The lying bastards! It probably has her filthy cloven hoof prints all over itI thought they hadn't collaborated with Scooby Doo's book?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...eased-believing-book-set-record-straight.html
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No wonder Meghan likes these (cowpat)hats as Freda pointed out..she is so vain she has them personalised
View attachment 128983
I'm totally confused. Why the duck would Ginge and Hacket ferry two wee dugs around in a car. To take them for a walk!!! The house they a squatting in is surrounded by a massive area! Another thing,I don't think the owner will be at all happy about a scabby dug swimming in the pool. (maybe he will hold back the deposit)
I was thinking the same. I like dogs but I wouldn't want them swimming around with me in a pool.
Doesn't seem very hygienic.
Harry again showing he doesnβt give two shits about other peopleβs property
Glad you are back
Welcome back! I missed you! Let's all be friends
So Harry Markle is a great Blog and I always enjoy its content and there's nothing worse (or more common) than lawyers slagging off other peoples work in tones dripping with condescension. Still, here goes.
ALL lawyers (except of course Aunty, who is kind and good and always right) think they are uniquely clever, and know more about how the world wags than mere mortals; but in fact most of them are over-paid bureaucrats transferring property and recovering (or defending) debts. Only a relative handful dress up and ponce about in the scarifying atmosphere of Court, or right great wrongs. Some of the most stupid people I've met have been lawyers, and boy can they get their clients into bother.
So, anyway, one of the biggest mistakes most people make about the Law is to think: (a) its about justice; (b) its common-sense dressed up in Jargon. I used to tell my clients that if they wanted (a) they should read Aristotle (Colleen, I understand, was a bugger for the Nichomachean Ethics); and (b) you might want common sense but what you will get is The Law; and you will get it good and long and hard.
I think Harry M has applied these standards to the Judgment. The result demonstrates just how tricky it is to explain legal matters in "simple" terms (like Quantum Physics, only better paid), or to understand what the "Rules" really mean. The "Summary" is in many ways longer and certainly (uncharacteristically, Harry M writes brilliantly) a far more difficult read, then the original. It implies that the Judgement was a terminal denunciation of both her and her incompetent lawyers. It really isnt.
Although it was a very bad and embarassing (and perhaps wost of all a predictable) defeat; plenty of Parties lose this badly early on, in Applications engineered by the other side to do them over for being careless, and still go on to win. Its the Law, not a novel. The rules of narrative dont apply. The bad guys often win because, they know how to. Lets not forget Associated are cunts and theyve been at this (1896) longer than the House of Windsor (1917).
It is true that there were cutting criticisms of the Drafting by Madams (glamorous ie: takes a good photo and has acted for someone on the telly) Counsel (Sherbourne) but these are pretty routine. Judges come from the same elite group as the Barristers in front of them (some of the smartest people Ive ever met), and they often nurture lethal feuds stemming from an unfortunate bail application is Southend in the 1980's, or something romantic, or at least reasonably moist, after a (famously wild) chambers party, or whatever they get up to at Eton. Still Sherbourne was being taken down a peg or two for his snotty dismissal of what turned out to be the winning sides requests.
Hisonner is very careful not to obviously criticise the Client. They are after all acting on advice and are unlikely to be reponsible for legal errors (though often actually they are). In the final judgement, if they got to Trial, what he really thinks will be made clear; and he's already most unimpressed. I think the most telling line as I pointed out in my first post on the Judgement, is about her having to "clarify" the allegation about "stereotyping the entire Black Community". A clear indication that he's "on" all the wild allegations of waycism she uses to get her way; and isnt having any.
Meggsy's unlovely Lawyers have made the classic mistake of thinking the Mail would have to settle and they over-egged the Pud thinking it would improve their negotiating position (ker-ching); and Megs would be just making up figures, to spend on vulgar tat. It all went tits when the stupid bastards flounced out of the RF and dissed the most popular Monarch since Elizabeth 1st; and the Mail got the best lawyers.
A household name, lets say he was on Dragons Den and Cathy Burke fancied the pants off him (and he was adorable if utterly ruthless), once said to me after I had given him some advice he didnt want to hear: "[ ] I dont pay you to tell me I have to pay my bills. I already know that".
