Croatian man killed in Ireland "for speaking Croatian"

[rothaer]

Women have more to fear from you than me.

You are less gifted than I thought.

I didn't state that a woman would have to fear you.

I pointed out the fact that some women are attracted to unkind, nasty and aggressive men. For that you are an example.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The above example of Kess' 'debating skills.' Just Google to find what supports you. It doesn't matter the source.

Source? A freelance writer on Ascent (never heard of it) named Lyle Daley.

That's deep research you did. Have you ever read anything from this guy before? What are his sources?

[Kess]

I think it's high time you stop hanging off my balls. Everyone is noticing your bitterness.

I'm going to write it in caps because that's the only way you understand.

YOU REPLIED TO ME FIRST. YOU SHOULD STOP PROJECTING AND HANGING OFF MY BALLS.

This is exactly where you replied to me first:

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm going to write it in caps because that's the only way you understand.

YOU REPLIED TO ME FIRST. YOU SHOULD STOP PROJECTING AND HANGING OFF MY BALLS.

This is exactly where you replied to me first:

You write om all caps because you're insane. I broke you.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You are less gifted than I thought.

I didn't state that a woman would have to fear you.

I pointed out the fact that some women are attracted to unkind, nasty and aggressive men. For that you are an example.

You implied it. Let's add that you're dishonest as well as autistic. You mention arm breaking, remember?

[Kess]

The above example of Kess' 'debating skills.' Just Google to find what supports you. It doesn't matter the source.

Source? A freelance writer on Ascent (never heard of it) named Lyle Daley.

That's deep research you did. Have you ever read anything from this guy before? What are his sources?

Clownel's low IQ and poor English reading comprehension are on full display in this post.

Immediately starts with ad hominem and doesn't understand the guy's source, which is Bank of America Private Bank's survey.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Clownel's low IQ and poor English reading comprehension are on full display in this post.

Tell me again how I'm a grifter to you (but not if you look at the actual definition).

Immediately starts with ad hominem and doesn't understand the guy's source, which is Bank of America Private Bank's survey.

A big day for Kess. Unlike you I acknowledge when I make an error. I'm sure you were looking for that specific survey, and happened to come across this nobody.

[Petalpusher]

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/pers...lly-self-made/



The thing is, did the research you posted rule out those who had a head start?*This is different than inheritance.

Dude, by the way, if you have a house in SF or LA, you are basically a millionaire. That's why I put emphasis on multimillionaires.

We would have to define what is really a headstart. If you just come from a good family middle or even upper class with no inheritance (which is usually when you parents die) that won't really help you directly before you are old, just maybe a better environement to start off but that doesn't print money. Between 20 to 40y, most didn't have time to become millionaire yet, so those who did was from inheritance. It's rare that you manage that say at 30y (much better to achieve that at 30 than 60 however). 2/3 of current millionaires are between 55 and 75.

The younger cohort of the wealthy
represented here, aged 21 to 42, is primarily
legacy wealth. Due to their youth, this age cohort
hasn’t yet accomplished self-made wealth in
large numbers.

It's not that easy to multiply money even if you get some inheritance, usually it just vanishes quickly if you don't have a stream of revenue or a solid financial understanding how to invest.

1-3 Millions is not much here either on the whole riviera coast. Even on the French side like Cannes basically everybody with a basic house and a pool is at least a millionaire technically but not as often beyond property assets. i can get for 2M$...maybe the pool house of a nice villa on the hills. Very tiny and uncomfortable.

[rothaer]

You are without a doubt the most autistic poster on this forum.

OMG!

[Kess]

Yes, nameless witness is direct evidence...

The reason why Clownel was never able to get a law-related degree is on full display.

Now it's my turn to educate this clown. Thanks to this forum, I have become a teacher for people with learning and researching disabilities.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...44/section/116

A nameless victim's testimony can be admitted as evidence according to UK's laws.

Cases where a witness is unavailable
(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
(a)oral evidence given in the proceedings by the person who made the statement would be admissible as evidence of that matter,
(b)the person who made the statement (the relevant person) is identified to the court’s satisfaction, and
(c)any of the five conditions mentioned in subsection (2) is satisfied.
(2)The conditions are—
(a)that the relevant person is dead;
(b)that the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition;
(c)that the relevant person is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance;
(d)that the relevant person cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take to find him have been taken;
(e)that through fear the relevant person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2)(e) “fear” is to be widely construed and (for example) includes fear of the death or injury of another person or of financial loss.
(4)Leave may be given under subsection (2)(e) only if the court considers that the statement ought to be admitted in the interests of justice, having regard—
(a)to the statement’s contents,
(b)to any risk that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings (and in particular to how difficult it will be to challenge the statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence),
(c)in appropriate cases, to the fact that a direction under section 19 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (special measures for the giving of evidence by fearful witnesses etc) could be made in relation to the relevant person, and
(d)to any other relevant circumstances.
(5)A condition set out in any paragraph of subsection (2) which is in fact satisfied is to be treated as not satisfied if it is shown that the circumstances described in that paragraph are caused—
(a)by the person in support of whose case it is sought to give the statement in evidence, or
(b)by a person acting on his behalf,in order to prevent the relevant person giving oral evidence in the proceedings (whether at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement).