baldrick bunt has been able to tell everyone the exact laws they have
broken, and for which they are likely to receive 7yr prison sentences, but
strangely has been quite unable to outline what the specific offences
actually are, or the crime numbers obtained when these most serious matters
were reported to police....................

Got to say though that with this sort of attention to the finer details of
presenting his case, its almost certain that baldrick is going to win, and
after serving 7 years in chokey, defendants are still going to have to pay
him £100K each, in respect of the limp dick he has been troubled with from
the early part of last year...................

"Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44b0c0a8 [at] 212.67.96.135...
> baldrick bunt has been able to tell everyone the exact laws they have
> broken, and for which they are likely to receive 7yr prison sentences, but
> strangely has been quite unable to outline what the specific offences
> actually are, or the crime numbers obtained when these most serious
matters
> were reported to police....................
>
> Got to say though that with this sort of attention to the finer details of
> presenting his case, its almost certain that baldrick is going to win, and
> after serving 7 years in chokey, defendants are still going to have to
pay
> him £100K each, in respect of the limp dick he has been troubled with from
> the early part of last year...................
>
>

and I wonder if when you come out, you repeat the following little story
yourself:

A chap finished his 2 year sentence in HMP Camp Hill in July 1978 and went
outside.

A couple of months later I saw walking across the main courtyard coming
towards me,

"What the hell are you doing in here again?" I asked

'2 and a half years'

"Why?"

'I went back home and hit the bloke who put me away last time'

I have pondered the logic of that on many occasions :-(((

Mike


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:dumdnTVheb_TWC3ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d [at] bt.com...
>
>
> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:44b0c0a8 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>> baldrick bunt has been able to tell everyone the exact laws they have
>> broken, and for which they are likely to receive 7yr prison sentences,
>> but
>> strangely has been quite unable to outline what the specific offences
>> actually are, or the crime numbers obtained when these most serious
> matters
>> were reported to police....................
>>
>> Got to say though that with this sort of attention to the finer details
>> of
>> presenting his case, its almost certain that baldrick is going to win,
>> and
>> after serving 7 years in chokey, defendants are still going to have to
> pay
>> him £100K each, in respect of the limp dick he has been troubled with
>> from
>> the early part of last year...................
>>
>>
>
> and I wonder if when you come out, you repeat the following little story
> yourself:
>
> A chap finished his 2 year sentence in HMP Camp Hill in July 1978 and went
> outside.
>
> A couple of months later I saw walking across the main courtyard coming
> towards me,
>
> "What the hell are you doing in here again?" I asked
>
> '2 and a half years'
>
> "Why?"
>
> 'I went back home and hit the bloke who put me away last time'
>
> I have pondered the logic of that on many occasions :-(((
>
> Mike
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk
> International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007


In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants are
banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick bunt is
strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via telephone
conferencing..................

>
>
> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants are
> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick bunt
is
> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
telephone
> conferencing..................
>

So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you may
hit him when you see him?

That looks like a threat of GBH to me.

Mike

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
> >
>>
>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants are
>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick bunt
> is
>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
> telephone
>> conferencing..................
>>
>
> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you may
> hit him when you see him?
>
> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>
> Mike


I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of course
have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in court on
the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
hearing..................

"Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>
> "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
> news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>> >
>>>
>>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants are
>>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>>> bunt
>> is
>>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>> telephone
>>> conferencing..................
>>>
>>
>> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you may
>> hit him when you see him?
>>
>> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
> course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
> court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
> hearing..................

Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.

"Pod" <temPorarily0utoforDer [at] coldmail.moc> wrote in message
news:44b10aa3$0$22101$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>>
>> "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>>> >
>>>>
>>>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>>>> are
>>>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>>>> bunt
>>> is
>>>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>>> telephone
>>>> conferencing..................
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>>> may
>>> hit him when you see him?
>>>
>>> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>> course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
>> court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>> hearing..................
>
> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.


Of course there is the inconvenience...........but I think the central
reason for objections, is that its very easy to again tell lies, if
defendants are not there.

Pod wrote:
> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
> >
> > "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
> > news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
> >> >
> >>>
> >>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants are
> >>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
> >>> bunt
> >> is
> >>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
> >> telephone
> >>> conferencing..................
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you may
> >> hit him when you see him?
> >>
> >> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> >
> > I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
> > course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
> > court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
> > hearing..................
>
> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.

who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....

.... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...

"Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152457357.633198.299820 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pod wrote:
>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>> >
>> > "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>> > news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>> >> >
>> >>>
>> >>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>> >>> are
>> >>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>> >>> bunt
>> >> is
>> >>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>> >> telephone
>> >>> conferencing..................
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>> >> may
>> >> hit him when you see him?
>> >>
>> >> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>> > course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
>> > court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>> > hearing..................
>>
>> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
>> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
>> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.
>
> who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
>
> ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...


If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has been
refused?

Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be very
comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
lies.....................

> >
> > who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
> >
> > ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...
>
>
> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has
been
> refused?
>
> Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be very
> comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
> lies.....................
>
>
>

Oh hell another pair of underpants for the laundry ;-(((

Mike
The truth will prevail :-))


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1152457357.633198.299820 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Pod wrote:
>>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>>>> "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>> news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>>>>>> bunt
>>>>> is
>>>>>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>>>>> telephone
>>>>>> conferencing..................
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>>>>> may
>>>>> hit him when you see him?
>>>>>
>>>>> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>>>> course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
>>>> court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>>>> hearing..................
>>> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
>>> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
>>> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.
>> who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
>>
>> ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...
>
>
> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has been
> refused?
>
> Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be very
> comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
> lies.....................
>
>
>
I think you are a little confused...it is you we all beleive to be a
liar and a fraud....

> >
> > Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be very
> > comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
> > lies.....................
> >
> >
> >
> I think you are a little confused...it is you we all beleive to be a
> liar and a fraud....

Certainly a liar. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the
eyes!! (or should that be .... lol....?)

Mike
The truth will prevail


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has been
> refused?

news to me, perhaps the beak didn't feel like allowing you lot any more
latitude to take the piss out of the system

"kj" <kevinjay [at] supernet.com> wrote in message
news:sOCdnT8ocdo_uSzZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d [at] bt.com...
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1152457357.633198.299820 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Pod wrote:
>>>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>>>>> "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>>>>> news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>>>>>>> bunt
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>>>>>> telephone
>>>>>>> conferencing..................
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> hit him when you see him?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>>>>> course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not
>>>>> in
>>>>> court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>>>>> hearing..................
>>>> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
>>>> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
>>>> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.
>>> who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
>>>
>>> ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...
>>
>>
>> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has
>> been refused?
>>
>> Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be very
>> comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
>> lies.....................
>>
>>
>>
> I think you are a little confused...it is you we all beleive to be a liar
> and a fraud....


I dont tell lies, and have certainly never been involved with
fruad.................

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:k6mdnbqlh8n5uCzZRVnyuA [at] bt.com...
>> >
>> > Everyone on here well knows you are a liar and a fruad, so would be
>> > very
>> > comfortable with a hearing, with no there to challenge your
>> > lies.....................
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> I think you are a little confused...it is you we all beleive to be a
>> liar and a fraud....
>
> Certainly a liar. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the
> eyes!! (or should that be .... lol....?)
>
> Mike
> The truth will prevail
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk
>


Bit like you when you were forced to offer a grovelling public apology over
a hate campaign, designed to divert attention from a fellow mason who had
been up to no good, and avoided any penalty.

>
>
> I dont tell lies,

>
and "Richard" the poor little boy of very rich parents?

and then there was "gaspode" the cripple confined to his house or two weeks.

Anyone remember these?

Mike


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

>
>
> Bit like you when you were forced to offer a grovelling public apology
over
> a hate campaign, designed to divert attention from a fellow mason who had
> been up to no good, and avoided any penalty.
>
>

Oh dear :-((

Clutching at straws again are we?

Every time you bring this 'twisted accusation' up, it shows just how
desperate you are, and that you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel
for 'some sort' of comeback :-((((

Mike
The truth will prevail ;-))

--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:XIidncgLwLscsyzZRVnysw [at] bt.com...
> >
>>
>> Bit like you when you were forced to offer a grovelling public apology
> over
>> a hate campaign, designed to divert attention from a fellow mason who had
>> been up to no good, and avoided any penalty.
>>
>>
>
> Oh dear :-((
>
> Clutching at straws again are we?
>
> Every time you bring this 'twisted accusation' up, it shows just how
> desperate you are, and that you are really scraping the bottom of the
> barrel
> for 'some sort' of comeback :-((((
>
> Mike
> The truth will prevail ;-))
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk
>

If you like I can post a link to full details of the court case involving
your noncing friend.............seems to be pretty clear factual stuff to
me!

