God Hates Fags

[eefanincan]

I meant that the news is so full of real hurt and real injury, which ALSO leads to injury to feeling, that giving millions in damages for "just" injury to feelings is a sick joke.

I don't follow your logic. You keep saying "real hurt and real injury".... why is it that injury to feeling has to come after physical injury, or is any less important? "Just" injury to feelings really minimizes any emotional trauma that those individuals went through. It can be far more scarring than any physical injury and I fail to see why a monetary award for it is any less valid than an award for physical injuries. I can't agree with your statement of calling it a "sick joke."

[nekokate]

I agree - mental trauma is much worse than physical. I was bullied all through school and I would have given anything for them to just punch me everyday instead.

[Mandy]

30% to 50% probably goes to lawyers if they were hired on a contingency basis, else if on a straight fee basis then probaly $100,000 - $1M would go to lawyers.

30% to 50%? Most lawyers in these cases take 60% to 80% depending on if they were paid before. That's why you even see the ads on TV "no fee unless you win". A lot of lawyers on these big cases will take a retainer fee (and not a large one) and then not be paid until after the case. So if you win, they take more than 50%.

Skylace, do you have any references or cases to substantiate 60-80%

My contention is supported by https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-articl ... ngements-i

which says contingency fees are typically one third.

[Mandy]

I meant that the news is so full of real hurt and real injury, which ALSO leads to injury to feeling, that giving millions in damages for "just" injury to feelings is a sick joke.

I don't follow your logic. You keep saying "real hurt and real injury".... why is it that injury to feeling has to come after physical injury, or is any less important? "Just" injury to feelings really minimizes any emotional trauma that those individuals went through. It can be far more scarring than any physical injury and I fail to see why a monetary award for it is any less valid than an award for physical injuries. I can't agree with your statement of calling it a "sick joke."

If the damages of $10m is justified for the person who sued, then damages of $100M+ is justified for people who had BOTH physical and mental injury. The British soldiers only got £100,000 (less lawyer's fees) each on average .. that is RACISM.

That is why this damages amount is a JOKE .. it is an insult to everyone who is a minority (or a non-US citizen) who interacts with the US justice system

[nekokate]

If the damages of $10m is justified for the person who sued, then damages of $100M+ is justified for people who had BOTH physical and mental injury. The British soldiers only got £100,000 (less lawyer's fees) each on average .. that is RACISM.

Calm down, I don't think "Soldier" is a race yet.

"Is it 'cos I is Soldierish?"

[Skylace]

30% to 50% probably goes to lawyers if they were hired on a contingency basis, else if on a straight fee basis then probaly $100,000 - $1M would go to lawyers.

30% to 50%? Most lawyers in these cases take 60% to 80% depending on if they were paid before. That's why you even see the ads on TV "no fee unless you win". A lot of lawyers on these big cases will take a retainer fee (and not a large one) and then not be paid until after the case. So if you win, they take more than 50%.

Skylace, do you have any references or cases to substantiate 60-80%

My contention is supported by https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-articl ... ngements-i

which says contingency fees are typically one third.

Not cases that would be online but my father worked closely with lawyers and I know quite a few. They take a big chunk of the money. That is why you hear about a lot of people walking out of cases with not much because of legal fees.

[eefanincan]

Calm down, I don't think "Soldier" is a race yet.

A good point, kate!

[faceless]

[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 898972.stm[/web]

Good stuff - the more nutters who are refused platforms the better.

[SpursFan1902]

Too bad they can't be banned from comming back. But, in fairness, they have the right to believe what they want and I have the right not to agree and not to listen. They are offensive to be sure and I think that they are quite possibly insane, but I don't have to agree with them, I just have to have a remote to change the channel or a window to close so that I don't hear them. If they start hurting people, then they should be killed...oh,..urm, I mean stopped.

[Skylace]

Too bad they can't be banned from comming back. But, in fairness, they have the right to believe what they want and I have the right not to agree and not to listen. They are offensive to be sure and I think that they are quite possibly insane, but I don't have to agree with them, I just have to have a remote to change the channel or a window to close so that I don't hear them. If they start hurting people, then they should be killed...oh,..urm, I mean stopped.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[faceless]

What if they're standing outside your house waving their banners and hurling abuse at your family whenever they go outside?

[Skylace]

That's harassment and something totally different then being able to change a channel.

[faceless]

But that's exactly the type of thing that these people do. And that's why I'm glad they've been banned.

[Skylace]

I'm glad they have been banned as well.

[SpursFan1902]

Don't get me wrong...I am glad they have been banned as well. If you notice the first line of my post is "Too bad they can't be banned from coming back". I don't wnat them here anymore than you guys want them, but they have the right to their own opinion. As to the question of them abusing my family in my front yard...well, I would be posting from jail after kicking their a$$e$. They can have their own opinion, but in my front yard, their own opinion is what ever I tell them it is!!