Injured in Tesco's

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Can I answer?

I remember you suggesting you have qualifications in law being better than a law degree from Camebridge.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=14658527#post14658527

If you look at what I said in context (instead of deleting the relevant part of my sentence from your quote), I said that I'm better qualified in law if we're to believe the absurd idea that Cambridge University dish out law degrees without assessing students on the most basic foundation-level elements of contract law.

(Hint - I was being sarcastic as it's clearly inconceivable that the person in question really did have a law degree from Cambridge.)

Peteo

d.edna wrote: »

Why are people slating harris for his deep thoughts? I mean free speech and all (Im not agreeing or disagreeing with what he said)

Because they are ignorant and offensive, fairly obviousl really.

d.edna

Peteo wrote: »

Because they are ignorant and offensive, fairly obviousl really.

As I said, I'm not agreeing with him nor do I condone what he said, I was mearly saying he expressed his opinion.

Peteo

Tozer wrote: »

Tim - really not sure you understand the rationale for tortious damages under English law. Its not to make anyone 'happy', or to give them a windfall. It is to compensate for pain and suffering and lost earnings.

Absolutely, Tim misses the point once again.

d.edna

Peteo wrote: »

Absolutely, Tim misses the point once again.

Are you a member here? Like under another name?

Peteo

d.edna wrote: »

Why are people slating harris for his deep thoughts? I mean free speech and all (Im not agreeing or disagreeing with what he said)

Go on now.... be bold agree or disagree....

d.edna

Peteo wrote: »

Go on now.... be bold agree or disagree....

I'd disagree with what he said, but that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to say whatever he likes