Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:19 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

er... forgive me leaguedweeb, but where has the statutory demand come into things at this point? If I understand correctly, this should be litigation for breach of contract, for which damages would be awarded if the judge finds for OK, which if not paid and only then could result in enforcement of those damages. The way you put it, seems like the cart before the horses.

But don't ask me to provide the evidence of which way the horses are facing.

The stat demand was something Whitcut claimed had been issued as far back as 6 months ago. Even if the debt had been disputed, it wouldn't be taking this long for the case to go before a court.

You must remember that this legal case exists only in FA's head.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:11 am  

TBH I find this hounding of leaguedweeb to be pretty damn distasteful all told. The siege mentality does us absolutely no favours whatsoever. Why is it that whenever somebody has a view, or an opinion, that is against the club then people try to stop that view from being heard? From what I can see here there is no-evidence being put forward from either side, just argument and counter argument and an inability to answer pertinent questions from BOTH sides.

FFS I am pretty sure that this is a discussion board then why is it that when any (potentially interesting) discussion is in progress that there seems to be a need to ridicule anyone who does not speak in favour of the club?

Too many people on here struggle to see that other people have opinions that, whilst they may not like, does not neccessarily make them false.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:28 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Too many people on here struggle to see that other people have opinions that, whilst they may not like, does not neccessarily make them false.

Liar!

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:57 am  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Liar!

Show me the proof of this.

[Bulliac]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:08 am  

What was the name of the court usher? Who was his solicitor's clerk? What was the name of the chap [no sexism there -heh heh] who came round with the tea trolley? Why were there no eclairs to go with the tea? NO ANSWERS = You are a lying know nothing.

If you do give me all that information, I'll still post again tomorrow and ask for all of it again.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:06 am  

Both ME and LiarDweeb are almost certainly on the wind-up, though. If indeed Dweeb isn't Eddie, as I find it a bit odd that ME doesn't see Dweeb calling me a liar and fantasist every post as in any way against his personal anti- "bullying" policy, whereas me or anybody responding to his tedious invention is weirdly bullying Dweeb! Now ME isn't thick, and so he's obviously just chipping in to be his usual contrary persona. QED.

The thing is, Dweeb - whoever it really is - has gone "Black Knight" now to the extent that he has become a parody of himself. It's more absurd than anything the Python's could have written. Also the suspicion that he isn't a full shilling. Whatever, let's take ME at his word and (unless he comes up with something other than his repeat stock posts) leave the poor lad alone for now. We know he is a liar and a fantasist, and he knows he's been rumbled, so continuing the pantomime exchanges would be a bit pointless.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:17 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

...Why is it that whenever somebody has a view, or an opinion, that is against the club then people try to stop that view from being heard?

If you are being serious, his repeat posts at me are neither pro-nor anti- club, but his bizarre position that he has no knowledge of the litigation by OK against MM and RW, and so thought he could bluff that it didn't exist. And his bluff was comprehensively called. What is it to do with pro- or anti- club? Nothing!

mystic eddie wrote:

..From what I can see here there is no-evidence being put forward from either side, just argument and counter argument and an inability to answer pertinent questions from BOTH sides.

On the issue in question I have gone so far as post the name of the Court and the case number of the legal proceedings so if that to you is "no evidence" then if I am ever up for anything I pray to any gods there may be that you are on the jury

mystic eddie wrote:

.FFS I am pretty sure that this is a discussion board then why is it that when any (potentially interesting) discussion is in progress that there seems to be a need to ridicule anyone who does not speak in favour of the club?

I have ridiculed LiarDweeb for being ridiculous. He has heaped ridicule and derision on his own head. He is a proven liar, yet continues to accuse me of lying, albeit now to an audience of one. The situation is nothing like the one you describe.

mystic eddie wrote:

Too many people on here struggle to see that other people have opinions that, whilst they may not like, does not neccessarily make them false.

I wouldn't care a jot whether OK sued MM or didn't sue MM. It is not an issue for me to "like" or "dislike". I have merely informed the forum of the fact of the litigation, only to be repeatedly trolled by LiarDweeb with his idiotic rearguard - all beacause he took a punt that I had no knowledge and lost. If he had accepted his fate then he wouldn't have taken the stick that he has. It is all self-inflicted, and it is he who, like a floater in the bog, refuses to disappear round the bend however many times he is flushed. As we are in a Latin period, volenti non fit injuria would fit his case pretty well.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:12 pm  

This forum is increasingly like an episode of Jeremy Kyle. Who has the most missing teeth?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:20 pm  

Some people definately have an uncle/dad....

Re: Points deduction upheld : Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:37 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

What was the name of the court usher? Who was his solicitor's clerk? What was the name of the chap [no sexism there -heh heh] who came round with the tea trolley? Why were there no eclairs to go with the tea? NO ANSWERS = You are a lying know nothing.

If you do give me all that information, I'll still post again tomorrow and ask for all of it again.

If only I had asked such searching questions!!
There is no legal case being pursued by Khan against anyone in regard to OK Bulls.