The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 October 2013 Posted 12 October 2013 They'll get a nasty shock when they hear weve another 5k paper signatures too. I'm so glad we've beaten them I actuslly had my doubt for one reason or another.
Mr.X Posted 13 October 2013 Posted 13 October 2013 Here;s the petition to have him buried in york http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38772 31,340 have signed it Here's the Leicester petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39708 34,363 have signed ours
Spudulike Posted 13 October 2013 Posted 13 October 2013 All we can hope now is the judge(s) use common sense and decide not to quash the licence after the Judicial Review on the 26th Nov. At least three judges will be sitting this time so we won't be subjected to one lose canon like last time. Edit to add FB page link if anyone wants to keep up with developments: https://www.facebook.com/BuryRichardIIIInLeicester?fref=ts
Mr.X Posted 14 October 2013 Posted 14 October 2013 Those deluded idiots are living in their own dream world http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/rival-petition-usurps-bid-to-bring-richard-iii-s-remains-to-yorkshire-1-6143853
Spudulike Posted 14 October 2013 Posted 14 October 2013 Good comment at the bottom ... "Inaccurate again. Richard iii did not grow up in Middleham. He was sent there for knightly training from age 13 to 16 as was the custom. He would have been considered a young adult in those times. In fact he 'grew up' in the York family residences in the midlands, the south and on the Welsh borders." Most of these problems stem from people not understanding the difference between the 'House of York' (the family title) and 'York' (the place). They are not connected. It's like saying the current Duke of York (Prince Andrew) should be buried in York. Total bolox.
Mr.X Posted 15 October 2013 Posted 15 October 2013 Most of these problems stem from people not understanding the difference between the 'House of York' (the family title) and 'York' (the place). They are not connected. It's like saying the current Duke of York (Prince Andrew) should be buried in York. Total bolox. They don't understand that there are NO descendants of King Richard III, but they seem to think that those deluded losers the PA are his descendants!
Spudulike Posted 18 October 2013 Posted 18 October 2013 Well that's a good use of taxpayers money then .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24578625 Scandalous.
marko Posted 18 October 2013 Posted 18 October 2013 Has Mr Justice Haddon-Cave been on the pop? Outrageous to protect such a frivolous bunch.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 18 October 2013 Posted 18 October 2013 Is this Haddon-Cave in the Alliance himself?
Mr.X Posted 18 October 2013 Posted 18 October 2013 Has Mr Justice Haddon-Cave been on the pop? Outrageous to protect such a frivolous bunch. The b*st*rd. When the PA lose the case there will be a lot of upset people in York who will be angry they were dragged into a case which they were never going to win.
Spudulike Posted 18 October 2013 Posted 18 October 2013 The b*st*rd. When the PA lose the case there will be a lot of upset people in York who will be angry they were dragged into a case which they were never going to win. That's the stupid thing, though. The people of York, it seems, don't want anything to do with this group of trouble-makers. Hopefully the public will latch onto this. The law is an ass. http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/richard-iii-and-hon-mr-justice-haddon.html
Mr.X Posted 19 October 2013 Posted 19 October 2013 That's the stupid thing, though. The people of York, it seems, don't want anything to do with this group of trouble-makers. Hopefully the public will latch onto this. The law is an ass. http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/richard-iii-and-hon-mr-justice-haddon.html It isn't just the people of York that will be upset with the PA when they lose the case, since taxpayers will lose money out of this, people around the country will hate them as well. Those fools don't know how much they will be hayed when they lose this nonsense.
Mike Oxlong Posted 19 October 2013 Posted 19 October 2013 Haddon-Cave. Educated at Canterbury and Cambridge. Think he might have a bias towards York. Don't think Leicester's really his cup of tea.
Vlad the Fox Posted 19 October 2013 Posted 19 October 2013 Haddon-Cave. Educated at Canterbury and Cambridge. Think he might have a bias towards York. Don't think Leicester's really his cup of tea. Oh, he has been educated then. I'm surprised.
