Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Hardly any UK-wide firms with the overwhelming majority of their work in English law will actively choose to have their principal law office north of the border. Name me, say, five such firms to have done this. Good luck. Why? What would the point be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Your reading ability is clearly directly proportional to your posting ability. thataboy...when you cant back up your claims, go on the attack...you are pathetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 thataboy...when you cant back up your claims, go on the attack...you are pathetic Still, I can read an article that refers to £24 million and see that it contains... £24 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Very amusing. Make a claim, get challenged on it, and ask those disputing it to provide evidence to support the negative. Oops! That isn't what happened though, is it? The problem here is that Wee Bully provided evidence, whereupon you and your fellow Unionist resorted to attempting to drown the debate. You disagreed with the evidence Wee Bully provided, but remarkably, didn't produce any supporting evidence for your counter point. Whatever happened to "evidence please"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Oops! That isn't what happened though, is it? The problem here is that Wee Bully provided evidence, No he did not. I have seen no evidence provided as to how many dual-qualified solicitors there are in Scotland, despite repeated requests for this figure. The reason for this lack of evidence if because Wee Bully has made a total arse of this. He has no idea whatsoever about how many dual-qualified solicitors there are in Scotland. He made a claim, whithout having any idea of its veracity, and we have heard only Simon and Garfunkel ever since on the actual figures. In fact, the only evidence provided has been by me, in relation to the size of Scotland's solicitor population. A lesson to be learned here for him methinks. If you are going to make a claim such as that, at least have figures to back it up. Othewise you look stupid. Which is what has happened here. I did not "disagree with the evidence provided". It was not evidence as to how many dual-qualified lawyers there are in Scotland. He has singularly failed to provide such evidence, because he cannot. He hasn't the first idea what he is talking about and has just made it up as he is going along. Problem with that is, when you are called on it, you look like a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 No he did not. I have seen no evidence provided as to how many dual-qualified solicitors there are in Scotland, despite repeated requests for this figure. The reason for this lack of evidence if because Wee Bully has made a total arse of this. He has no idea whatsoever about how many dual-qualified solicitors there are in Scotland. He made a claim, whithout having any idea of its veracity, and we have heard only Simon and Garfunkel ever since on the actual figures. In fact, the only evidence provided has been by me, in relation to the size of Scotland's solicitor population. A lesson to be learned here for him methinks. If you are going to make a claim such as that, at least have figures to back it up. Othewise you look stupid. Which is what has happened here. I did not "disagree with the evidence provided". It was not evidence as to how many dual-qualified lawyers there are in Scotland. He has singularly failed to provide such evidence, because he cannot. He hasn't the first idea what he is talking about and has just made it up as he is going along. Problem with that is, when you are called on it, you look like a fool. So how many dual-qualified solicitors are there? How would you go about proving such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Indeed, all Wee Bully's "evidence" amounts to is proof that there are dual-qualified solicitors in Scotland. Which was disputed by no one whatsoever. The actual number of these dual-qualified solicitors is very much in question. I think it is a tiny number but would make no claims as to how many there are - I'm delighted to find out. Wee Bully has claimed it is "sizeable number". So he must know. Looking forward to seeing how many there are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Still, I can read an article that refers to £24 million and see that it contains... £24 million. A couple of things...you never linked to, or refered to anything...and if it was the Telegraph article that Ad Lib linked to...lets see what that said A total of 894 staff have been paid relocation allowances worth a total of £16million, which is expected to rise to £24million Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 A couple of things...you never linked to, or refered to anything...and if it was the Telegraph article that Ad Lib linked to...lets see what that said Oh dear So when you said you could find no mention of £24 million, that was a lie wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Yep. Willie Rennie levels of fail being demonstrated here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 I don't have a theory. I've asked the people claiming (with their bizarre theory) that it would be viable and desirable to move the BBC legal team to Glasgow to provide some evidence that a) the pool of lawyers would be of the quantity and quality necessary to maintain the same quality of legal service and b) to provide solutions to the additional cost and practical obstacles of having a Glasgow-based legal team dealing almost exclusively with matters of English law, contracts written with English parties, with English jurisdiction clauses, threats of legal action under English laws before English courts and who will from time to time need face-to-face contact with agents of clients, most of which will be based... in London. This is basic burden of proof stuff. If you think it's a good and viable idea, show us the numbers. Ah, burden of proof. Do they still teach Evidence as a course at Glasgow? As you will