 13:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff