XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.conspiracy, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <4414e8b6$0$93771$540ea2cf@novia.net>, Q   
    writes   
      
   >"banana"  wrote in message   
   >news:yFzEZiACAOFEFwlh@borve.demon.co.uk...   
   >> In article <1142207737.499147.142810@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> volcaran  writes   
   >>   
   >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> In article <1142189837.379901.23720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> >> volcaran  writes   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> >> In article <26z1WKABOBFEFwWu@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana   
   >> >> >> HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes   
      
      
      
   >> If making applications in the French legal system which the French   
   >> judiciary have taken time to process is being partly responsible for   
   >> delay, then OK, he has been partly responsible for delay, if that's what   
   >> you mean, but there is nothing reprehensible in that - and he is not   
   >> responsible for the French judiciary playing a 'three wise monkeys'   
   >> game. Ditto with regard to raising evidence with 'Lord' Stevens which   
   >> 'Lord' Stevens has taken time to do whatever he's done with it (whether   
   >> in his rather insecure office in northern England or elsewhere). He is   
   >> hardly 'playing for time' to delay getting sued for negligence - I think   
   >> that's a ridiculous idea, and have done for the past 9 years.   
   >   
   >Why do you think it's a ridiculous idea?   It is consistent with negligence   
   >law as it is practised.   The owner of the car --  and the employer of its   
   >driver --  is always the one who is sued if plaintiffs can show probable   
   >cause.   And there is plenty of probable cause, even if the driver had not   
   >been drunk.   Driving at an excessive speed would be sufficient, IMO.   
   >  What -- in your opinion -- makes this case different from any other? -- Q   
      
   I should start by saying that I don't believe there is the REMOTEST   
   possibility that these hypothetical circumstances existed.   
      
   But for the sake of argument, if the circumstances did exist, then ask   
   a) who would be the potential plaintiffs,   
   b) how much of a leg two out of the three of them would have to stand on   
   c) why on earth the hotel owner would mind being sued by the other one   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)