We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the 
above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that 
Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.

However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court jargon, 
what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and the 
case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what was 
Chris Steven's roll in all this?

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court jargon,
> what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and the
> case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what was
> Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.

Christopher Stevens AKA   wrote in message 
news:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court 
> jargon,
> what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and 
> the
> case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what 
> was
> Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>

Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.

.........................................................................................

What part of  "in simple language and no court jargon," do you not 
understand?

Can someone explain to Chris what "in simple language and no court jargon," 
means please? Someone who was there or at least followed it through and can 
write a precis of the matter from start to finish. Also I believe some 
photocopies of some documents have been posted. I would like to see those as 
well please.


-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

"'Mike'" <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote in message 
news:pMSdnWKeoqJL_RfXnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Christopher Stevens AKA   wrote in message 
> news:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>> We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
>> above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
>> Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>>
>> However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court 
>> jargon,
>> what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and 
>> the
>> case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what 
>> was
>> Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>>
>
> Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
> court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
> and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
> would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.
>
> .........................................................................................
>
> What part of  "in simple language and no court jargon," do you not 
> understand?
>
> Can someone explain to Chris what "in simple language and no court 
> jargon," means please? Someone who was there or at least followed it 
> through and can write a precis of the matter from start to finish. Also I 
> believe some photocopies of some documents have been posted. I would like 
> to see those as well please.
>
>
> -- 

Chris, you might like to give a blow by blow account as you saw it.

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

On Aug 18, 9:05 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> Christopher Stevens AKA   wrote in messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
> > We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> > above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> > Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> > However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> > jargon,
> > what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and
> > the
> > case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what
> > was
> > Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
> court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
> and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
> would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.
>
> ...........................................................................­..............
>
> What part of  "in simple language and no court jargon," do you not
> understand?
>
> Can someone explain to Chris what "in simple language and no court jargon> means please? Someone who was there or at least followed it through and can
> write a precis of the matter from start to finish. Also I believe some
> photocopies of some documents have been posted. I would like to see those as
> well please.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

I think that would be something that is likely to be quite impossible,
as you contend that nearly everyone on here other than youself are
liars!

So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................

On Aug 18, 9:08 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pMSdnWKeoqJL_RfXnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Christopher Stevens AKA   wrote in message
> >news:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com..> > On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> >> We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> >> above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> >> Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> >> However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> >> jargon,
> >> what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and
> >> the
> >> case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what
> >> was
> >> Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
> > court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
> > and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
> > would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.
>
> > ...........................................................................­..............
>
> > What part of  "in simple language and no court jargon," do you not
> > understand?
>
> > Can someone explain to Chris what "in simple language and no court
> > jargon," means please? Someone who was there or at least followed it
> > through and can write a precis of the matter from start to finish. Also I
> > believe some photocopies of some documents have been posted. I would like
> > to see those as well please.
>
> > --
>
> Chris, you might like to give a blow by blow account as you saw it.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

You have already demonstrated a curious aversion to anything remotely
associated with telling the truth, so there seems to be little point
in anyone providing details of events which are matters of public
record, as you are certain to suggest any such details provided are
contrary to the information held as a matter of public record.

You will need to contact Weston, Bristol, RCJ, and  Exeter courts
about this matter, and advise them you need the material to help with
a usenet flame war, that you are currently losing
miserably...............

> Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in 
> messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................

.....................................................................

So you are not capable of giving a true and accurate record?

You have in the past spouted about the case, was all that inaccurate?

Even if it was, where is it, can you give me a refference?

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

On Aug 18, 11:57 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
> Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
> is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
> them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................
>
> .....................................................................
>
> So you are not capable of giving a true and accurate record?
>
> You have in the past spouted about the case, was all that inaccurate?
>
> Even if it was, where is it, can you give me a refference?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

All that has in the past been contended about the case on here can be
found in archived posts.......these posts unlike your own relating to
such matters as wrongful accusations of child abuse, and specious
suggestions of masonic links, have not been deleted and can be easily
found by anyone who might care to look for them!

> > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>

All that has in the past been contended about the case on here can be
found in archived posts.......these posts have not been deleted and can be 
easily
found by anyone who might care to look for them!

.........................................................................................

Pointer please.

Pointer or an account from anyone please?