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:u5CdneGL9f6YsCzZnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d [at] bt.com...
> >
>>
>> I dont tell lies,
>
>>
> and "Richard" the poor little boy of very rich parents?
>
> and then there was "gaspode" the cripple confined to his house or two
> weeks.
>
> Anyone remember these?
>
> Mike
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk


Anyone remember the idiotic prick from the IOW, who claims to be a mason,
and who supposedly was going to look into gaspodes ridiculous
allegations.....................

"Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152461535.186539.5560 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has
>> been
>> refused?
>
> news to me, perhaps the beak didn't feel like allowing you lot any more
> latitude to take the piss out of the system

What like that afforded to an Exeter fruadster and lowlife, who is unable to
submit a coherent SOC, or allow his teen girlfriend to give evidence
supporting his stupid claims of impotence....................

>
> If you like I can post a link to full details of the court case involving
> your noncing friend.............seems to be pretty clear factual stuff to
> me!
>
>

Just one small teeny weeny correction sunshine :-))

I don't have any 'noncing friends'. So who might you be talking about?

:-))

Over to you to put your foot in it again :-))

I suggest that you are very careful what you post, because I am about to
show you up, ....... AGAIN :-))

Mike
The truth will prevail

Watch this one folks. You will LOVE it :-)))

Go on Chris. Over to you :-))))))
--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

>
> Anyone remember the idiotic prick from the IOW, who claims to be a mason,
> and who supposedly was going to look into gaspodes ridiculous
> allegations.....................
>
>

OH!!!!!

He's found another straw :-))

Mike
The truth will prevail :-))


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:H5GdncSq1vijzSzZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d [at] bt.com...
> >
>> Anyone remember the idiotic prick from the IOW, who claims to be a mason,
>> and who supposedly was going to look into gaspodes ridiculous
>> allegations.....................
>>
>>
>
> OH!!!!!
>
> He's found another straw :-))
>
> Mike
> The truth will prevail :-))
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk


Cant you remember who the blundering buffoon who was going to look into
these allegations actually was then?

If I remember rightly, he made himself look extremely
foolish..........................

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:su2dnXTGkaNh0izZRVnyhw [at] bt.com...
> >
>> If you like I can post a link to full details of the court case involving
>> your noncing friend.............seems to be pretty clear factual stuff
>> to
>> me!
>>
>>
>
> Just one small teeny weeny correction sunshine :-))
>
> I don't have any 'noncing friends'. So who might you be talking about?
>
> :-))
>
> Over to you to put your foot in it again :-))
>
> I suggest that you are very careful what you post, because I am about to
> show you up, ....... AGAIN :-))
>
> Mike
> The truth will prevail
>
> Watch this one folks. You will LOVE it :-)))
>
> Go on Chris. Over to you :-))))))
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk


If thats the case then perhaps you can explain why you orchestrated a long
running hate campaign to divert attention from this non-friend, and were
forced to proffer a grovelling public apology when the allegations you had
made looked like they would be investigated by police?

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:H5GdncSq1vijzSzZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d [at] bt.com...
> >
> > Anyone remember the idiotic prick from the IOW, who claims to be a
mason,
> > and who supposedly was going to look into gaspodes ridiculous
> > allegations.....................
> >
> >
>
> OH!!!!!
>
> He's found another straw :-))

Dunno. Looks more like a thorn.
Careful it don't turn septic.

Did your Daddy read 'Sunny Stories' to you as a child?

Did you take verything as 'true'?

Did you 'assume' that all the stories were true and even any 'suggestion'
was "FACT"?

