|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 1, 2017 6:58:53 GMT
It was embarrassing watching that video clip. I'm not sure what it was supposed to prove.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 1, 2017 8:13:25 GMT
It was embarrassing watching that video clip. I'm not sure what it was supposed to prove. Embarrassing for all parties, yes. However from Leighβs point of view, it was to establish that the way Mr Garner painted the scenario in his witness statement was false to fact. If his account on oath is demonstrably wrong, then nothing else he says can be taken as true β as, for example, when he denies giving the impression later, to Ms Thomas and Leigh that after 6 weeks the boat could be disposed of. This, combined with the other outright lie he was caught out in respecting the content of a Shoosmiths email he had been shown, is going to be even more important at the Appeal hearing in December over the Injunction costs issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 8:56:12 GMT
It PROVES how arrogant garner is and can be when trying to speak to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 12:25:46 GMT
It PROVES how arrogant garner is and can be when trying to speak to him. No, arrogance can be worked with, being a prick is the end of the line, and he is definitely a prick.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 1, 2017 13:10:06 GMT
It PROVES how arrogant garner is and can be when trying to speak to him. No, arrogance can be worked with, being a prick is the end of the line, and he is definitely a prick. My first idea was to feed him to the pigs, but after a short while of thinking about that I decided against it, because I like pigs, and wouldn't want to feed them with something as bad. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 1, 2017 13:53:33 GMT
Sometimes it's fortunate that the Wheels of Justice turn slowly. That gives those who deliberately lie on oath much opportunity to contemplate what it's really like in the showers in prison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 15:38:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jun 1, 2017 18:42:13 GMT
Leigh doesn't seem to have many fans. But I try not to judge. A (almost) perfectly law abiding calm friend of mine was owed a tenner he just couldn't get back. In the end, in the pub, he agreed to take a broken moped and wheeled it home. When he got to a slight hill he parked his arse on it and free wheeled. He was nicked: drunk driving, driving on pavement, no helmet, insurance, mot, dangerous vehicle, illegal tread depth, deffective brakes. I am not joking. First offence, sent down for 3 months. He then spent a great deal of the rest of his life fighting policemen. Stop the city, peace convoy, beanfield -any excuse. He was a lovely chap with literally hundreds of good friends, but boy did he hate the police.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 1, 2017 18:52:14 GMT
Well spotted Mr magnetman! Being still relatively 'new' to the canals I don't know this case inside out, but I do get the impression that a much cheaper and amicable course of action could have been taken. I don't know why this isn't in the Inland Waterways Association magazine!
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Jun 1, 2017 20:34:51 GMT
Well spotted Mr magnetman! Being still relatively 'new' to the canals I don't know this case inside out, but I do get the impression that a much cheaper and amicable course of action could have been taken. I don't know why this isn't in the Inland Waterways Association magazine! Because they seem to the chief CaRT cheer leader rather than trying to hold them to account. Its off topic but I bet many early IWA members are spinning in their graves now.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jun 2, 2017 4:12:41 GMT
It was a tongue in cheek. Not sure that I shall be renewing our IWA membership next time it's due. I could also write to the IWA and give them 'both barrels' as it were.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 2, 2017 15:38:08 GMT
One thing I found curious during the hearing, was how often and how strongly Mr Stoner emphasised their disagreement with the decision of Chief Master Marsh to let the secondary issues be heard in the High Court, rather than doing as CaRT requested and send them down to County Court level for determination. Not that I do not understand very well why they prefer hearings in the County Courts, but to inveigh against the finding against them on that score seems tactically tactless.
He attempted to portray these issues as being of insignificant import, and unrelated to the main issue over statutory interpretation. Fortunately the Judge, who was very sharp, brought him up on that, pointing out that the issues in Leigh's case progressed naturally from one to the other [i.e he claimed he was outside of the registration scheme area, BUT that even if that was wrong, what they chose to do in response to the situation was disproportionate, and that they further still, used the disproportionate power for improper purposes].
I can't remember now quite what response he made to that . . .
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jun 2, 2017 19:27:16 GMT
The IWA are just CRT cuckolds, a totally irrelevant organisation now.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2017 21:41:55 GMT
He attempted to portray these issues as being of insignificant import, and unrelated to the main issue over statutory interpretation. Fortunately the Judge, who was very sharp, brought him up on that, pointing out that the issues in Leigh's case progressed naturally from one to the other [i.e he claimed he was outside of the registration scheme area, BUT that even if that was wrong, what they chose to do in response to the situation was disproportionate, and that they further still, used the disproportionate power for improper purposes]. Just out of interest, Nigel, and in light of the fact that the page listing the fees for C&RT's new Letting Licences was published within days of Leigh's claim being argued in Court, did Stoner's 'issues of insignificant import' include their blurring/burying the distinction between a boat Licence and a Pleasure Boat Certificate ? The reason I ask is that at the bottom of the Fees for Letting Licences page are listed the discounts that are available to be applied to these new Licences, and the discount available for a 'River only' Letting Licence is quoted as 40% - more of the same ledgerdemain that they've been using for some time to try and brainwash everyone into believing that a PBC is in reality a Licence which is subject to a 40% discount !!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 2, 2017 22:50:24 GMT
Without giving any explanation, he continued throughout to refer only to 'licences' when dealing with certificates, while I as consistently kept making the essential difference between them as clear as I could as a matter of important distinction.
I am not so sure that I succeeded.
When I quoted the Environment Agency argument in the Trotman case, Mr Stoner said that no outcome of the case had been published to his knowledge. I had to confirm that the judgment in the EA's favour had indeed been publicised at the time, and that a transcript of judgment had in fact been paid for and was awaiting approval by the judge before release.
Of course, as I was bound to acknowledge, it would have made little difference if we HAD been able to produce that, because the County Court findings could not bind the High Court - but I explained that the point of the reference was not to establish a binding precedent, but to demonstrate that our argument was one shared by the next largest navigation authority in the country.
|
|