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

On Aug 18, 11:57 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
> Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
> is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
> them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................
>
> .....................................................................
>
> So you are not capable of giving a true and accurate record?
>
> You have in the past spouted about the case, was all that inaccurate?
>
> Even if it was, where is it, can you give me a refference?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

I have told you which courts dealt with the bunt lunacy, and even
though you are now supposedly disabled since your stroke earlier this
year, I cannot see how that prevents you from picking up a
telephone...............

On Aug 18, 1:36 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> All that has in the past been contended about the case on here can be
> found in archived posts.......these posts have not been deleted and can be
> easily
> found by anyone who might care to look for them!
>
> ...........................................................................­..............
>
> Pointer please.
>
> Pointer or an account from anyone please?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

Everyone knows full well you are a little bit dim, but surely you know
how to find and search archived usenet posts?

> > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
> Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
> is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
> them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................
>
> .....................................................................
>
> So you are not capable of giving a true and accurate record?
>
> You have in the past spouted about the case, was all that inaccurate?
>
> Even if it was, where is it, can you give me a refference?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

I have told you which courts dealt with the bunt lunacy, and even
though you are now supposedly disabled since your stroke earlier this
year, I cannot see how that prevents you from picking up a
telephone...............

..........................................................

Getting rattled are you :-)))

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

Thank you so much David for pointing me to the transcript etc. What I 
'REALLY' need is Chris' waffle as to how he beat Bunt into the £40K 
situation. I want 'HIS' version. Any offers anyone on where it is? Chris 
seems to have gone 'shy' on this matter :-))

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
"'Mike'" <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote in message 
news:k-Odncu9HJDMwBfXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com...
> We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the 
> above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that 
> Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court 
> jargon, what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did 
> nothing and the case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the 
> £40K and what was Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> -- 
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> www.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
> www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
>

On 18 Aug, 10:43, Duke  wrote:
> On Aug 18, 9:05 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Christopher Stevens AKA   wrote in messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 18, 8:50 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> > > above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> > > Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> > > However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> > > jargon,
> > > what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and
> > > the
> > > case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what
> > > was
> > > Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > Why not contact Exeter district registry and ask for a copy of the
> > court transcript? From your own posts on here, its clear that fantasy
> > and reality are very easily blurred, and a copy of the transcript
> > would certainly avoid any confusion over this matter.
>
> > ...........................................................................­..............
>
> > What part of  "in simple language and no court jargon," do you not
> > understand?
>
> > Can someone explain to Chris what "in simple language and no court jargon,"
> > means please? Someone who was there or at least followed it through and can
> > write a precis of the matter from start to finish. Also I believe some
> > photocopies of some documents have been posted. I would like to see those as
> > well please.
>
> > --
> > Mike
>
> > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
>
> I think that would be something that is likely to be quite impossible,
> as you contend that nearly everyone on here other than youself are
> liars!
>
> So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
> Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
> is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
> them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................

Chris' role was explained as follows:  Plays No Part.

Pretty succinct really

On 18 Aug, 13:16, Duke  wrote:
> On Aug 18, 11:57 am, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Christopher Stevens AKA  wrote in
> > > messagenews:389afb14-0e6b-4d57-8743-5db2a9f9b80c@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So I would suggest getting hold of copies of transcripts from Weston,
> > Bristol, RCJ, and Exeter courts, and taking them along to someone who
> > is a little higher up the food chain than you seem to be, and asking
> > them to help you to understand the "jargon" therein.................
>
> > .....................................................................
>
> > So you are not capable of giving a true and accurate record?
>
> > You have in the past spouted about the case, was all that inaccurate?
>
> > Even if it was, where is it, can you give me a refference?
>
> > --
> > Mike
>
> > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
>
> All that has in the past been contended about the case on here can be
> found in archived posts.......these posts unlike your own relating to
> such matters as wrongful accusations of child abuse, and specious
> suggestions of masonic links, have not been deleted and can be easily
> found by anyone who might care to look for them!

Odd how you forget you were doing just this only days ago in one case.