be aware, the burden of proof is on me. I therefore provided evidence as to the existence of a significant number of the relevant people. From memory, a google search threw up around 15 firms employing relevant dual-qualified staff in Scotland - they are listed in my posts above. Not in areas like family law (irrelevant), and not beyond the first 10 pages of a google search. We have also heard from another poster (Consolidate) who actually works in an in-house department in Scotland that works cross-border and says it works. That is evidence. At that point, the burden of proof swings to you to prove that they wouldn't be attracted to the BBC job. Not seen that yet. All I have seen is an assertion that "they wouldn't do that". Not one iota of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/nao_salford.pdf Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ah, burden of proof. Do they still teach Evidence as a course at Glasgow? As you will be aware, the burden of proof is on me. 1) No, they do not. 2) Correct. therefore provided evidence as to the existence of a significant number of the relevant people. You have provided no evidence whatsoever as to the number of dual-qualified lawyers there are in Scotland. Until you do, we cannot determine whether the figure is "sizeable" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Let's face it - you haven't the foggiest how many dual-qualified lawyers there are in Scotland. Absolutely no idea at all. That's the case, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Ah, burden of proof. Do they still teach Evidence as a course at Glasgow? As you will be aware, the burden of proof is on me. I therefore provided evidence as to the existence of a significant number of the relevant people. From memory, a google search threw up around 15 firms employing relevant dual-qualified staff in Scotland - they are listed in my posts above. Not in areas like family law (irrelevant), and not beyond the first 10 pages of a google search. We have also heard from another poster (Consolidate) who actually works in an in-house department in Scotland that works cross-border and says it works. That is evidence. At that point, the burden of proof swings to you to prove that they wouldn't be attracted to the BBC job. Not seen that yet. All I have seen is an assertion that "they wouldn't do that". Not one iota of proof. No you didn't. You provided evidence of the existence of firms which had dual-qualified solicitors. You provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that their number was in any way "significant" nor did you define the parameters of significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 They teach Evidence as part of the Criminal Law course. Civil evidence is covered in CJE, which is now a lv 3 course. (for the asides benefit of H_B and Wee Bully) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nifty shade of grey Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 So... Independence - How would you vote? Sorry for trying to derail the BBC legal department thread, but here's another couple of gems from Rev Stu over at Wings. I know - they're not valid opinions because he employed Panelbase for a recent poll and he's a buckled lefty nat-tard - but even so, he does raise some difficult issues for the no campaign to explain away. First we have this fine example of how Scotland benefits from the union - in this case 2 new aircraft carriers to carry the planes that the MoD don't have: http://wingsoverscotland.com/you-spend-a-fiver-well-spend-a-tenner/ Scottish taxpayers are paying £614m as Scotland’s share of the cost of the two carriers. Scotland is getting £300m of that back in contracts, or slightly less than half. Scots, then, are paying a net £314m towards the useless ships Then we have yet another unionist fearbomb exposed as pish and lies. Awkward... http://wingsoverscotland.com/reassuring-news-relocated/ “The report demonstrates the inaccuracy of claims that upwards of 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident was not replaced. It finds that the reduction in direct, indirect and induced civilian employment across Scotland would be less than 1,800 and that this reduction would not take place until after 2022.” “In terms of financial cost the report finds that Scotland will be significantly worse off if Trident is continued… Scotland’s share of the investment cost, at £85m a year, will be at the direct expense of existing public expenditure and could place at risk up to 3,000 public service jobs.” “Meanwhile the existing £1.78bn annual running costs of the Trident system are already part of the defence budget and Scotland’s share, in terms of tax contribution, is approximately £153m a year. Only a portion of this currently comes back to Scotland to sustain the 1,536 direct and indirect civilian jobs and Scottish Navy personnel servicing and staffing Trident in Scotland. If Trident was not continued, this existing £153m contribution from Scotland could be released to provide alternative employment for considerably more than 1,536.“ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 They teach Evidence as part of the Criminal Law course. Civil evidence is covered in CJE, which is now a lv 3 course. (for the asides benefit of H_B and Wee Bully) Yeah, that was the case in '93 as well. It was just part of the Criminal Law course. I think they did away with it a few years before I started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 So when you said you could find no mention of £24 million, that was a lie wasn't it? No it wasnt a lie...you said BBC HAD paid £24 m...there was no mention that the BBC HAD paid £24 m and finnaly you provide a link woop woop lets look at it then £24 million estimated final cost of payments to BBC staff to compensate them for relocating to Salford nope, that still dosent say that the BBC HAVE paid £24 m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Oh dear oh dear. I suspect even Willie Rennie would now be looking at this and blushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.