Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
Great idea Bas …….. if you could find a property developer stupid enough to want to build new houses right now.
Britain’s biggest housebuilder, Taylor-Wimpey, has just started building 70 new homes in my town. But it’s probably a ‘what the heck’ situation as they are on the verge of going bust!
You’re possibly correct Bas – many many property development companies (both large & small) have collapsed in the last several months.
Irrespective of a company’s size, the mathematics of the industry remain the same. Basically, in order to successfully develop a site you have to be able to ascertain whether or not you can sell the houses at the end of the work; for what price you can sell them; and crucially – how long it will take to complete the sale and get paid.
Until you can answer these questions with reasonable accuracy, plunging ahead and building new houses in today’s market conditions is utter folly – unless of course you have loads of spare cash that you are quite happy to piss down a drain.
Small companies can often ‘freeze’ themselves, minimise overheads and costs, and ride out the storm. Unfortunately for them, the larger companies simply don’t have this option. They have huge overheads in terms of staff and premises etc and going into some sort of commercial hibernation is simply not an option for them.
They are forced to stagger on, bleeding their cash resources dry whilst they pray for a market upturn, until the grim reaper gets them.
Yes it’s pretty ironic (the Serco boss getting pinged for speeding).
But I have never understood the incessant whinging about speed cameras being a only a money generating device, and how unfair it all is etc etc.
Forgive me if I’m being too logical but the answer to them is really very simple ……. don’t break the speed limit !!! Easy really huh?
Speed cameras are set to ‘flash’ you if you exceed the set limit by more than 10% + 2mph. so in a 30 mph limit, you can do 35mph and get away with it; in a 40 mph limit – 46mph; in a 50mph limit – 57mph; and so on.
I really fail to see why those caught speeding by cameras whinge so much. They were well over the legal limit -they should pay their fine and get over it.
Great idea Bas …….. if you could find a property developer stupid enough to want to build new houses right now.
The purchaser will possibly be LDV Vans (not TRV as I incorrectly posted). :lol: :lol: :lol:
Caesar adsum jam forte
Pompeii ad erat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompeii in is at@cas wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
You’re right Cas …. and yet….
If the Judge had intervened and stopped the defence counsel from cross examining a witness, he might very well have given cause for the defence to either declare a mis-trial or given them grounds for appeal.
There is a very fine line to be drawn between allowing a witness to be cross examined as to the truth of their evidence and permitting a vulnerable and damaged child to be subjected to highly stressful and intimidating questioning.
I think that the defence counsel clearly overstepped the mark.
Yea I see what you mean and highly possible it was what he was aiming for.He did overstep the mark, i’m surprised that the little girl was in court, theyve been known to use video links, that kind of thing. Must have been very frightening for that little girl.
They did use a video link for the poor child to give her evidence to the Court – as they always do in these sorts of cases.
She had already been thoroughly questioned by trained caring and competent child protection experts and suchlike and had made a full and detailed ‘statement’ that had been videoed and played to the Court as her ‘evidence in chief’.
Yes, the defence has a right to test that evidence to be satisfied that it is both true and complete but NOT in my view, to do so in such a way as to cause the sort of distress that was observed by those who saw it.
This wasn’t an adult telling lies for some personal gain or suchlike, it was a 4 year old girl ffs!!!
You’re right Cas …. and yet….
If the Judge had intervened and stopped the defence counsel from cross examining a witness, he might very well have given cause for the defence to either declare a mis-trial or given them grounds for appeal.
There is a very fine line to be drawn between allowing a witness to be cross examined as to the truth of their evidence and permitting a vulnerable and damaged child to be subjected to highly stressful and intimidating questioning.
I think that the defence counsel clearly overstepped the mark.
This is an appalling story which should bring a chill to the heart of any right thinking person. Sadly, the vicious abuser apparently has done this sort of thing before.
Think also of baby P’s mother who happily co-habited with this guy and surely MUST have known or suspected what her ‘boyfriend’ was capable of doing.
However, to my mind another person who should be named and shamed in this dreadful matter is Bernard Richmond QC who was the barrister representing the boyfriend of baby P’s mother (the guy that has just been convicted of raping a 2 year old child).
The Metropolitan Police have quite rightly condemned the way in which children are treated in criminal courts yesterday. This followed the disgraceful way that the poor little 4 years old was aggressively cross examined and put under intense pressure and asked a whole series of intimidating questions before being asked to define “truth”.
FFS !!!! She was only 4 years old and had been RAPED !!!! How on earth can anybody justify this sort of cross examination – even if it is necessary to provide a defence to a (now) convicted vicious child rapist!!!.
See an extract for yourself – and make your own judgement……..
Bernard Richmond QC: “Did you make it up?”
4 year old child: “I just ……….”
Bernard Richmond QC: “He didn’t touch you did he? DID HE? I have to ask you one more time. We have to have an answer from you, he didn’t touch you did he?”
All this time the little girl appeared visibly distressed, wiping her eyes and desperate to leave.
Bernard Richmond QC – you should be deeply ashamed of yourself!
I recall that the last time we ‘did’ global warming on here, I made a few unfortunate remarks about fat cows farting etc …… and got myself into a lot of trouble as a result.
You will therefore understand why I am being a bit quiet on this thread – but I’m really really tempted !!!
I know that the thingy you insert onto your website is called a “hyperlink” Cat but HTML (or similar) programming isn’t in my skillset I’m afraid. Sorry.