On Aug 18, 5:30 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> Thank you so much David for pointing me to the transcript etc. What I
> 'REALLY' need is Chris' waffle as to how he beat Bunt into the £40K
> situation. I want 'HIS' version. Any offers anyone on where it is? Chris
> seems to have gone 'shy' on this matter :-))
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk"'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k-Odncu9HJDMwBfXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> > above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> > Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> > However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> > jargon, what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did
> > nothing and the case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the
> > £40K and what was Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > --
> > Mike
>
> > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> >www.rneba.org.uk
> > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
> >www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

If you are interested in how one of how one of the most prolific
trolls on usenet got his ass kicked from Exeter to kingdom come, then
simply have a read through the hundreds of archived posts regarding
this, some of them having been made by people who there actually there
to see bunts demise, at the hands of someone whose knowledge of simple
matters of legal procedure was somewhat greater than that held by bunt
or his 14yr old legal "advisor"...........

On Aug 18, 5:30 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> Thank you so much David for pointing me to the transcript etc. What I
> 'REALLY' need is Chris' waffle as to how he beat Bunt into the £40K
> situation. I want 'HIS' version. Any offers anyone on where it is? Chris
> seems to have gone 'shy' on this matter :-))
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk"'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k-Odncu9HJDMwBfXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> > above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> > Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> > However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> > jargon, what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did
> > nothing and the case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the
> > £40K and what was Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > --
> > Mike
>
> > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> >www.rneba.org.uk
> > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
> >www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

Perhaps you should post the transcript you have on here? But please do
remember there were 5 entirely separate court hearings in this matter,
so I think it would be best to post all five, now you have been shown
how to find them.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:50:40 +0100, "'Mike'"
<'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:

>We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the 
>above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that 
>Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
>However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court jargon, 
>what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and the 
>case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what was 
>Chris Steven's roll in all this?

for those still interested

http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:50:40 +0100, "'Mike'"
<'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:

>We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the 
>above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that 
>Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
>However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court jargon, 
>what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and the 
>case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what was 
>Chris Steven's roll in all this?


http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf

"ArthurS"  wrote in message 
news:euql85pefuj92retg87pl1t7ealk25hhfi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:50:40 +0100, "'Mike'"
> <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>>We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
>>above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
>>Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>>
>>However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court 
>>jargon,
>>what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and 
>>the
>>case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what 
>>was
>>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
>
> http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf
>
>

Thank you :-))

I have a bit of reading to do.

Now then Chris, your version, in your own words. :-))

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

"ArthurS"  wrote in message 
news:7mql859e90kemcn3iqihpant98c8tjhbdg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:50:40 +0100, "'Mike'"
> <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>>We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
>>above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
>>Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>>
>>However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court 
>>jargon,
>>what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did nothing and 
>>the
>>case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the £40K and what 
>>was
>>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> for those still interested
>
> http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf
>
>

I love 79 "They may not be persons of substance", well we know one isn't 
don't we? He cannot even give his own account of the proceedings!!!

And as for arguing with Masons, he is digging his own grave, hope he has 
time to make his own headstone !!!!

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

'Mike' <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:

> >>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
> >
> >
> > http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf
> >
> >
> 
> Thank you :-))
> 
> I have a bit of reading to do.
> 
> Now then Chris, your version, in your own words. :-))

That was one judgement. There had been a previous case against Tilley
who lost and simply refused to pay a penny. There was a subsequent
hearing which omitted the ISPs and which the three individual defendants
attended. At no time did any of the non-corporate Defendants cost Bunt a
penny, nor mount some staggering defence. Each of them simply acted as
ballast. Bunt's major problem was that he tried to bring the case
himself and made a complete cock-up. There's a longer discussion on the
Outlaw.com website (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
grunt and run away instead). The significant ruling was to confirm that
ISPs have a defence of "innocent dissemination", that is  if they don't
know that someone is using their service to disseminate libel the ISP
has no liability. However once the ISP becomes aware that someone has
used their service for libel then the ISP is liable from that moment
onwards for the publication of the libel.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j4nu09.3kyfdz1h1745wN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> 'Mike' <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>> >
>> >
>> > http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thank you :-))
>>
>> I have a bit of reading to do.
>>
>> Now then Chris, your version, in your own words. :-))
>
> That was one judgement. There had been a previous case against Tilley
> who lost and simply refused to pay a penny. There was a subsequent
> hearing which omitted the ISPs and which the three individual defendants
> attended. At no time did any of the non-corporate Defendants cost Bunt a
> penny, nor mount some staggering defence. Each of them simply acted as
> ballast. Bunt's major problem was that he tried to bring the case
> himself and made a complete cock-up. There's a longer discussion on the
> Outlaw.com website (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> grunt and run away instead). The significant ruling was to confirm that
> ISPs have a defence of "innocent dissemination", that is  if they don't
> know that someone is using their service to disseminate libel the ISP
> has no liability. However once the ISP becomes aware that someone has
> used their service for libel then the ISP is liable from that moment
> onwards for the publication of the libel.

(Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
grunt and run away instead).

So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I 
understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to 
the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?

Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all 
with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his 
mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he 
has deleted it in shame!!!

He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons 
and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!! 
He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic 
Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.

-- 
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

On Aug 18, 8:02 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 'Mike' <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > >>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > >http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202.> > Thank you :-))
>
> > I have a bit of reading to do.
>
> > Now then Chris, your version, in your own words. :-))
>
> That was one judgement. There had been a previous case against Tilley
> who lost and simply refused to pay a penny. There was a subsequent
> hearing which omitted the ISPs and which the three individual defendants
> attended. At no time did any of the non-corporate Defendants cost Bunt a
> penny, nor mount some staggering defence. Each of them simply acted as
> ballast. Bunt's major problem was that he tried to bring the case
> himself and made a complete cock-up. There's a longer discussion on the
> Outlaw.com website (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> grunt and run away instead). The significant ruling was to confirm that
> ISPs have a defence of "innocent dissemination", that is  if they don't
> know that someone is using their service to disseminate libel the ISP
> has no liability. However once the ISP becomes aware that someone has
> used their service for libel then the ISP is liable from that moment
> onwards for the publication of the libel.

Dohhhhhhhhh................thats RCJ the judgment relating  only to
the corporate defendants, and not a transcript of what was actually
contended at Exeter district registry, which is where bunt was finally
completely shafted, and his actions against the private individuals
struck out as a abuse of process. If you ask nicely I am sure one of
the bent pigs/masons you know will tell you the difference between a
"judgement" and a "transcript"................on the other hand
though, many are probably just as thick as your are, and wont know
either.

On Aug 18, 8:30 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1j4nu09.3kyfdz1h1745wN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 'Mike' <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> >> >http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202> >> Thank you :-))
>
> >> I have a bit of reading to do.
>
> >> Now then Chris, your version, in your own words. :-))
>
> > That was one judgement. There had been a previous case against Tilley
> > who lost and simply refused to pay a penny. There was a subsequent
> > hearing which omitted the ISPs and which the three individual defendants
> > attended. At no time did any of the non-corporate Defendants cost Bunt a
> > penny, nor mount some staggering defence. Each of them simply acted as
> > ballast. Bunt's major problem was that he tried to bring the case
> > himself and made a complete cock-up. There's a longer discussion on the
> > Outlaw.com website (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> > grunt and run away instead). The significant ruling was to confirm that
> > ISPs have a defence of "innocent dissemination", that is  if they don't
> > know that someone is using their service to disseminate libel the ISP
> > has no liability. However once the ISP becomes aware that someone has
> > used their service for libel then the ISP is liable from that moment
> > onwards for the publication of the libel.
>
> (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> grunt and run away instead).
>
> So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I
> understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to
> the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?
>
> Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all
> with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his
> mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he
> has deleted it in shame!!!
>
> He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons
> and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!!
> He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic
> Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

Post up the transcript of the court case where bunts ass was kicked
into orbit why dont you? Judgments related only to corporate
defendants, strangely dont have a great deal to do with bunts shite
being dismissed following a submission from the only private defendant
at Exeter who was somewhat brighter than bunt himself. All the other
defendant attending was able to do, was to sit tongue tied, rather
like a particularly gormless baboon...........

Duke  wrote:

> > That was one judgement. There had been a previous case against Tilley
> > who lost and simply refused to pay a penny. There was a subsequent
> > hearing which omitted the ISPs and which the three individual defendants
> > attended. At no time did any of the non-corporate Defendants cost Bunt a
> > penny, nor mount some staggering defence. Each of them simply acted as
> > ballast. Bunt's major problem was that he tried to bring the case
> > himself and made a complete cock-up. There's a longer discussion on the
> > Outlaw.com website (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> > grunt and run away instead). The significant ruling was to confirm that
> > ISPs have a defence of "innocent dissemination", that is  if they don't
> > know that someone is using their service to disseminate libel the ISP
> > has no liability. However once the ISP becomes aware that someone has
> > used their service for libel then the ISP is liable from that moment
> > onwards for the publication of the libel.
> 
> Dohhhhhhhhh................thats RCJ the judgment relating  only to
> the corporate defendants, and not a transcript of what was actually
> contended at Exeter district registry, which is where bunt was finally
> completely shafted, and his actions against the private individuals
> struck out as a abuse of process. If you ask nicely I am sure one of
> the bent pigs/masons you know will tell you the difference between a
> "judgement" and a "transcript"................on the other hand
> though, many are probably just as thick as your are, and wont know
> either.

