the-island-man wrote: » Well what has most of the stuff in this thread to do with joyces.....the company?
Paddy_Fowler wrote: » Ummmm what exactly has that go to do with Joyces??
the-island-man wrote: » Hey did anyone see the Late Late show Friday night? very funny altogether!
the-island-man wrote: » you won't see the likes of Dieter Schwarts investing in property in Ireland, sponsoring local teams and giving money for fundraisers etc!In times of economic gloom we would do well to remember our own and not be buying foreign !
Wompa1 wrote: » Only qualm with the Joyces in Knocknacarra and Headford is that they must of paid the councillors to look the other way when they were rennovating the entrances. They are lethal!
SUN19 wrote: » I actually find that i save money by doing my shopping in Joyces every week, they always have really good value on big powders, toilet paper and wine. There's a really good selection in the athenry store too.
workaccount wrote: » Look....we don't all buy into this politically correct nonsense. I like to know who i'm doing business with. Can you link me to this in the constitution?
dumbyearbook wrote: » lol you look, had you just said you knew it was'nt fair to call someone that on it would have done me this is more than just PC-ness as calling someone that is potentially illegal (even criminal though it only happend once) im not into PC ness at all tbh. You can make up your mind who you do business with thats fine but dont spread rubbish on who you dont decide to do business with. anyway seeing as you asked so nicely google them Article 40.6.1 - is free expression of opinions which is balanced against Article 40.3.2 - protection of good name/vindication of rights where statements are unjust
dumbyearbook wrote: » Definition of slander - publishing a statment that lowers someone in the eyes of right thinking members of society - you cannot say something without proof (which would make it a fair comment) - you cannot call someone a dick on the internet - its slander the basis for the comment was that he treats his staff badly if you prove it you can call him a bad employer not a di ck. You could talk all you like about the prices etc as they are wrong and thats in the public interest. There is of course the argument that right thinking members of society would pass no heed of the statement. Its wrong so dont bother defending it, your denying the man of a right to his good name which is constitutionally protected -you're trying to say you're more correct that the constitution and well..........you're not
workaccount wrote: » Definition of slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another Note the word "falsely". I can't prove to you that he's a d*ck nor do I care to. I have heard it off a few people though so I believe it's true. I'm just glad I know that he's a d*ck so he doesn't get any of my money. I didn't call him a d*ck because of poor pricing, lack of attention to detail or that fact that his store has complaints - one of which landed him in court. I called him a d*ck because he is just "a d*ck". I'm not sure you understand what calling someone a d*ck means.