Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

silvercar

lostinrates wrote: »

Thank you. I am very flattered, because of all the NP I always think you are possessed of a great deal of ''sense''. So I feel awed to have written something you think is sensible.

I'm flattered that you think that.

Sometimes I think I'm the frivolous one here - talking about nail gells etc when you all talk about practical things like living off the land.

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

I'm flattered that you think that.

Sometimes I think I'm the frivolous one here - talking about nail gells etc when you all talk about practical things like living off the land.

Oh no, I think you are sensible. Why shouldn'y you have fun things? I get the impression you've earned the money to make the choices. I'm already planning my face lift (best surgeons change over time)....:D. That's fairly non practical. (20th wedding anniversary gift I believe its shedules in for )

DH is home...working..but working here. The little cat is adoringly gazing at him, and the big dog has =ceased playing silly beggars. All is right in our world when DH is here, the critters and I are happy.

neverdespairgirl

silvercar wrote: »

Yes, on the first few days out on their own. My parents still expect a phone call to say I've arrived even now on long journeys.

So do mine, especially when we leave their house to come home.

neverdespairgirl

Pobby wrote: »

I am fortunate indeed that a large national firm of work related solicitors have accepted my case on what was called " no win, no fee " NDG will know the proper name for it. Phew, just got a draft of their claims letter. Frightened me to death, not sure what it will do to the bozos that I contracted to. Not only, as prescribed by law going for compensation and three months notice but they are challenging them on a ton of commission that they have been creaming off me for years. Tbh, it is a life changing figure. Bottom line was I introduced a international on line company to the firm. Wow did they spend! Usually worth £1,500 a month to me.

Don't be scared. Lawyers and judges are just normal people doing a different job, that's all.

Feel free to PM me any time if you need reassuring.

neverdespairgirl

Pobby wrote: »

Hi old buddies. I am back. Slowly recovering from a mental breakdown that I would have never survived but for a wife in a million, a brilliant doctor and, sad to say, some powerful drugs.

The sad thing is the breakdown, not the drugs that are helping.

If you'd broken your leg, you'd not feel bad or unworthy to have painkillers, plastercasts and crutches. It's the same thing. Breaking your leg is the problem, the other stuff helps.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

I just noticed that they had changed the succession rules for future monarchs giving female and male decendents (after the current crop) equal precedence. It got me thinking about who would succeed Lizzie if Charles were to pop it before his mum? Many seem to think it would be William but I thought it would be Andrew or Edward (if divorce is an issue) being the eldest surviving son. Anyone confirm how it works?

Nothing will change for a long time, unless and until William's eldest turns out to be a girl.

The succession is via the eldest son (at the moment) and eldest child (from now on) until that child's line runs out.

So, for example, when King Edward III died, his eldest son, Edward the Black Prince, was already dead. The throne therefore passed to Edward III's grandson, King Richard II, not to one of Edward III's many younger sons (such as John of Gaunt, Thomas of Woodstock, etc).

Pobby

NDG, like many here, you are a star. Have a tear in my eye for this wonderful welcome and support. Bless you all. As for your invitation to pm you I will most humbly take you up on that.

JonnyBravo

Pobby wrote: »

Well blow me down and call me Doris, under the law they owe me all that back money as well. Solicitors are mailing the initial letter next week and would you believe? Under law they have to produce the sales they have made to the internet company since 2006 within, I think, 21 days.

Now that is what I call a result!
I hope things go well for you. Try not to get too emotionally involved in the case if you can help it. Just let the legal peeps get on with, speak to NDG to check things you're not clear on, and look upon it as a great big bonus if it comes good.
You don't need this to get you so anxious about it's outcome that you go back downhill.

I'm pleased you came back and started posting in this thread. It's a good reminder of all the more normal and nicer things and people in life. The wider "debate" forum has far too many zealots on either side of any argument and I can easily see how it wouldnt help someone not on the top of their game.



Lydia - I've nothing to add other make sure you do more than listen to lir.... actually make sure you do some/all of what she suggests. Enjoy the "highs" of your situation. There are more of them than you think. It's too easy for any of us to focus on the problems rather than the positives I guess. I think it's a good thing in sensible measures as it drives us on to greater and better things but the balance is all important.

vivatifosi

Morning all,

A big hug to Lydia. Lir's advice is excellent. I found this info online. Caveat: I don't know who this organisation is, but what they are saying seems very sensible and very much in line with what lir already said:

http://www.lmars.com/stress_and_burnout.htm

GDB2222

Pobby wrote: »

I am fortunate indeed that a large national firm of work related solicitors have accepted my case on what was called " no win, no fee " NDG will know the proper name for it. Phew, just got a draft of their claims letter. Frightened me to death, not sure what it will do to the bozos that I contracted to. Not only, as prescribed by law going for compensation and three months notice but they are challenging them on a ton of commission that they have been creaming off me for years. Tbh, it is a life changing figure. Bottom line was I introduced a international on line company to the firm. Wow did they spend! Usually worth £1,500 a month to me.

In the Autumn of 2006 they placed the account in house. Meaning that they stopped paying me. Very angry I was at the time but at my age, some money is a lot better than no money. Well blow me down and call me Doris, under the law they owe me all that back money as well. Solicitors are mailing the initial letter next week and would you believe? Under law they have to produce the sales they have made to the internet company since 2006 within, I think, 21 days.

Hi Pobby, good to see you back. I don't want to dash your hopes about the legal claim, but I don't want to see you getting too disappointed if you to have to settle for a much lower figure later. Claimants' lawyers almost always throw everything into the claim at the early stages, kitchen sink and all. It doesn't mean that you'll get it, though, generally for 3 reasons:

1. The defendants out-spend you. They make a part 36 offer that's fairly low, but then they spend so much on the defence that you can't risk losing and having to pay their costs. You can get insurance to cover the defendants' costs. Do you have that (yet)? Also, these cases tend to take a long time to get to court, and you may find it all too bad for your nerves to continue.

2. The numbers, in the end, turn out to be much lower once the expert witnesses looks at it.

3. There's some point of law that's been overlooked or swept under the table at the early stages. For example, you went on working for the company for 4 years after they stopped paying you commission on that customer's account, so you could perhaps be deemed to have accepted the position. There's something called estoppel by convention - not sure if that would apply here, as I'm not a lawyer. (Edit: I am not saying that that is a problem for your case. It's just an example of the kind of legal argument that can get raised at a later stage.)

You may also find yourself under pressure from your own solicitors to settle at some stage, as they may prefer a sure 200% fee from a settlement than battling on to court with a chance of losing or not meeting the part 36 offer.

You've probably got a very good case, and if I were the employer I'd be worried, but don't mentally spend the proceeds of the case just yet.

I should just mention again that I am not a lawyer, but I mainly work as an expert witness and I see a lot of these cases. One recently settled for £5m after the claimants had puffed the claim up to £20m, for example. Mind you, the strategy worked quite well for them, as I didn't think the claim was really worth even £5m.