Why not just admit that you don't understand the word "subsequent"?

'Mike' <'All.finished'@woolies.com> wrote:

> (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> grunt and run away instead).
> 
> So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I
> understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to
> the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?

Correct that htad n othing to do with Stevens. He simply sat like a bump
on a log hoping that a load of crap wasn't going to fall on his head.
The full costs weren't published but Bunt owed 18K to one ISP and it can
be presumed that the three ISPs probably had similar costs so £40K *to
the ISPs* sounds reasonable.

At the subsequent case Bunt tried to sue the three individual defendants
but cocked that up by being able to formulate a coherent case. I suspect
that this is the case that Stevens attempts to allege was *his* great
victory. However at that case Stevens was given a rogering by the Judge
and then the case was thrown out.

Stevens did nothing. He didn't defend himself, he didn't submit a
defence that was it. One defendant made an application for costs, but as
a litigant in person this would have been just a few pounds per day.

> Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all
> with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his
> mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he
> has deleted it in shame!!!

He just did his usual business of claiming a great and wonderful victory
and then running away when asked to give details.
 
> He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons
> and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!!
> He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic
> Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.

Same with the road tolling issue. When challenged he claimed that his
accurate source was a man in a yellow jacket standing on a bridge. Yes,
right.

On Aug 19, 1:10 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 'Mike' <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> > grunt and run away instead).
>
> > So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I
> > understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to
> > the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?
>
> Correct that htad n othing to do with Stevens. He simply sat like a bump
> on a log hoping that a load of crap wasn't going to fall on his head.
> The full costs weren't published but Bunt owed 18K to one ISP and it can
> be presumed that the three ISPs probably had similar costs so £40K *to
> the ISPs* sounds reasonable.
>
> At the subsequent case Bunt tried to sue the three individual defendants
> but cocked that up by being able to formulate a coherent case. I suspect
> that this is the case that Stevens attempts to allege was *his* great
> victory. However at that case Stevens was given a rogering by the Judge
> and then the case was thrown out.
>
> Stevens did nothing. He didn't defend himself, he didn't submit a
> defence that was it. One defendant made an application for costs, but as
> a litigant in person this would have been just a few pounds per day.
>
> > Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all
> > with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his
> > mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he
> > has deleted it in shame!!!
>
> He just did his usual business of claiming a great and wonderful victory
> and then running away when asked to give details.
>
> > He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons
> > and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!!
> > He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic
> > Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.
>
> Same with the road tolling issue. When challenged he claimed that his
> accurate source was a man in a yellow jacket standing on a bridge. Yes,
> right.

And as well as info from a worker who was actually installing the toll
upgrade infrastructure (which is often rather more accurate than
material from undischarged bankrupts, posted on here!), a pretty
accurate story about the tolling has also appeared in the "Portsmouth
Evening News"!

In reality the sole reason we are not now paying to use the M27 has to
do with the current political/economic situation, and the fact that
this road toll scamming is obviously deeply
unpopular.....................

On Aug 19, 1:10 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 'Mike' <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> > grunt and run away instead).
>
> > So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I
> > understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to
> > the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?
>
> Correct that htad n othing to do with Stevens. He simply sat like a bump
> on a log hoping that a load of crap wasn't going to fall on his head.
> The full costs weren't published but Bunt owed 18K to one ISP and it can
> be presumed that the three ISPs probably had similar costs so £40K *to
> the ISPs* sounds reasonable.
>
> At the subsequent case Bunt tried to sue the three individual defendants
> but cocked that up by being able to formulate a coherent case. I suspect
> that this is the case that Stevens attempts to allege was *his* great
> victory. However at that case Stevens was given a rogering by the Judge
> and then the case was thrown out.
>
> Stevens did nothing. He didn't defend himself, he didn't submit a
> defence that was it. One defendant made an application for costs, but as
> a litigant in person this would have been just a few pounds per day.
>
> > Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all
> > with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his
> > mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he
> > has deleted it in shame!!!
>
> He just did his usual business of claiming a great and wonderful victory
> and then running away when asked to give details.
>
> > He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons
> > and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!!
> > He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic
> > Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.
>
> Same with the road tolling issue. When challenged he claimed that his
> accurate source was a man in a yellow jacket standing on a bridge. Yes,
> right.

