About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Withano · 29-05-2018, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm a lawyer, Withano. It's not how it works.

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

kirklancaster · 29-05-2018, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

Misrepresentation. Deflection. Creating a diversionary smokescreen to enable a quick exit to be found out of a discussion which has raised questions you have no relevant answers to and which makes statements of fact which destroys your argument but which you can not contest.

Withano · 29-05-2018, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Misrepresentation. Deflection. Creating a diversionary smokescreen to enable a quick exit to be found out of a discussion which has raised questions you have no relevant answers to and which makes statements of fact which destroys your argument but which you can not contest.

‘I’m a Lawyer’ isn’t an argument kirk. Even Livia knows that deep down. Not everything everybody says needs commenting on. Some things are silly and can be bypassed.

Livia · 29-05-2018, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

‘I’m a Lawyer’ isn’t an argument kirk. Even Livia knows that deep down. Not everything everybody says needs commenting on. Some things are silly and can be bypassed.

It was an answer to your imagined knowledge of the law when you made a hugely inaccurate statement. Since then you've wriggled and twisted and tried to make it something else... and failed. Let it go now.

Withano · 29-05-2018, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

It was an answer to your imagined knowledge of the law when you made a hugely inaccurate statement. Since then you've wriggled and twisted and tried to make it something else... and failed. Let it go now.

You dont have a monopoly on all things regarding the law, Livia. Even if you did, you’d be asking us to put a higher trust in you than the juror, and i’m sorry to deflate your ego, but...
If you want to comment on things regarding law, then it is expected that you get clued up on the case... “I’m a lawyer” isn't a way to autowin every law-case you find on the internet. Sorry. You’re still expected to put the effort in.

Livia · 29-05-2018, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

You dont have a monopoly on all things regarding the law, Livia. Even if you did, you’d be asking us to put a higher trust in you than the juror, and i’m sorry to deflate your ego, but...
If you want to comment on things regarding law, then it is expected that you get clued up on the case... “I’m a lawyer” isn't a way to autowin every law-case you find on the internet. Sorry. You’re still expected to put the effort in.

LOL...

I never said I have a monopoly on anything. And making rude comments about my ego purely because I spoke about what I know - and you don't - doesn't give you leave to take the piss.

When you finally leave school, you can speak with authority on whatever it is you've been studying for the last twenty-odd years. and I promise not to accuse YOU have having an over inflated ego.

Withano · 29-05-2018, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

LOL...

I never said I have a monopoly on anything. And making rude comments about my ego purely because I spoke about what I know - and you don't - doesn't give you leave to take the piss.

When you finally leave school, you can speak with authority on whatever it is you've been studying for the last twenty-odd years. and I promise not to accuse YOU have having an over inflated ego.

Livia. You havent watched the information. Literally the only piece of information. You havent seen it.

You attempted to state that your opinion on the case was more worthwhile because you are a lawyer with four years of education. It isnt. You havent seen the information. You are not more in-the-know based on your education. It wont be true when the next law-based thread comes along either - if youre not going to watch the information provided, your opinion on the information will mean less despite of your education.

What youre doing is equal to ‘hi guys, i dont know much about grenfell tower, but im a trained fire marshall. It was a hairdryer’ his opinion means less than those who educated themselves on the disaster.

Livia · 29-05-2018, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

Hang on... you said it was a clear case of contempt of court? I questioned you.... that isn't a sarky comment. It was a challenge. Because you were wrong.

Withano · 29-05-2018, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Hang on... you said it was a clear case of contempt of court? I questioned you.... that isn't a sarky comment. It was a challenge. Because you were wrong.

How would you know? You haven’t seen the livestream. How would we go about discussing that in a mutual way. This conversation cant go any further without a bit of effort on your end.

Livia · 29-05-2018, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

How would you know? You haven’t seen the livestream. How would we go about discussing that in a mutual way. This conversation cant go any further without a bit of effort on your end.

How would YOU know? from a livestream?

I've put in my effort thank you. Four years of study, lots of experience and a belief that neither someone who is not qualified in law - that's you - nor someone who is - that's me - can make a claim of ANY kind of charge from watching a livestream.

user104658 · 29-05-2018, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

I've put in my effort thank you. Four years of study, lots of experience and a belief that neither someone who is not qualified in law - that's you - nor someone who is - that's me - can make a claim of ANY kind of charge from watching a livestream.

