|
11
on: November 12, 2025, 11:40:38 PM
|
|
Started by verndog158 - Last post by verndog158
|
cool story bro
Couldn’t have said it better myself Should get a hoody with it on
|
|
|
12
on: November 12, 2025, 10:29:59 PM
|
|
Started by Ironside - Last post by tikay
|
There are some good deals on with flights at the moment - I've booked today to go in June 26 to play the WSOP super seniors and Virgin were almost giving the flights away.
Unforunately you're barred fom the Super Seniors. You're obviously way too young. Such a smoothie.
|
|
|
13
on: November 12, 2025, 10:23:15 PM
|
|
Started by Ironside - Last post by The Camel
|
There are some good deals on with flights at the moment - I've booked today to go in June 26 to play the WSOP super seniors and Virgin were almost giving the flights away.
Unforunately you're barred fom the Super Seniors. You're obviously way too young.
|
|
|
15
on: November 12, 2025, 06:43:48 PM
|
|
Started by verndog158 - Last post by celtic
|
|
cool story bro
|
|
|
16
on: November 12, 2025, 04:15:21 PM
|
|
Started by EssexPhil - Last post by tikay
|
|
Interesting post Phil, thanks.
I would have thought it'd be jolly hard to (further) damage Mr Trump's "reputation". In effect, he has no reputation to damage, does he?
Incidentally, I gather that the piece was never broadcast or on Social Media in the USA, only the UK.
|
|
|
17
on: November 12, 2025, 12:25:56 PM
|
|
Started by EssexPhil - Last post by EssexPhil
|
|
Long retired now. But I still find Law interesting. Thought I would give some brief thoughts on the BBC and Panorama/Trump.
1. People seem to have polarised opinions about both the BBC and the Donald. Neither of which are all good or all bad-despite what people would have you believe
2. The BBC desperately tries to be independent. Unlike almost all of its rivals, who just want to push their own narrow agendas to the exclusion of everything else. When was the last time GB News or the Mail. or the Mirror, gave a balanced, reasoned opinion?
3. Doesn't mean that the BBC always succeeds, or that there are not people within it with their own biases. That Panorama mash-up was terrible. Unlike various other things that its critics try to lump in with it
4. The timing of the Trump threats are very deliberate. This happened 13 months ago. The time limit for an English Defamation action is 1 year. An English Company, funded by the British Taxpayer, broadcast a potentially Defamatory programme in the UK (not America) 13 months ago. The timing is deliberate-designed to prevent any action being heard where it should have been-here. What is known in the trade as "forum shopping"
5. I don't claim to be a Floridan Law expert. But the Donald faces 2 massive hurdles:-
(1) He needs to show reputational damage (in England, that is "lowered in the estimation of right-thinking people"). For most of us, that would be easy. But this is the most marmite character in history. His fans follow him regardless. Likewise his detractors. This is a man who won the votes of the US electorate, twice, regardless of massive bad publicity-far, far bigger than anything the BBC may have done. His reputation seems remarkably resilient
(2) In Floridan Law Defamation needs to include "malice". Trying to prove that someone defames deliberately, rather than stupidly, is a minefield
6. Why is this action not in the UK? Simple. Damages would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions. And Defamation actions in England stop if the Claimant dies. This sort of action in England would likely outlast a man who is 80 next June
|
|
|
18
on: November 11, 2025, 12:53:45 AM
|
|
Started by verndog158 - Last post by verndog158
|
Been awake since yesterday waiting for updates..
Such a tease.
No luck! Actually had a really bad day with all ins 😂 Kings v jacks, guy turns a Jack aces v KQss and rivers trip queens. Poker eh?
|
|
|
19
on: November 10, 2025, 05:36:23 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by mondatoo
|
Great to hear you are enjoying retirement Tikay. 👋
Good grief, lovely to hear from you. You still travelling the world, wating sport of every kind? Unless I've got mixed up (an odds-on shot tbf) the last time we met was at a ball game (baseball) at Cashman Field (RIP) in Vegas. Not a mix up, right person. Yup reckon that was 2014 WSOP, when we met at the baseball! Life has changed a bit my end, the travelling world watching sport thing ended up with me meeting my now wife (cricket in New Zealand). Not so much travelling as I am full time dad to our daughter in South London. Work part time in cricket, mainly for Surrey County cricket club working on the scoreboards for pro cricket matches , so I still get plenty of sport in! Pleased to hear life is good Longy <3
|
|
|
20
on: November 10, 2025, 05:14:58 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by Rod Paradise
|
Bit off-beat this, but is anyone here old enough to remember Lady Isobel Barnett? I'm sure a few of you do - Ralph, Tom, boo & a few others.
She was immensely likeable despite her title & the posh way she spoke, & she was one of those folks who everyone admired & respected.
Anyway, I was reading a book & she was mentioned in passing, so I Wiki'd her & was shocked to read this...
In 1953 Barnett arrived on BBC television as one of the panel of What's My Line?, which made her a household name. She appeared on the programme for ten years but was not an original panelist, her seat having been previously occupied by Marghanita Laski.
She was regarded by audiences as elegant and witty, the epitome of the British aristocracy, although her title actually came from the fact that her solicitor husband had been knighted; the form Lady Barnett suggested she possessed a courtesy title, but she was not an aristocrat, nor had she married into the aristocracy. She also made regular appearances on the BBC radio series Any Questions, on the radio panel game Many a Slip and on the women's discussion series Petticoat Line. She was greatly in demand as an after-dinner speaker, a role into which she slipped confidently
In her last years Barnett became reclusive and eccentric. In 1980 she was found guilty of shoplifting, and fined £75 for stealing a can of tuna and a carton of cream worth 87 pence from her village grocer. This brought her briefly back into the public eye; four days later on 20 October, she was found dead at her home in Cossington, Leicestershire.
A coroner's inquest subsequently ruled that Barnett killed herself with an overdose of painkillers in her bath. During the inquest, police testified that she wore an extra spacious pocket, known as a poacher's pocket, inside her coat when she was caught stealing the groceries. Two days before her death, Lady Barnett told an interviewer she was a compulsive thief and had been shoplifting for years. Finding that Barnett, a trained physician, killed herself deliberately with an overdose of arthritis painkiller.
I never knew any of that, or if I did I had clean forgotten.
This, of course, was pre-internet days.
It's all a bit late now, but it made me feel terribly sad.
Don't like a poacher's pocket being evidence of shoplifting... poaching, well....
|
|
|
| |