Who on earth is likely to take posts from an undischarged bankrupt,
who many of his previous "customers" would also say is a liar and a
cheat, seriously in any way?

On 19 Aug, 09:07, Duke  wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:10 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 'Mike' <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> > > (Stevens was contacted for a quote but decided to
> > > grunt and run away instead).
>
> > > So Christopher Stevens had nothing to do with Bunts £40K ? This is what I
> > > understood before. So why is he saying that HE gave Bunt a 'Bloody Nose to
> > > the tune of £40K when there were others involved as well?
>
> > Correct that htad n othing to do with Stevens. He simply sat like a bump
> > on a log hoping that a load of crap wasn't going to fall on his head.
> > The full costs weren't published but Bunt owed 18K to one ISP and it can
> > be presumed that the three ISPs probably had similar costs so £40K *to
> > the ISPs* sounds reasonable.
>
> > At the subsequent case Bunt tried to sue the three individual defendants
> > but cocked that up by being able to formulate a coherent case. I suspect
> > that this is the case that Stevens attempts to allege was *his* great
> > victory. However at that case Stevens was given a rogering by the Judge
> > and then the case was thrown out.
>
> > Stevens did nothing. He didn't defend himself, he didn't submit a
> > defence that was it. One defendant made an application for costs, but as
> > a litigant in person this would have been just a few pounds per day.
>
> > > Could this be why Chris has gone very quiet and offers nothing to me at all
> > > with regards to HIS side of the story? I felt sure that he HAD spouted his
> > > mouth off somewhere and I would love to read what he has to say. I guess he
> > > has deleted it in shame!!!
>
> > He just did his usual business of claiming a great and wonderful victory
> > and then running away when asked to give details.
>
> > > He is struggling at the moment with the crap he has posted about the Masons
> > > and wriggling like mad to back track over a photo of a dog in Masonic Gear!!
> > > He was there. He saw it. It MUST be true!! He is also struggling on Masonic
> > > Terminology!! "Senior Officers" and when the term applies etc.
>
> > Same with the road tolling issue. When challenged he claimed that his
> > accurate source was a man in a yellow jacket standing on a bridge. Yes,
> > right.
>
> Who on earth is likely to take posts from an undischarged bankrupt,
> who many of his previous "customers" would also say is a liar and a
> cheat, seriously in any way?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Who inxdeed, Mr failed and jailed.

On 18 Aug, 18:11, Duke  wrote:
> On Aug 18, 5:30 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thank you so much David for pointing me to the transcript etc. What I
> > 'REALLY' need is Chris' waffle as to how he beat Bunt into the £40K
> > situation. I want 'HIS' version. Any offers anyone on where it is? Chris
> > seems to have gone 'shy' on this matter :-))
>
> > --
> > Mike
>
> > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Associationwww.rneba.org.uk
> > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk"'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:k-Odncu9HJDMwBfXnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > > We have all seen the various 'explanations' of who did what to who in the
> > > above case and that Christopher Stevens gave Bunt a bloody nose and that
> > > Bunt ended up having to pay £40,000.
>
> > > However, can someone please explain, in simple language and no court
> > > jargon, what happened and why. As I understand it Chris Stevens did
> > > nothing and the case was dismissed because Bunt had done nothing. Why the
> > > £40K and what was Chris Steven's roll in all this?
>
> > > --
> > > Mike
>
> > > The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
> > >www.rneba.org.uk
> > > Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
> > >www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
>
> If you are interested in how one of how one of the most prolific
> trolls on usenet got his ass kicked from Exeter to kingdom come, then
> simply have a read through the hundreds of archived posts regarding
> this, some of them having been made by people who there actually there
> to see bunts demise, at the hands of someone whose knowledge of simple
> matters of legal procedure was somewhat greater than that held by bunt
> or his 14yr old legal "advisor"...........

Still this fantasy?  Tch.