Gemmill

Add Tia Maria and Baileys to it and it's ok 81965[/snapback] Anyone tried a 'Cheeky Vimto'? It's a measure of Port topped up with a Blue WKD (bet Mark knew that). Supposedly tastes like Vimto 81972[/snapback] Yep, you're supposed to down the bottle in one. 3 of them and you're well away 81994[/snapback] They're bloody lethal. 81996[/snapback] Try a Hulk: half a lager with a bottle of blue wkd in it, all in a pint glass. It's green, hence the name.

a predicted position of 14th will be success in some eyes, which confims what some of us said about Souness lowering expectations. Also, if Shepherd has to stump up much more cash to cover up fuckwits incompetence, we might be in the shite anyway 81846[/snapback] Do you just make stuff up so that you can say "which confirms what I've said all along..." etc. I don't know ANYONE who would consider 14th a success, and I don't believe you do either.

Aye, that was well out of order with Pete yesterday - the bloke is a fucking arsehole. It's just a shame Traci isn't a bit brighter because there's plenty fucking ammunition to rip that freak apart. As others have mentioned, I cannot believe that two blokes sat in the same room and let another bloke talk to her like that. Big brave Preston got up and left because it made him feel uncomfortable - what a fucking fanny.

If boxers (and now darts players) can have 'ring-walk' music why shouldn't the rest of us? 81826[/snapback] I think "I Am What I Am" is mancy's current choice when entering a ring. 81831[/snapback] Debatable when one questions exactly what kind of ring Manc Mag is entering at that moment. 81844[/snapback] Well I was talking about a bloke's arse. What did you have in mind?

If boxers (and now darts players) can have 'ring-walk' music why shouldn't the rest of us? 81826[/snapback] I think "I Am What I Am" is mancy's current choice when entering a ring.

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability). Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself..... ......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over. 81775[/snapback] Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200. 81782[/snapback] Basically mate, just re-iterrate that you were in the outside lane, that you were not speeding and that he didnt indicate (and blatantly couldnt have been keeping a proper lookout if you were already occupying the same space he was apparently so keen on himself). Definitely not a lost cause. Basically at this stage its all talk and seeing how the land lies - his insurer has gone to him and he's said what he's said (perhaps he's waxed it cos he's fucked a works van etc etc-who knows?) but in essence they're gonna at least test the responses they get back. Where it changes though is if/when it gets to court. What you need to stress is, it doesnt matter what the little mackem dickhead is saying now (theres nee recriminations at this stage), ultimately you'd be prepared to put your version down with a signed statement of truth and repeat exactly the same in court-and that youre perfectly aware that to wilfully mis-state anything would be to attempt to pervert the course of justice and you understand that that is an extremely serious offence. He would ultimately have to be able to say the same thing himself-and thats very possibly when he would see his arse. PS hope for Newcastle County Court and not Sunderland County Court. 81801[/snapback] Reet cheers mister. I'm a bit more chilled about it now. I was livid earlier when I first found out cos I thought that was that.

Probably on a bonus scheme which involves not being at fault for accidents. I spoke to his boss the day of the crash (back in October!) and he said it was company policy not to admit liability. Sounds about right - company policy for the mackem Echo to talk shite.

Used me as a body double for the sex scenes tbh. 81783[/snapback] Aye for Benny, the retarded bloke.

If this is gonna take ages can I get my car fixed in the meantime and pay whatever excess is required on that while they carry on trying to sort stuff? Although I suppose I'll have to wait for their engineer to check the damage first. I feel like Milly Molly asking all these questions.

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability). Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself..... ......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over. 81775[/snapback] Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200.

Do you lose all of your no-claims, SLP? Or does they just lop a year off or something? I should have known this would happen when the little scummer got out of his van and immediately tried to blame me for him driving into the side of my car.

Surely the point in this thread is that people can abuse you whilst you go about your business unabused in other threads. If you're gonna keep coming back, reacting, and securing yourself more of the abuse which you claim to want to avoid, then this definitely starts to look even more like an attention-seeking exercise. IMO.

It's either them or Souness. Turnsies eachies.

I had a crash a few month back on the A19. Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car. I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault. Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident. Does anyone know what happens now? The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there. Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance? Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth? How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know. Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it. Just another reason to despise mackems!

Is billiard balls through windows a sign of passion like? Your lass must love that.

Exactly. Renton, you can't say "that's just details" when it could make a nearly £2m difference to what he's claiming revenue would fall by. It's all "just details" in that case.

I think of Craig and Gol as the "go-to" nerds. The others I basically consider to be useless.

One mistake he makes is to assume sell-outs for the 4 "missing" games this year. We didn't sell those games out last season, which makes that a bit of an unrealistic figure.

All of the zombies who got their Owen 10 shirts the day he signed will certainly have helped with merchandising.

Link? 81628[/snapback] Link to what? 81629[/snapback] In bold. I can't remember him even being discussed on here? 81632[/snapback] For once I think Renton is right. It was when his brother was getting done for that axe murder, and not long after Barton had chinned a 14 year old on Man City's pre-season training trip. It was actually a youth player's eye he put the cigarette out on too - sounds like a canny lad tbh.

I saw some midgees the other day too. 81580[/snapback] Scottish Mag and Papa Laz?

PS. Hope it's nowt serious. Feel guilty now.

Fuck the lot of it tbh... 81554[/snapback] What's up with you like? 81557[/snapback] Bad start to the day, plenty on me plate at the moment - it'll pass soon no doubt... 81575[/snapback] Attention-seeking tbh.

I think the casino deal is dead, is it not? I can't imagine Goal would bring in much money if any; it was allowed here chiefly to promote the club but I can't see it doing much good considering the state we're in. There are other outgoings not mentioned too - for instance how much does it cost to put adverts for the game on prime time TV? 81563[/snapback] Not very much if Frank's Factory Flooring can afford it. They're only on locally too.

Are you really Ewan McGregor...or do you just fancy him? 81567[/snapback] He's only into black men tbh. For research purposes only like.