Rincewind Posted 20 October 2013 Posted 20 October 2013 How come he was involved in the latest decision? Thought it was an independent panel not involved with the first.
Mr.X Posted 20 October 2013 Posted 20 October 2013 How come he was involved in the latest decision? Thought it was an independent panel not involved with the first. Good question. It isn't right and I can't believe such a thing was allowed. This will just make it harder for the PA when they lose, because then so many in the country will then hate for wasting thier money on this pointless case.
Spudulike Posted 20 October 2013 Posted 20 October 2013 How come he was involved in the latest decision? Thought it was an independent panel not involved with the first. The latest judgement was just for the PCO (Protective Costs Order) after Haddon-Cave had listened to the Ministry Of Justice's challenge. H-C allowed the full PCO whereby the Plantagenet Alliance are protected for the first £70k of costs. I believe they (Plantagenet Alliance Limited) will have to fund anything over this if (when!) they lose. However, as the PAL are a Limited company they will just declare bankruptcy and get away scot-free. The MD, some bloke called Nicolay, has a history of winding up companies. Very crafty. http://leicesterlovesrichard.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-self-employed-gardener-and-his-six.html?spref=tw This gives some helpful info as to where we are (c&p'd comment from 'Leicester loves Richards' blog) ... "Some people over on the Richard III Petition page are getting overexcited about the PCO judgement, and about the Judicial Review process as a whole, eg: "It is acknowledgement that all we have been fighting for, some for over a year now, is valid. Morally and factually it is indeed a victory, and all we need now is for justice to prevail and we can send King Richard 'home' where he belongs". Leaving aside the nonsense about where Richard "belongs", Judicial Review is nothing to do with the issues of a particular case, it is simply a matter of process. A judge is asked to review whether correct procedures were followed, and if he or she rules that they were not followed, the parties to a particular decision-making process are required to re-visit the decision and do it properly this time. It's a very important tool for holding Government and public bodies to account. The Plantagenet Alliance have got their costs capped, so they have won that small victory, and they may go on to win the judicial review. BUT that would not mean that a burial in York suddenly becomes a certainty, or even that it would be seriously considered, given that the licence under which the University of Leicester disinterrred the remains is legally valid, and the agreement that Richard should be re-buried in Leicester Cathedral follows correct archaeological, legal and religious practice. The PA may get their review - although I hope not - but it will almost certainly get them nowhere in the end. Leicester's position is just too strong. That, after all, is why it is being backed by the Ministry of Justice."
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 20 October 2013 Posted 20 October 2013 King Richard 111 has spent 500 years in Leicester. Let's make him a posthumous "Freeman of the City of Leicester" Another string to our bow?
Spudulike Posted 10 November 2013 Posted 10 November 2013 Blimey, it's getting a bit personal (interesting comments at the bottom) ... http://leicesterlovesrichard.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/close-associate-of-plantagenet-alliance.html?spref=tw
Webbo Posted 10 November 2013 Posted 10 November 2013 Is it just me who finds both sides in this a bit obsessive? The courts will decide, almost certainly in Leicester's favour, is there any need for all this childish name calling ?
ADK Posted 10 November 2013 Posted 10 November 2013 I wouldn't be surprised if barely anyone visits the grave a few years down the line. Nice legal gravy train for a few people though.
Strokes Posted 10 November 2013 Posted 10 November 2013 Is it just me who finds both sides in this a bit obsessive? The courts will decide, almost certainly in Leicester's favour, is there any need for all this childish name calling ?I just don't get it, why get so emotional?
ADK Posted 10 November 2013 Posted 10 November 2013 These sorts of people are a pain in the arse. I've encountered a few in real life. Drama queens that want to get everybody involved in their childish squabble. This guy wants to call the police because someone referred to his kid as ugly
separator Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Case is being heard in the High Court today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25099543
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.