:-))

Putting your size 12 boots in up to your neck sunshine :-))

Keep going :-))

I have more to come yet :-))

Mike


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk

"Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
news:tpCdnZiZ0qigySzZRVnyiA [at] bt.com...
> Did your Daddy read 'Sunny Stories' to you as a child?
>
> Did you take verything as 'true'?
>
> Did you 'assume' that all the stories were true and even any 'suggestion'
> was "FACT"?
>
> :-))
>
> Putting your size 12 boots in up to your neck sunshine :-))
>
> Keep going :-))
>
> I have more to come yet :-))
>
> Mike
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rnshipmates.co.uk
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1240407,00.html

"Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152457357.633198.299820 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pod wrote:
>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>> >
>> > "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>> > news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>> >> >
>> >>>
>> >>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>> >>> are
>> >>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>> >>> bunt
>> >> is
>> >>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>> >> telephone
>> >>> conferencing..................
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>> >> may
>> >> hit him when you see him?
>> >>
>> >> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>> > course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not in
>> > court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>> > hearing..................
>>
>> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
>> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
>> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.
>
> who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
>
> ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...
>
A direct denial would go a long way.....but then you never deny anything do
you, or give clear and concise answers to simple questions.

" Grant" <Grant [at] Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:mLidncYVSfL0EyzZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] pipex.net...
>
> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1152457357.633198.299820 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Pod wrote:
>>> "Guy Fawkes" <davenull [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:44b0cbe3 [at] 212.67.96.135...
>>> >
>>> > "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> wrote in message
>>> > news:QrudnWwbHqInVy3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d [at] bt.com...
>>> >> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In this case there may possibly be fisticuffs even before defendants
>>> >>> are
>>> >>> banged up! For this reason I find it extremely strange that baldrick
>>> >>> bunt
>>> >> is
>>> >>> strongly opposing an application for the CMC to be dealt with via
>>> >> telephone
>>> >>> conferencing..................
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> So you feel that for his safety he should telephone conference or you
>>> >> may
>>> >> hit him when you see him?
>>> >>
>>> >> That looks like a threat of GBH to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> Mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I just feel curious as to why he is opposing this application! May of
>>> > course have something to do with the fact that if defendants are not
>>> > in
>>> > court on the 27th he can tell lies, as he did during an earlier
>>> > hearing..................
>>>
>>> Possibly because part of the process is his satisfaction regarding the
>>> inconvenience to you, telephone conferencing would negate this
>>> inconvenience. I can think of no other reason he would object.
>>
>> who says I object? oh yes, that oracle of veracity, chris stevens.....
>>
>> ... and you still believe a word he says, amazing...
>>
> A direct denial would go a long way.....but then you never deny anything
> do you, or give clear and concise answers to simple questions.


If anyone believes a single thing contended by an inveterate liar and
fruadster, who is quite unable to properly answer a single question
regarding his lunatic submissions to the court, then I feel they may well be
as nutty as he is himself......................

Where can I watch this case? I want to see Crowe banged up.

The O n e wrote:
> Where can I watch this case? I want to see Crowe banged up.
>
>
you will have to gain access to the inside of Kens head

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>
> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has been
> refused?

Oh for goodness sake, get some legal advice.

First, if the other party *has* objected, then that will be a matter of
record and the court would copy you their correspondence in the normal
course of things (and have it on record if not -- you can call them to
see if there has been an objection).

Second, its quite common for a court to refuse a telephone CMC if they
think that matters are too complicated or contentious to deal with by
telephone. Its one thing to agree detailed directions by telephone and
quite another to deal with (for example) an application to strike out
(if there has been one - if not, I can't see why not but that's another
matter). The court does not just do what it is told by the parties,
even if they agree.

Francis..................

<fjmd1a [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152637773.933556.81440 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If you have not objected then I wonder why on earth the application has
>> been
>> refused?
>
> Oh for goodness sake, get some legal advice.
>
> First, if the other party *has* objected, then that will be a matter of
> record and the court would copy you their correspondence in the normal
> course of things (and have it on record if not -- you can call them to
> see if there has been an objection).
>
> Second, its quite common for a court to refuse a telephone CMC if they
> think that matters are too complicated or contentious to deal with by
> telephone. Its one thing to agree detailed directions by telephone and
> quite another to deal with (for example) an application to strike out
> (if there has been one - if not, I can't see why not but that's another
> matter). The court does not just do what it is told by the parties,
> even if they agree.
>
> Francis..................

In this case the court dealing with the matter (Exeter), has lost or mislaid
case papers pivotal to properly dealing with matters at CMC listed for 27th
July.

Further to this the claimant has submitted numerous documents to the court,
but not provided these to defendants (although as he seems to be almost
totally clueless about the law, this was probably done in error rather than
as a deliberate abuse of process).