If she has any of that chaps acumen and savoir faire she'll blame the lawyers and get out now. I suspect however, that despite the rat-like cunning, she's not that bright; and the bullshit specilialists now "advising" her are out of their depth (except at bitching over the Piquante Cocktails at Soho House whilst bullying the cuter waiters) and she wont see sense until that stake is coming out of her mouth. Something Associated vastly superior team will delight in doing. Essentially, until whoever is meeting the Bills says "You pay for it"; and Schillings, or whoever shes using if she sacks them (in the mistaken belief this will change the facts), ask for yet another Β£500,000 on account to "go to trial" which shes now been advised in writing that shes probably going to lose. The legal Insurance Companies are always a player, and they have the best lawyers of all.
I suspect everytime a missive from the Lawyers pops into her Inbox (complete with a Bill) she puts down the pool-boy and slips down to the dungeon to kick seven bells out of Dimbo shouting about how much she hates the Limey's and how low he has brought her..... Lovely...couldnt happen to a better "cause"...shine a light..she's going down Captain I cannae save her...!
ALL lawyers (except of course Aunty, who is kind and good and always right) think they are uniquely clever, and know more about how the world wags than mere mortals; but in fact most of them are over-paid bureaucrats transferring property and recovering (or defending) debts. Only a relative handful dress up and ponce about in the scarifying atmosphere of Court, or right great wrongs. Some of the most stupid people I've met have been lawyers, and boy can they get their clients into bother.
So, anyway, one of the biggest mistakes most people make about the Law is to think: (a) its about justice; (b) its common-sense dressed up in Jargon. I used to tell my clients that if they wanted (a) they should read Aristotle (Colleen, I understand, was a bugger for the Nichomachean Ethics); and (b) you might want common sense but what you will get is The Law; and you will get it good and long and hard.
I think Harry M has applied these standards to the Judgment. The result demonstrates just how tricky it is to explain legal matters in "simple" terms (like Quantum Physics, only better paid), or to understand what the "Rules" really mean. The "Summary" is in many ways longer and certainly (uncharacteristically, Harry M writes brilliantly) a far more difficult read, then the original. It implies that the Judgement was a terminal denunciation of both her and her incompetent lawyers. It really isnt.
Although it was a very bad and embarassing (and perhaps wost of all a predictable) defeat; plenty of Parties lose this badly early on, in Applications engineered by the other side to do them over for being careless, and still go on to win. Its the Law, not a novel. The rules of narrative dont apply. The bad guys often win because, they know how to. Lets not forget Associated are cunts and theyve been at this (1896) longer than the House of Windsor (1917).
It is true that there were cutting criticisms of the Drafting by Madams (glamorous ie: takes a good photo and has acted for someone on the telly) Counsel (Sherbourne) but these are pretty routine. Judges come from the same elite group as the Barristers in front of them (some of the smartest people Ive ever met), and they often nurture lethal feuds stemming from an unfortunate bail application is Southend in the 1980's, or something romantic, or at least reasonably moist, after a (famously wild) chambers party, or whatever they get up to at Eton. Still Sherbourne was being taken down a peg or two for his snotty dismissal of what turned out to be the winning sides requests.
Hisonner is very careful not to obviously criticise the Client. They are after all acting on advice and are unlikely to be reponsible for legal errors (though often actually they are). In the final judgement, if they got to Trial, what he really thinks will be made clear; and he's already most unimpressed. I think the most telling line as I pointed out in my first post on the Judgement, is about her having to "clarify" the allegation about "stereotyping the entire Black Community". A clear indication that he's "on" all the wild allegations of waycism she uses to get her way; and isnt having any.
Meggsy's unlovely Lawyers have made the classic mistake of thinking the Mail would have to settle and they over-egged the Pud thinking it would improve their negotiating position (ker-ching); and Megs would be just making up figures, to spend on vulgar tat. It all went tits when the stupid bastards flounced out of the RF and dissed the most popular Monarch since Elizabeth 1st; and the Mail got the best lawyers.
A household name, lets say he was on Dragons Den and Cathy Burke fancied the pants off him (and he was adorable if utterly ruthless), once said to me after I had given him some advice he didnt want to hear: "[ ] I dont pay you to tell me I have to pay my bills. I already know that".
