Comet Help Refund

poet123

Be interesting to hear how the OP got on with this problem and what advice was given.

Blacksheep1979

poet123 wrote: »

You are joking? a judge sitting in the SCC is just that .....a judge,meaning he has undergone all the usual legal training,then been appointed by the judiciary as a paid official. At least 7 years experience after legal qualification is needed,although in practice it is usually much more.


Magistrates are unpaid and unqualified which is why they need a clerk to the courts(a solicitor/barrister)to advise on legal matters.

Even if you were unclear of the roles and qualifications involved, your Barrister friend should have known,so I am not sure why she felt the need to text her relative for info

I am afraid non of this adds to your credibility on legal issues:D

I said that a judge would decide what timescale was reasonable and confirmed my usage of precedent was incorrect in the first instance. If you read your last few posts you will see how ridiculous it would be for the OP to place any credence on your legal knowledge.

sorry, please reread my post and it says I use the terms sometimes interchangably (and yes I know it's wrong) - the person contacted was a judge (strange how you've picked up on the magistrate part and not the this is his view and may not be held by every other judge part).

As for the part about scc judges legal training was partly due to my own experiences with them and they were slightly unsure of something which I thought they should be very familiar with.

Tell you what - I'm completely wrong, have been lying all the way through and yes you can get a full refund for anything no matter what for easily 6 months after you've bought it - that make you feel better?

poet123

Not lying, merely misinformed.

If the person concerned was a judge(and judges work in many spheres of the law, not just SCC) and you have by your own admission little faith in the legal qualifications of judges why would you assume he is correct?.........because his comments support what you want to believe!!

Strange how you seem able to believe one judge but have an issue with another. That in itself would seem to support my contention that judges do not act in a uniform manner and what is "reasonable" to one is not to another.

That is all I have ever said,you on the other hand have made sweeping generalisations re timescales set in stone, without ANY proof to back it up.

I infer from your post that you have had a bad experience with the SCC?perhaps this is because you did not present well,do your homework or simply did not have a case ? or maybe you used pertinent terms interchangably when they were obviously different animals.

As I said before I have won several cases in the SCC and each time have been congratulated by the judge on presenting a clear concise case and remaining civil throughout. Sometimes demeanour can outweigh any holes in the case. In two of the cases I won, the other party was shown to be unreasonable by their outbursts in court, and the judge could immediately see that we had tried to be reasonable but were up against people who could only see one side of the story and were not prepared to compromise.

My point here is that the issue of what is reasonable can have a another interpretation in addition to timescales.