On 24 Oct, 18:41, pete  wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:16:04 GMT, Mike_B 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In message ,
> >Tommo  writes
> >>On 24 Oct, 11:12, Mike_B  wrote:
> >>> In message ,
> >>> "mart2...@hotmail.com"  writes
>
> >>> >Its nice to see the councils winning occasionally. Yes, brightened my
> >>> >day up considerably.
>
> >>> Does it brighten your day because you believed that Pete's argument was
> >>> wrong in law and needed to be defeated, or just because it was Pete who
> >>> was defeated?
>
> >>> --
> >>> Mike_B
>
> >>I think you probably didn't need to ask that question....
>
> >I was asking to find out, because I know that some people would be happy
> >to see Pete lose regardless of the legal merits of the case.  Pete has
> >put arguments forward here in support of his case which seemed to show
> >he had a case, but the DJ clearly didn't agree as this outcome was far
> >more onerous than simply losing a normal case in the small claims track.
> >It would be interesting to know the DJ's reasoning wouldn't it?
>
> Maybe the Judge thought it wise to discourage me as it is known I will
> be going back to court over more gates that are not accessable by
> folks using wheelchairs. I am already in the process of writing a
> second claim over another gate seen here;http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/406555847_488c8f1f20_b.jpg
> Both this gate and the first one I went to court over are on Public
> Rights of Way and neither gate is one of those I have opened by force.
> petehttp://www.ipswichdocks.blogspot.com/http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich

Will that claim cost you another £1000 when you lose?

How much will you have to pay in costs before you are dissuaded from
trying this again?

And it was hardly more than a year ago when you were getting on so
well with the council!

http://tinyurl.com/2cszjq

--
 x   If you had been, why did you change?
/|\