swannee wrote:
Skull wrote:
I might not understand the law like Alastair Kinroy QC, but I do understand strategy and tactical manoeuvre.
Now it's our turn to drive home our advantage . . . .

Christ, skull I just fell off the chair reading this!!!
You "understand strategy and tactical manoeuvre"
Is that how you became a divorced, sequestrated failure with poor health, loathed by the majority of those who know you (and many who don't).
You just couldn't make it up. How many years now have you claimed victory is just around the corner? How many years now have you claimed that each court battle lost or licence application failed was all part of the master plan and expected. And now you can't even raise the cash to get legal advice and anyone looking at your "defence" just laughs you out of the office. How many more times before you waken up and face the fact that you're wrong? Come on Garry you got to be in it to win it and you ain't even in the warm up!!
You sure have to laugh at the ignorants of an idiot
You write all of this garbage and you haven't aclue about the real issues in the case or where its going.
Now let me tell you this.
We're extremely relaxed about where this is going. Why do think this is?
But ask yourself, how bright is it to expend shedloads of cash to try to beat down two opponents when you ain't going to get your money back, and you're gonna drag every aspect of how the business conducts its affairs in public?
All while those who are paying for it, although not specifically asked to, can't find out what its costing?
The real situ here is that the heart is ruling the head. Emotion has clouded judgement. And this is what usually happens in cases like this. Usually however, the pursuer has something to gain. Something beyond mere re-election to office.
But then, the pursuer isn't up for re-election is it?
Think about this.