British Airways refusing to refund me

peachyprice

a.ferra wrote: »

Trust me 16 court hearings in less than 3 years, I am an expert on this, the judge DOES have to take into account any pre-booked holidays

So why didn't they, if they HAVE to?

Seems your problem is with the judge, not BA.

hollydays

peachyprice wrote: »

So why didn't they, if they HAVE to?

Seems your problem is with the judge, not BA.

It seems strange that the ops allegedly difficult ex would even have agreed to it in the first place.

montyrebel

i am starting to see why the judge gave the holiday time to the dad and not the mum

vicker

jimbo6977 wrote: »

I claim BS. As if a man has ever managed to play the family courts to unfair advantage. Twaddle.

I have nothing further to add to the original advice on the flight, but I have watched my female friend's life crumble over the last 3 years as her charming, emotionally abusive ex-husband has played the family court very well.

His mum is a senior social worker, so she knows exactly how to advise her son to behave, to speak, in and out of court.

Men can get the unfair advantage too. I have been astounded at the rubbish and mud slinging said about my friend in order to paint the picture favourably his way.

Davy_Jones_II

vicker wrote: »

I have nothing further to add to the original advice on the flight, but I have watched my female friend's life crumble over the last 3 years as her charming, emotionally abusive ex-husband has played the family court very well.

His mum is a senior social worker, so she knows exactly how to advise her son to behave, to speak, in and out of court.

Men can get the unfair advantage too. I have been astounded at the rubbish and mud slinging said about my friend in order to paint the picture favourably his way.

The problem with this view is that you can’t know what goes on behind closed doors. You are going to view your friend through the lens of what she chooses to tell to you and show to you whereas the courts are supposed to try to look at things dispassionately.

hollydays

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

The problem with this view is that you can’t know what goes on behind closed doors. You are going to view your friend through the lens of what she chooses to tell to you and show to you whereas the courts are supposed to try to look at things dispassionately.

The problem with your post is you're assuming what the poster knows.

MobileSaver

a.ferra wrote: »

has cost me over 100K in court fees ... purchased flights to take my daughter to New York

a.ferra wrote: »

so losing nearly £80 is a big deal.

One minute you've spent over £100,000 in court fees and booked a holiday to New York costing £1,000s, the next minute £80 is a big deal?!?!

Obviously something does not add up here.

Davy_Jones_II

hollydays wrote: »

The problem with your post is you're assuming what the poster knows.

I’m assuming nothing, it’s a fact that someone outside a relationship can’t know all of what goes on inside of it, and needs to rely on hearsay.

hollydays

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

I’m assuming nothing, it’s a fact that someone outside a relationship can’t know all of what goes on inside of it, and needs to rely on hearsay.

It's not a fact, that's your hearsay.
We're not talking about everything that goes on in the relationship, that's a somewhat broad canvas.she was referring to some of the alleged abuse

vicker

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

I’m assuming nothing, it’s a fact that someone outside a relationship can’t know all of what goes on inside of it, and needs to rely on hearsay.

When you've stood in a court, in front of a judge, defending your friend against the things the husband has made up about her - and you know they're made up as the dates/times don't tally as you were with the...

...that's not hearsay. That's an ex spreading malicious rumours which have no basis in fact, but need to be defended as he's said them.