Cambridge Super-Case

pustit

waamo wrote: »

The cynic in me says that the judgement will be a fudge that leaves everybody in the same position as before.

Yes, a compromise. A Halfway-House Judgement.

HO87

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I'll have to ask Mrs MbW about how accurate that is

Its not far off as a translation but the more accurate version is: Kogda dengy govoryat, togda pravda molchit
-

когда деньги говорят, тогда правда молчит

even after 20 years the OH sees fit to check my spelling.

bazster

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

They went in on narrow grounds. They paid £1000 a week and were therefore renting from the landowner.

That in itself would open a huge can of worms. It would make PE liable for everything that happens in that car park. They would need to jump through all the 'elf and safety hoops and carry public liability insurance, which I'm sure they don't. They would also be liable for the business rates and God only knows what else.

Ryan_Bryan

The easiest job in the world** must be updating the latest news on the parking lie news page. ONE UPDATE in over a year. The lazy git can't even be bothered to add the news of the Cambridge case going to appeal.

**Title previously held by CEL's solicitor who lost the title due to all the letters he has to write withdrawing court claims.

HO87

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

The easiest job in the world** must be updating the latest news on the parking lie news page. ONE UPDATE in over a year. The lazy git can't even be bothered to add the news of the Cambridge case going to appeal.

One must ask why? Perhaps they have a vested interest in keeping both the motoring public and the judiciary in the dark on this matter? Then again perhaps I should stop musing over these issues in such a public way...