[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Did Jay confirm to Aaron that he (Jay) no longer needed to give him his (Jay's) share...... Aaron placing the nameplate back doesn't confirm that Jay relinquished his previous insistence that Aaron be giving Jay's share?

If you offered me something and I said I don't want it, I wouldn't expect you to say "Fine I withdraw my offer"

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

If you offered me something and I said I don't want it, I wouldn't expect you to say "Fine I withdraw my offer"

That's you though. That doesn't make what you would do be regarded, as right - you would do is right, wrong or the only option.

We all have different views on how we regard this. We don't agree.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That's you though. That doesn't make what you would do be regarded, as right - you would do is right, wrong or the only option.

We all have different views on how we regard this. We don't agree.

So you think if someone offered you a car and you said no I don't want it, that they'd still be obliged to give it to you if you decided to change your mind? Really?

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you think if someone offered you a car and you said no I don't want it, that they'd still be obliged to give it to you if you decided to change your mind? Really?

Although I have given and received extravagant gifts before, where we have to play the game of "that's too much, I can't accept it," before moving on to "are you sure?".

Jay said that Aaron could have his money.

Jay also said in twitter that he didn't want the money as he had Lou, and she was his prize.

I just think Aaron should keep £50k, and give his other £10k to the other HM's to add to their pot, by way of an offered compromise. Otherwise, it could get a bit silly and drag on and on, and do none of them any favours.

I think it's quite clear that Aaron isn't going to give Jay any of his winnings, and Jay/his ma, slagging him off have given him just cause to do so without guilt. Moaning that someone has gone back on a deal before the money has arrived is classless and petty.

Aaron could be equally petty about things.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Although I have given and received extravagant gifts before, where we have to play the game of "that's too much, I can't accept it," before moving on to "are you sure?".

Jay said that Aaron could have his money.

Jay also said in twitter that he didn't want the money as he had Lou, and she was his prize.

I just think Aaron should keep £50k, and give his other £10k to the other HM's to add to their pot, by way of an offered compromise. Otherwise, it could get a bit silly and drag on and on, and do none of them any favours.

I think it's quite clear that Aaron isn't going to give Jay any of his winnings, and Jay/his ma, slagging him off have given him just cause to do so without guilt. Moaning that someone has gone back on a deal before the money has arrived is classless and petty.

Aaron could be equally petty about things.

I agree with the majority of what you said, and the compromise is a very good suggestion.

Though for you to state (when we have no absolute proof), "that it is pretty clear that Aaron isn't going to give Jay any of his winnings" - isn't that you doing yourself, that you have stated is 'classless and petty'.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I agree with the majority of what you said, and the compromise is a very good suggestion.

Though for you to state (when we have no absolute proof), "that it is pretty clear that Aaron isn't going to give Jay any of his winnings" - isn't that you doing yourself, that you have stated is 'classless and petty'.

I'm a nobody, and I haven't been in the newspapers and radio stations crying about it, like the McKray twins have. Mine is an opinion on a message board. I also think that Aarons priority to secure his sons future is a noble one and completely justifies him keeping the money.

You really confuse me as a poster, you do.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

You could have actually quoted what you posted earlier instead of asking me did I see it twice. I'm not trailing through 10 pages of posts to try and find it.

Here it is.... I thought you may have recalled it as it was round about the same time JesusHChrist was putting over his situation regarding the car.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

If it is regarded that Aaron was drunk, that is concluded as being not in control of his actions or thoughts then and therefore, the agreement in nul and void. Now, I'll play fair here and apply this same logic therefore to when Jay said Aaron could have his money - since Jay had been drinking that night. Let's say Jay was drunk, same rules apply.

So it's back to the Winner Take All re the £50k, with the other £50k being split as the 5 winners agreed upon.

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I'm a nobody, and I haven't been in the newspapers and radio stations crying about it, like the McKray twins have. Mine is an opinion on a message board. I also think that Aarons priority to secure his sons future is a noble one and completely justifies him keeping the money.

You really confuse me as a poster, you do.

I know we are all on a forum talking about it and that we are all nobodies: but I don't see what is really confusing at that at all? anyway, I will try to explain.

you had stated that you think Aaron is not going to give Jay his share of the winnings - when there is nothing to prove that. (just as there is nothing to prove that Jay will or won't stick to his 'take the money, Idont want it' thing). You then added that moaning about someone going back on a deal before the money has arrived, is classless and petty.

I think it's quite clear that Aaron isn't going to give Jay any of his winnings, and Jay/his ma, slagging him off have given him just cause to do so without guilt. Moaning that someone has gone back on a deal before the money has arrived is classless and petty.

With you saying you think Aaron will go back on his word, when we don't know that, isn't the same terminology therefore applied conversely - I understand it's your view and I understand why you may have that view: but I'm not entirely clear what the difference is - whether it be Jay/Jays mum/ or anyone else - none of us know what is happening.

We are all in effect 'moaning'/'arguing' about whats,, ifs, maybe, why..... when not one of us know what Aaron and Jay have discussed (if anything) between themselves.

Hope this explains a bit better?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you think if someone offered you a car and you said no I don't want it, that they'd still be obliged to give it to you if you decided to change your mind? Really?

Yes....Really.

Dependant on situations, some verbal agreements are bound by law - and the fact that Jay reinforced and reaffirmed his words, by his actions: yes, my view still remains.

I have already offered what I feel would be a very easy solution to the whole sorry mess: did you see that post at all?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Yes....Really.

Dependant on situations, some verbal agreements are bound by law - and the fact that Jay reinforced and reaffirmed his words, by his actions: yes, my view still remains.

I have already offered what I feel would be a very easy solution to the whole sorry mess: did you see that post at all?

Well, I think you would be in the minority there. And I really don't think that it was a verbal agreement and I certainly don't think it would be bound by law.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I think you would be in the minority there. And I really don't think that it was a verbal agreement and I certainly don't think it would be bound by law.

Nothing wrong with being in the minority - it doesn't make any differnce to my opinion.

Any thoughts on the other bit of my post? this part:-

I have already offered what I feel would be a very easy solution to the whole sorry mess: did you see that post at all?

I know the posts have been flying fast and furious and it's easy enough to bypass some. Do you think what I suggested earlier on would be a good solution?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Nothing wrong with being in the minority - it doesn't make any differnce to my opinion.

Any thoughts on the other bit of my post? this part:-


I know the posts have been flying fast and furious and it's easy enough to bypass some. Do you think what I suggested earlier on would be a good solution?

You could have actually quoted what you posted earlier instead of asking me did I see it twice. I'm not trailing through 10 pages of posts to try and find it.