Taxi Driver Online

Colky's a scumbag . . .

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

As an Icthyologist, I agree.

Gosh, I think I need Mr Kinroy to tell me who you are talking about Skull.

Anyway, don't you really mean despicable and contemptible?

The old adage - he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client - will surely be reinforced soon I'm sure.

Enjoy your day today Garry

_________________
Keyboards and Cretins : Facts - not opinions - are the only truths

Damascus Moments - easy excuses for a sociopath

TDO the website of double standards and changing identities

Home early? A good night was it?

He's unusually quiet....has he been jailed?



CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Not quite CC, but what a day, I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

Lord Emslie, praised us for our understanding of the law, as a lay persons, with no formal training in legal matters. He also commented on the eloquence of the submission.

Oh and btw, the interim interdict was granted. The Skull's a bad boy, and that's official.


What does this mean? I hear you say....


You can read all about it from across the pond in the new year

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Oh and btw, I do have respect for Lord Emslie, this guy is the head shi*kicker. I won't breach the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts, but there's nothing to stop me going elsewhere.

I couldn't have pulled the wool over his eyes, even if I'd tried - that's good enough for me.


The rest is window dressing .. . .


See you in the new year . .. .

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Interesting day. Enjoyed it immensely. Learned a lot, particularly with the proof to come, which counsel for the pursuer has assured the Court the intention is to proceed to proof. I can only assume that this statement was made advisedly in view of the anticipated huge costs and the negative net worth of the defendants.

The Interdict was aways a given. They are holding motions to contain a situation pending the parties settling the matter through debate before a jury. Under these circumstances it was always going to be granted.

Now the proof stage will be interesting, because substantially the defence, at this stage, will centre on veritas. This will involve detailed discussion about all aspects of the case, including detailed examination of witnesses, before a jury, to show the reality of statements made by counsel for the defence as he argued the case for the Interdict and substantiate the defence's claims.

Notwithstanding what happens at proof, there is sufficient grounds to suggest that these cases may go all the way to the European Courts, because of the ramifications for free speech.

I realise that case law was cited to obtain the Interdict, and I recognise that Lord Emslie interpreted very old cases apparently in line with the Human Rights legislation, but this was done from the perspective of the order for Interdict, not from the test of all of the evidence.

Cases are interpreted by the Judiciary, but they can be re-interpreted too, particularly where there are concerns that the old interpretation has been superceded by new rights established through Parliaments.

So, onwards and upwards.

I must say that my perception of all of this always was that it was pertinent only to individuals, not the Company. I bear no ill will against the Company and wish it well in pursuit of the real interests of the members. I believe it was caught in the crossfire. I apologise for that.

It has to be said that this is little more than a consequence of the poor way that the council manages the taxi trade as its own fiefdom, how it protects vested interests, how it refuses to give a voice to any other than its chosen few and how it conducts the business and direction of the trade in secret.

Meanwhile, I have withdrawn from posting on fasties. I have held to that. I now intend to withdraw form posting here on this forum.

I've always been open about what I'm saying, because I believed that I had the right to say it. I understood that any target had the same rights and could exercise them in the same way.

I now find that the Law has decided that a Company may be injured verbally by what is said about its employees. I consider this opens the door to a whole can of worms, but for the moment I accept it. As I say, this was never my intention.

In view of this, I am resolved not to post on this forum again.

Rather I intend to concentrate the mind on defending the forthcoming proof, which I understand may be a long, complex affair that will require my fullest attention.

I'm grateful to Lord Emslie for extending the fullest courtesy in these matters, and to Lord Pentland also.

So, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year and bid farewell for now.

And a Happy New Year to you and to Mr Skull.

In view of the fact that you are concentrating on future hearings I think it's best this thread is locked.

And I'm unanimous on that.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk