Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

Here on the Forum we're not judge or jury or have the time to consider evidence in defamatory claims made against each user. Now as a previous post has become personal and legal action has been mentioned we're asking people to be careful, so I recommend that replies regarding the above posts from the concerned parties are withheld even though they're probably going to be really juicy and fun. We're toying with the idea of removing the post, but then we'll might have to remove the whole thread, and then where do we stop? As MC Hammer would have said if his name was MC Dilemma, "it's Dilemma Time!"

We will continue to ponder and discuss with our moral councillors.


I would also like to point out, as it's been mentioned before, the fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

how exciting!



An interesting perspective on defamtion is the effect - i.e. that it sullies or causes problems for the "defamed" persons reputation - hence mr Archer will be unlikely to bring any slander / libel cases against anyone in the future, as he is "marked" already and his reputation is besmirched anyway.


so if you have bad rep anyway, it poitless thinking about action.




I cant wait for the next episode of this drama ! it beats watching reruns of The Rockford files on Freeview !

I called panther cars from sainsburys recently, I was told a cab would arrive in ten minutes - 20 mins later i was still waiting around for a cab. So I decided to call them back and find out why it was taking so long, I received nothing but rudeness and verbal abuse from the operator. I called a another cab number that I just so happend to find in my handbag, I was told a car would arrive within 5 mins, and guess what? a car did arrive within 5 mins. The driver even got out and helped me load my shopping into the boot which made a nice change, the driver was so sweet and friendly (not bad looking either) we got chatting and he told me that he works for a new cab station based at the end of Barry road called Capital Carries. I've been using them ever since and I'll definitely be using them in the future. I highly recommend them, give them a try some time - I think you'll find the service overall is the best in Dulwich.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...