Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[Greg]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

[Ikon]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

[Kaizero]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

[Ikon]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

Alright I see Cheers.

[Kaizero]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

Alright I see Cheers.

 

Essentially (where the name stems from), say you're a cab driver and you see five people in the queue. In front there are four greasy pedos and in the fifth spot in the queue, prime Pamela Anderson is waiting, so you pass the four guys who have waited longer because you'd rather get Pamela in your cab. It's a law that prevents preferential treatment and secures everyone counsel on the same terms as everyone else. You have to let the first person in the queue into your cab no matter how sweaty he might be.

[Ikon]

 

That actually makes sense.

[Manxst]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

No way. There’s zero way that he would have to represent anyone he doesn’t want to. That’s a ridiculous notion.

[Greg]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

No way. There’s zero way that he would have to represent anyone he doesn’t want to. That’s a ridiculous notion.

 

Wrong.

[OpenC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule?wprov=sfla1

[Kaizero]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

No way. There’s zero way that he would have to represent anyone he doesn’t want to. That’s a ridiculous notion.

 

It's the law.

[Stifler]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here.

 

If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is.

 

Alright I see Cheers.

 

Essentially (where the name stems from), say you're a cab driver and you see five people in the queue. In front there are four greasy pedos and in the fifth spot in the queue, prime Pamela Anderson is waiting, so you pass the four guys who have waited longer because you'd rather get Pamela in your cab. It's a law that prevents preferential treatment and secures everyone counsel on the same terms as everyone else. You have to let the first person in the queue into your cab no matter how sweaty he might be.

Aye, have to accept the first date, can’t jump the taxi queue, if someone comes to your taxi and you are behind other taxi’s waiting you have to send them to the first taxi.

 

I remember when we went to Canada the first time around. We got in the first taxi waiting and we’re going about 19 miles to the North of the city to my aunties. Our taxi driver never knew that area well, he had to get directions from the taxi driver behind who knew the area very well. Sat there for about 20 minutes waiting for him to give him clear directions. We weren’t allowed to just get in the other guys taxi.

[relámpago blanco]

How long does it take to shred stuff and nuke hard-drives ffs?  2 weeks?  Especially with SSD's, much easier.

[Manxst]

Fair enough- learn something every day. That’s certainly not the case for solicitors.

[OpenC]

Fair enough- learn something every day. That’s certainly not the case for solicitors.

No indeed, but solicitors generally need barristers when they're dealing with Crown/County courts and higher because they usually don't have rights of audience with judges

 

[Manxst]

Fair enough- learn something every day. That’s certainly not the case for solicitors.

No indeed, but solicitors generally need barristers when they're dealing with Crown/County courts and higher because they usually don't have rights of audience with judges

 

 

Cool. Still don’t get why barristers HAVE to take someone on, but there you go.

[Kaizero]

Fair enough- learn something every day. That’s certainly not the case for solicitors.

No indeed, but solicitors generally need barristers when they're dealing with Crown/County courts and higher because they usually don't have rights of audience with judges

 

 

Cool. Still don’t get why barristers HAVE to take someone on, but there you go.

 

Because everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

[Ikon]

Say that they officially reject the 2 week extension that the PL want. What happens next? In the scenario that the Newcastle Consortium Supporters and their legal team don't back down? I assume that it will have to go to court? Unless the PL give them all the paper work, documents and whatever explained in detail?

 

 

IF the PL have something to hide then surely they don't want this? Even if it happens a long time from now, ant the takeover is already long gone..

 

[Ankles Bennett]

My take is that maybe the takeover is going to go through within the next 2 weeks

  Failing that it's another delaying tactic.

[Sean]

Liam Kennedy has just said the message he has been given from the claimants is "get behind Steve Bruce, get behind Newcastle United"

 

[Alberto2005]

My take is that maybe the takeover is going to go through within the next 2 weeks

  Failing that it's another delaying tactic.

There's more chance of Joelinton going through Southampton's defence like a knife through butter than the takeover happening in the next fortnight. Goto bed.

[Jackie Broon]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

He retweeted it from his personal twitter account, he absolutely did have choice in that.

[Whitley mag]

Liam Kennedy also stated that these 2 supporters wrote to the PL in the summer, therefore they have had more than enough time. The expert legal advice is 7 to 14 days is more than enough time to reply to letter before action.

 

He also said these 2 blokes are credible, and one of them has won a far bigger anti competition case than this one.

 

Final snippet was Mike Ashley could not go down this route of legal action.

 

 

[Ikon]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

He retweeted it from his personal twitter account, he absolutely did have choice in that.

 

This isn't about Nick de Marco (Ashley's QC). Unless I've missed some other tweet. Anyways, I've got it all explained to me now.

[Greg]

Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them.

 

So the PL have called their bluff in that case?

 

Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential).

 

He would have little choice under the cab rank rule.

 

He retweeted it from his personal twitter account, he absolutely did have choice in that.

 

I've not seen any tweets from Robert O’Donoghue.

[Jackie Broon]

I assumed the 'top QC' being referred to was Nick De Marco, and it was his reported involvement that was being discussed, not NCSL's counsel. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick, but I still think it's notable that De Marco tacitly gave his personal support to NCSL's pre-action letter.