Brendan Bendar wrote: » What’s with this stuff? Poor Nicky takes an action agin RTE I think,gets an award of €3.5k and is hit with a bill of around €100-50k! Time to shine a light on them is it?
Bob Harris wrote: » I hope for Nicky's sake his bill is at the lower end of that range.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Might not have made it clear but it seems to be €100 to €150k Now not knowing how much SF activist make, I would presume the man is in trouble financially. My real point is that who sets fees for these legal dudes who seem to be making shed loads of cash from these issues? Sorry if I was not clear on that.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » they are self employed. they set their own fees. the people who hire them decide if they want to pay those fees.
Chancer3001 wrote: » Never heard of him
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Ehhh......ok , forgive my ignorance but does that mean that ‘justice’ is beyond the reach of those who can’t pay these seemingly very steep stipends? Is ‘justice’ only available to those who can pay. Is there competition in this field ?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you seem surprised by these revelations.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Heh he... you were out in Ballybrack were you? That’s Davy, mate Did he give you any tips on how to ‘set up camp’ in far flung fields. Did he advise you to bring the guitar for the ‘sing-song’ Shure we were hammered,but shure we’ll have an auld sing-song.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Now, the question is who sets up the fees for these lawyers who seem to be making a huge wedge out of all this litigation.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Who decides what they get?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Are we being screwed by this lot.
Hapax Legomenon wrote: » Back in the '90s, Ken Barlow from Coronation Street sued The Sun for alleging that he was boring (seriously, imagine that). He was awarded £50,000 which sounds nice, but because he turned down an out-of-court settlement (of £50,000), he was liable for his own legal costs of £120,000. He then sued his own solicitors for giving him bad advice. He lost that case and ended up declaring bankruptcy. If I was him, I would have avoided bankruptcy by suing the solicitors who advised me to sue my previous solicitors. And if I lost, I'd sue whoever advised me to sue them.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » bit early to be drinking isnt it? thought i suppose it is 5 o'clock somewhere.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » What are you implying there Oh? Let’s keep this discussion civil, if you don’t mind. I particularly don’t want personal stuff to enter this serious issue.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » perhaps stop posting nonsense?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » What nonsense are you referring to Oh?
BattleCorp wrote: » So that's why he is still working even though he is well over 100.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » this
Deleted User wrote: » It's bad here, worse in England. I haven't read Private Eye in a while but they covered some cases where people were sued for stuff published online. If there was any kind of residence in the UK the site or the writer etc. would be sued. Even if the publisher/writer won they would end up on the hook for millions sometimes so they would just retract. It's a shambolic system
Dear Sir, We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply. Yours, (Signed) Goodman Derrick & Co.
Dear Sirs, We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off. Yours, Private Eye
Brendan Bendar wrote: » What’s with this stuff? Poor Nicky takes an action agin RTE I think,gets an award of €3.5k and is hit with a bill of around €100-50k! RTE ditto but assume the taxpayer will cover that? Now Nicky seems to be a SF activist and as I don’t know how much that pays, it would appear the lad is in trouble. Now, the question is who sets up the fees for these lawyers who seem to be making a huge wedge out of all this litigation. Who decides what they get? Are we being screwed by this lot. Time to shine a light on them is it?
Pinn Hedde wrote: » Are we being screwed ? You serious friendo ? These dudes have a giant corkscrew up the backsides of every hard working law abiding citizen. A good question for FOI would be how much of our licence fee revenue have RTE spend on these dudes in the starched shirts and striped breeks ? Would amount to a multiple of Ray Darcy's salary this poster would opine ?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
