I've popped that post out of view folks.
John seems a little confused just like last time on the 16th of April with his suggestion that my precis of the previous judgement was inaccurate when in fact I had and still have the full judgement against him. I'm sure he considers he was making a spirited defence.
In this recent post amongst all the paragraphs John appears to have forgotten to mention the latest judgement on the 22nd of May, the awarding of costs against him and the status of his leave to appeal. I am of course sure this was simply an oversight and I'm certain you all agree that in a messy company failure like this there are considerably more than two sides to the story.
These have of course been civil proceedings until now - Duck and I have to take especial care while there remains the possibility of aspects of this affair moving over into the realms of criminal law.
Rob