On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:05:10 +0100, "steve robinson"
 wrote:

>Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> steve robinson wrote:
>> > Norman Wells wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > What's the betting that it was a woman in a council house who
>> > > > has since cleared off leaving no forwarding address? Hardly any
>> > > > victory for DL is it?
>> > > 
>> > > Oh yes it is.  It's exactly what they've been waiting for.  This
>> > > decision is priceless for them, and they won't lose any sleep
>> > > whatsoever if they receive nothing.
>> > > 
>> > > Unlike some who have been freeloading, who will now be fearing the
>> > > arrival of their own personal writ and imminent reduction of their
>> > > bank balance.
>> > 
>> > Still a hollow victory though , its cost them money , its unlikely
>> > they will ever be paid
>> 
>> You can't possibly say that because you can't possibly know.
>
>
>From the reports ive seen she never turned up in court , single woman
>living on a council estate (although some of the reports are
>conflicting) so its unlikely she is likely to have the funds to pay the
>costs


I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the journalists
who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.

judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:

> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the journalists
> who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.

Where else would it come from?

Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere else.

If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily with their 
press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to nothing if they did 
that.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g8ls4n$a3c$3$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
>> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
>> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the journalists
>> who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.
>
> Where else would it come from?
>
> Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere else.
>
> If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily with 
> their press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to nothing if 
> they did that.

Why not?  Companies do this sort of thing all the time.  They lose in court 
on the substantive point, but win some trivial extra point which makes the 
amount that they have to pay only 95% of the maximum that they might have 
lost and promptly release a press-release highlighting their "win", 
conveniently saying nothing about the total loss.

This is particularly prevalent when the other party is a "little man", 
because they know that said little man has absolutely no route to issuing 
his own press release negating theirs, and they know that the lazy jurnos 
will do no digging at all.

tim

>
>

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:10:07 +0100, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
>> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
>> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the journalists
>> who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.
>
>Where else would it come from?
>
>Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere else.
>
>If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily with their 
>press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to nothing if they did 
>that. 
>

I am not implying that they are lying - I am implying that they will
have spun the press release their way.  Otherwise  - why bother making
a press release.

judith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:10:07 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>  wrote:
>
>> judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
>>> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
>>> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the
>>> journalists who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.
>>
>> Where else would it come from?
>>
>> Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere
>> else.
>>
>> If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily
>> with their press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to
>> nothing if they did that.
>>
>
> I am not implying that they are lying - I am implying that they will
> have spun the press release their way.  Otherwise  - why bother making
> a press release.

Because, perhaps, the decision went their way, and they think it's important 
or of general interest - which it is.  Maybe there's no need to spin it.

tim..... wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:g8ls4n$a3c$3$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>> judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
>>> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
>>> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the
>>> journalists who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.
>>
>> Where else would it come from?
>>
>> Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere
>> else.
>>
>> If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily with
>> their press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to
>> nothing if they did that.
>
> Why not?  Companies do this sort of thing all the time.  They lose in
> court on the substantive point, but win some trivial extra point
> which makes the amount that they have to pay only 95% of the maximum
> that they might have lost and promptly release a press-release
> highlighting their "win", conveniently saying nothing about the total
> loss.
>
> This is particularly prevalent when the other party is a "little man",
> because they know that said little man has absolutely no route to
> issuing his own press release negating theirs, and they know that the
> lazy jurnos will do no digging at all.

The actual decision will come out in due course.  DL are lawyers and their 
reputation will siffer if they've deliberately misrepresented it.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g8ncsr$7sc$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...
> tim..... wrote:
>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
>> news:g8ls4n$a3c$3$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that it is quite relevant that the "reports" of the court
>>>> proceedings are actually based on a press release by DL - with the
>>>> minimum amount of digging/questioning/understanding by the
>>>> journalists who have gained a few quick column inches and no more.
>>>
>>> Where else would it come from?
>>>
>>> Until the actual decision is released, it can't come from anywhere
>>> else.
>>>
>>> If you're implying that DL are lying or perhaps gilding the lily with
>>> their press release, that's absurd.  They'd be on a hiding to
>>> nothing if they did that.
>>
>> Why not?  Companies do this sort of thing all the time.  They lose in
>> court on the substantive point, but win some trivial extra point
>> which makes the amount that they have to pay only 95% of the maximum
>> that they might have lost and promptly release a press-release
>> highlighting their "win", conveniently saying nothing about the total
>> loss.
>>
>> This is particularly prevalent when the other party is a "little man",
>> because they know that said little man has absolutely no route to
>> issuing his own press release negating theirs, and they know that the
>> lazy jurnos will do no digging at all.
>
> The actual decision will come out in due course.  DL are lawyers and their 
> reputation will siffer if they've deliberately misrepresented it.

I don't doubt that and I'm sure that it will result in much debate here.

But if it is an unjust exaggeration I do doubt that a correction will make 
its way to the times to negate the story that was printed there earlier this 
wek.

tim
>
>