|
Post by on Apr 28, 2024 12:06:27 GMT
There is that.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 28, 2024 12:50:34 GMT
In fairness, it's easy enough to put Dunkley and his worthless input on the ignore list. Although I'm sure nobody bothers reading anything he posts anyway, it tidies up the forum no end. poor Tony thinks the threads he started are for his sole use, no disagreement or dissent or posting alternative topics within the thread. It's been custom and practice since the start, threads wander, members discuss and post whatever they see fit, be it farts or puddings. If someone would like an administered monitored and controlled forum they can go and start their own. Not so ! What I've in fact objected to and said is repeated below. If you don't understand it, . . get someone a little less stupid than you are to explain it to you, . . and if you don't like or don't agree with what I say, then either express your disagreement or ignore what I've said, . . but DON'T try to deliberately bury my content under a lot of off-subject nonsense :- If the very small number of offending forum members who are routinely committing either or both of the offences highlighted above wish to avoid prosecution under the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they must refrain from adding to their existing Police file record (saved screenshots) of past offences, and cease committing any further offences of the same nature. I have no objection, and nor will any Police or other action be taken against these offending forum members, if in future they cease the wilful targeted trollng of posts I make and/or topics/threads I have initiated, and confine their off-subject nuisance posting and trolling content to their own self-originated selection of pointless claptrap laden topics/threads from which they obviously gain so much mindless pleasure and infantile satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 28, 2024 13:25:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 28, 2024 13:46:17 GMT
No, . . it isn't, . . and neither is there any specific "government legislation" in relation to T&C's for C&RT to "usurp". Twat. Crt are trying to usurp the 1995 waterways act with their terms and conditions. You really should read what’s written Tony, oh and get out more. Crt2 Tony dunkley 0 Your remarkable talent for posting nothing but made up malicious untruths or uninformed nonsensical claptrap knows no bounds. The C&RT is NOT currently relying on any clause, section or part of the BW Act of 1995 on which to ground any of its ultra vires T&C's, . . and NEVER has done so at any point during its entire wretched existence. The clauses upon which the C&RT are (wrongfully) relying, and always have (wrongfully) relied, as grounds for ALL of its ultra vires T&C's, are to be found within the text of the Transport Act of 1962. Were you not quite such a thoroughgoing arsehole, . . I'd tell you which sections of the 1962 Act to look at. Not that you're bright enough to follow or understand a word of it !
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 28, 2024 15:51:26 GMT
|
|