If she has any of that chaps acumen and savoir faire she'll blame the lawyers and get out now. I suspect however, that despite the rat-like cunning, she's not that bright; and the bullshit specilialists now "advising" her are out of their depth (except at bitching over the Piquante Cocktails at Soho House whilst bullying the cuter waiters) and she wont see sense until that stake is coming out of her mouth. Something Associated vastly superior team will delight in doing. Essentially, until whoever is meeting the Bills says "You pay for it"; and Schillings, or whoever shes using if she sacks them (in the mistaken belief this will change the facts), ask for yet another Β£500,000 on account to "go to trial" which shes now been advised in writing that shes probably going to lose. The legal Insurance Companies are always a player, and they have the best lawyers of all.
I suspect everytime a missive from the Lawyers pops into her Inbox (complete with a Bill) she puts down the pool-boy and slips down to the dungeon to kick seven bells out of Dimbo shouting about how much she hates the Limey's and how low he has brought her..... Lovely...couldnt happen to a better "cause"...shine a light..she's going down Captain I cannae save her...!
Last edited:
He will always be a Prince
Wow thats a flashback photo! Off topic but anyone remember how she was always claiming that these were 'all natural'. Oh Vicky
My mistake it was Fiji, not Togo. Charles had to intervene. It seemed particularly grotesque - and hardly the mark of a great humanitarian!
Bit of a difference that Kate was wearing one at a banquet at Buckingham Palace the same night -compared to overseas in a poor country. When do they ever wear crown jewels overseas anyway?!?!?
Charles told Meghan 'You cannot wear tiara - it looks too extravagant'
The Duchess of Sussex hoped to borrow a tiara from the Royal Collection for an event in Fiji in October. But she was advised by Prince Charles to avoid doing so in parts of the Commonwealth.
Nope. They are only to be worn at states dinners. And the only states dinner happinig during her blitzappearance with the RF was for The Donald.
And we all know how this went ;-)ETA Sorry this was already said by someone else. Normally I do read the whole thread before posting, but I am a bit beside myself. Had to have the cat put down last night, so please bear with me.
Last edited:
Sorry I did not word it properly. I should have said now that he no longer wishes to be Royal and wants to be known as Harry instead of Prince Harry.
You got this all wrong. He doesn't want to be known as Harry. That would be plain and common. He wants to be known as 'Just Harry'. Which is a bit like a title. I mean there just has to be some word before the name to seperate oneself from the unwashed masses, right?
Yes I know it was Just Harry, but I didnt think he meant it!You got this all wrong. He doesn't want to be known as Harry. That would be plain and common. He wants to be known as 'Just Harry'. Which is a bit like a title. I mean there just has to be some word before the name to seperate oneself from the unwashed masses, right?
Sorry to hear about your pussycatNope. They are only to be worn at states dinners. And the only states dinner happinig during her blitzappearance with the RF was for The Donald.
ETA Sorry this was already said by someone else. Normally I do read the whole thread before posting, but I am a bit beside myself. Had to have the cat put down last night, so please bear with me.
Like all the expensive clothes, and the horrible screeen, you know what they say "you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter."Hi all
I've been happily lurking in the background for months now, chuckling at the wittiness and insights of so many of you. What made me pick up the proverbial pen, is a news article I saw from my country of origin giving women advice on how to care for your hair during the lockdown, and they were referring to you-all-know-who as an example of a woman whose hair is always flawless. Puh-lease
And regarding the privacy screens; in my new-build neighbourhood the developer won't even allow the change of plants in the front garden without explicit permission for the first 7 years as it would apparently, I editorialise, "cheapen" the neighbourhoodAnd this is not Beverly Hills. I can only imagine how thrilled the neighbours are with the arrival of the M&H
So sorry to hear that Poppea. Sending you hugs xNope. They are only to be worn at states dinners. And the only states dinner happinig during her blitzappearance with the RF was for The Donald.
ETA Sorry this was already said by someone else. Normally I do read the whole thread before posting, but I am a bit beside myself. Had to have the cat put down last night, so please bear with me.
- Status