Indeed, which is why we should accept that the people who arrested him, and those who charged him in the first place (as it keeps being overlooked across the media that he was on parole, it's not that he's been "locked up for reporting from a courthouse") ARE in possession of facts that Robinson supporters are not and DO have good and valid reasons for locking him up, rather than it being some sort of government conspiracy / KGB style ambush where he was bundled into the back of a van for daring to speak out against Muslims. Which is just clearly nonsense.

kirklancaster · 29-05-2018, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Indeed, which is why we should accept that the people who arrested him, and those who charged him in the first place (as it keeps being overlooked across the media that he was on parole, it's not that he's been "locked up for reporting from a courthouse") ARE in possession of facts that Robinson supporters are not and DO have good and valid reasons for locking him up, rather than it being some sort of government conspiracy / KGB style ambush where he was bundled into the back of a van for daring to speak out against Muslims. Which is just clearly nonsense.

'Nonsense' in YOUR opinion T.S which is no more qualified than mine or Tom Cobbley down the road.

In my opinion, there is FAR more to Robinson being arrested than for any purported 'Breach of the Peace'

The fact that there is no news about this most newsworthy of cases is very suss.

Tom4784 · 29-05-2018, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

'Nonsense' in YOUR opinion T.S which is no more qualified than mine or Tom Cobbley down the road.

In my opinion, there is FAR more to Robinson being arrested than for any purported 'Breach of the Peace'

The fact that there is no news about this most newsworthy of cases is very suss.

That's because you value your feelings over the facts.

It's not some government stitch up, they haven't planted evidence on him. He's been charged and he's going to go to court, they wouldn't do that without just cause. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's not some conspiracy to silence some inbred chav that's only interested in self promotion.

Oliver_W · 29-05-2018, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

How would you know? You haven’t seen the livestream. How would we go about discussing that in a mutual way. This conversation cant go any further without a bit of effort on your end.

Have you seen the livestream? Which part of it was a "clear contempt of court" ?

kirklancaster · 29-05-2018, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

Livia · 29-05-2018, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

It's fine, Kirk. It's how it works in here.

kirklancaster · 29-05-2018, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

It's fine, Kirk. It's how it works in here.

I know Liv - I've been 'made out'to be a liar more than once when I have related TRUE direct experiences.

user104658 · 29-05-2018, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

I can't agree with that Kirk; it IS a bad idea to "take people's word for it" (for anything) without further explanation on the basis that they have studies or experience in the area. It's still perfectly reasonable to expect someone to explain their stance. For example, would any of us "laypeople" citizens of the UK be OK with the government making sweeping changes to the economy, stating "I don't have to explain my stance - I'm the Chancellor of the Exchequer! Come back when you're a Chancellor of the Exchequer".

Or in other words... I do think it's reasonable to say that people should pay more attention to the explanations and opinions of people who have training or experience, that's just sensible... but it's not sensible to say "I just flat out accept that you are probably right about this so you don't need to bother explaining your reasoning".

Or to be more blunt; if someone is not interested in even attempting to explain the reasoning behind their opinions - no matter what their education level or career choice - then I am not interested in listening to those opinions.

Also, not to "start anything" here but...

The only evidence I have that Livia is a "vastly experienced top-flight lawyer" is her own say so, and as Livia herself pointed out in a thread recently, it would be foolish to believe that anonymous people on an anonymous forum are always exactly what they claim to be.

bots · 29-05-2018, 11:14 AM

Honestly don't know what the fuss is about. Was Robinson seriously the only person in the UK that knew of instances of abuse and was prepared to do something about it? I very much doubt it. As to how the court or police treat him, I couldn't care less

Oliver_W · 29-05-2018, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Honestly don't know what the fuss is about. Was Robinson seriously the only person in the UK that knew of instances of abuse and was prepared to do something about it? I very much doubt it. As to how the court or police treat him, I couldn't care less

It seems that his livestream was the only report on that particular trial.

Tom4784 · 29-05-2018, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It seems that his livestream was the only report on that particular trial.

It's a trial involving underage victims, the press are limited on how they can report it when it's ongoing.

Crimson Dynamo · 29-05-2018, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

.

Also, not to "start anything" here but...

The only evidence I have that Livia is a "vastly experienced top-flight lawyer" is her own say so, and as Livia herself pointed out in a thread recently, it would be foolish to believe that anonymous people on an anonymous forum are always exactly what they claim to be.

well i believe you work in a bookies so..