Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:12:52 GMT
I'm just cracking up at the idea that Sainsbury's barrister goes home at night and reads this forum in order to find pithy comments he can use in court. They will have someone reading this forum though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:21:28 GMT
I'm just cracking up at the idea that Sainsbury's barrister goes home at night and reads this forum in order to find pithy comments he can use in court. and to think many on here said we can say what we want and nothing we say on the forum would be used in court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:26:49 GMT
The comment was lifted from the other forum, seems really bizarre to refer to that in a court room! From my understanding of the writ published in the B Post Sainsbury's were forced to enter the delivery hours appeal by the threat of the writ being issued, if the contract had already expired at that point why did they appear to continue to support the appeal rather than just let Rovers serve the writ? As the previous poster suggests let's see our barrister's response before we draw any conclusions which way this case will go. If we do lose we can thank BCC for turning down the extended delivery hours pp & for Rovers Legal Advisors for allowing the onerous conditions to be included in the first place. now that would be a flipin irony if it makes a difference to the outcome. That place is damaging enough.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on May 20, 2015 20:28:38 GMT
I'm just cracking up at the idea that Sainsbury's barrister goes home at night and reads this forum in order to find pithy comments he can use in court. They will have someone reading this forum though. Around 1993 my wife and I went to Sainsbury's and loaded up our trolley with the weekly shopping. But when we'd got it all through the checkout my debit card didn't work the first time. I asked if they could just scan it again but the checkout lady refused to let me. Then we asked if they could scan my wife's instead, but they refused because it was the same account. They weren't allowed to scan the same account more than once, for some reason (traffic, I guess - this was in the early days of electropayments), and so we had no way to pay for our goods. We argued for some time practically begging them to just scan our card again, in case it was a temporary read error, but they refused, got management down, and they refused. The woman waiting behind us was getting increasingly watered off, and we weren't too happy. And after a good fifteen minutes impasse I suddenly remembered the other account debit card I had in my wallet. So I got that out, scanned it, and it worked first time. Hooray. (But actually it was exactly the same card, I just pretended I'd remembered a new one so we could have another scan and leave the supermarket with our shopping.) And we haven't been back since. Just so they know.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 20, 2015 20:31:51 GMT
If I was the judge I'd be insulted that a qc would think me naive enough to take w football fans question on a football forum as a critical bit of information in a summing up. What a Burke!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:32:42 GMT
In the past I've gone in there just so I can have a sh**.
A couple of times I used the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by lpgas1 on May 20, 2015 20:33:16 GMT
I stopped going when this began to fall apart, and I will never go there again. Hope they put that in court. Still what's £90 a week to them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:37:36 GMT
If I was the judge I'd be insulted that a qc would think me naive enough to take w football fans question on a football forum as a critical bit of information in a summing up. What a Burke! That's how I feel,how can a quote from a supporter on a forum carry any substance in a court room
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:40:19 GMT
If I was the judge I'd be insulted that a qc would think me naive enough to take w football fans question on a football forum as a critical bit of information in a summing up. What a Burke! Unfortunately you are not the judge and I doubt their barister really is a burke.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 20, 2015 20:45:49 GMT
In reply to a couple of comments:-
1 - NH was pleased with TW performance and TW expected worse. 2 - Clearly Sainsbury's QC does NOT waste his time reading forums, but someone within their set up clearly did - no real surprise to me. 3 - Apparently the comment quoted was "when is a cut off date not a cut off date", he used this to Sainsbury's advantage. 4 - I hope I am being pessimistic but you get a feeling of when things are not going your way 5 - NH has assured us the Contract is watertight, we will find out next week if it is, as the consequences fill me with dread.
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on May 20, 2015 20:49:36 GMT
In reply to a couple of comments:-
1 - NH was pleased with TW performance and TW expected worse. 2 - Clearly Sainsbury's QC does NOT waste his time reading forums, but someone within their set up clearly did - no real surprise to me. 3 - Apparently the comment quoted was "when is a cut off date not a cut off date", he used this to Sainsbury's advantage. 4 - I hope I am being pessimistic but you get a feeling of when things are not going your way 5 - NH has assured us the Contract is watertight, we will find out next week if it is, as the consequences fill me with dread. Thanks for your reports and analysis mate. Personally i'm worried senseless. But still hoping for a successful conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 20, 2015 20:52:45 GMT
I remember some previous comments (might have been on the OF) from someone leading up to the Judicial Review, saying that we should watch what we say on the forum in case their lawyers read it. Another poster rubbished that, saying something like "Do you think highly paid lawyers get their evidence by logging onto a football forum?"
Well, we now know they do. So I assume they have read some of the comments about "Twatola" and many others. It might not help them much, but it might help a bit. In the case of TW, it might have given them the information that he is seen by some as a liability and poor at planning. Something they may not have known before, but were grateful to know now, since he might be a weak link to focus on during their attack.
What do we do? Self-censor? No negative comments about our witnesses during this process? That's never going to happen. But very interesting to me that what we say on here and the IF is noted by others.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on May 20, 2015 20:53:58 GMT
I hope they do read this forum, just to let them know, I had a chat with next door today, who shop at sainsbury's, they were shocked at the way they have behaved and assured me that they and the guy two doors down will not be using them again. People who listen at keyholes never hear good things about themselves. Never mind eh ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:54:39 GMT
severncider. Thanks for the time and effort compiling all this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 21:08:48 GMT
If I was the judge I'd be insulted that a qc would think me naive enough to take w football fans question on a football forum as a critical bit of information in a summing up. What a Burke! That's how I feel,how can a quote from a supporter on a forum carry any substance in a court room Unless it's relevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 21:13:12 GMT
Maybe the barister was just testing the water to see if he could get away with using forum comment in his case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 21:16:38 GMT
Maybe the barister was just testing the water to see if he could get away with using forum comment in his case. Eh?
|
|
|
Post by Gas4life!!! on May 20, 2015 21:16:38 GMT
What I find baffling how come sainsbury didnt get the extended hours to 5he contract when they so called applied? But rovers applied after they got the decision? Have I missed something just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by nolongernonleaguegas on May 20, 2015 21:19:13 GMT
Can't be bothered to read everything. Does it look more likely it'll go in our favour or less likely since the trial began ?
|
|
|
Post by yatetown85 on May 20, 2015 21:27:41 GMT
Can't forums be locked to view until they've registered?
I know they can register, but in future, I guess you can do a black out, block those that don't comment, and re-open after such a case is complete?
Hard to police I know, either that, or Mods/Admin delete such threads until it's over, bad for us as fans I know.
|
|