On 23 Oct, 19:06, williamgr...@hotmail.invalid.com wrote:
> The below  post was sent to uk.legal.moderated, it was rejected as
> This post is abusive or hurtful to others.
>
> Would the person who rejected it please elaborate - they seem quite
> sensible queries to me.  All I did was state facts and ask a question
> which seems very relevant to a legal news group - there is nothing
> made up or abusive to the relevant litigant.
>
> (As an aside  - can anyone please answer the question?)
>
> ======================= as posted to ulm ================
>
> In the other place there is a thread running where:
>
> Someone has initiated a case heard in the small claims which he lost.
> The judge said the case was political and without merit and awarded
> £1K costs.
> He is thinking about appealing this judgment and believes that it will
> just be a "re-run" of what has just happened.
> The complainant has said that he has more cases "just like that one"
> and indeed will be writing a new claim this week.
> He is thinking about appealing this judgment.
>
> In the past he has pulled out of earlier cases he has brought at the
> last minute.
>
> How is someone declared as being vexatious - would actions like the
> above constitute such?

I am not a moderator, but I can offer a guess as to why it might have
been rejected.

Among the official list of "vexatious litigants" is the great, good
and learned Dr Akena Adoko, so it would obviously be most contumelious
and hurtful to him were he to be compared with Peter Turtill.

--
 x   If he had been, did Pete also quote Denning?
/|\