Questions need to be asked, page-105

Afternoon All

Posting around here is tough - it really is.

When facts are provided - there always seems to be some poster willing (unusually willing given many are not holders) to disagree - which is fine. I don't care about disagreement (it's actually very heathy) but when that disagreement is based on little more than wild speculation v the facts - it does get rather tiresome.

I have been reading the recent posts and some posters still seem very confused about the court action. They then seem to fill that gap in their knowledge / facts base with speculative nonsense.

Whilst it can appear very complicated to those not legally trained - it is actually a rather simple matter.

Read the case that I cited in my post from 1 Nov (below). It is a very similar circumstance and I strongly suspect that it is the outcome of that case that they will rely upon to be granted the relief and ancillary orders that they seek.

Please re read the post I made on 1 November 20293925

Enjoy the week and don't let the uninformed misleading posts cause you undue angst.

Note - I can not know the outcome of the hearing but from what I can read it seems to be a reasonably straight forward matter - despite what others might care to speculate about or upon.

If my link to the 1 November post doesn't work I will cut and paste.

Thanks