Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

beaujest
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:01 am

Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby beaujest » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:37 pm


SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:52 pm

that is hilarious!
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:57 pm

and at the RCJ yesterday?

HQ17/0420 Bennison v Harding. Not before half past 11
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:24 pm

I'm afraid that there's a little more to it than that site is reporting. I believe Nominet have been made aware of other matters. Watch this space.

Btw, it's interesting to note that Mrs H had a MF with her, a known activist who likes to hide behind a Guy Fawkes mask. Should we judge people by whose company they keep? Along with 'England First' member Seanamarts, Mrs H does seem to have some interesting allies.

John Uskglass
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby John Uskglass » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:28 pm

What a hoot! The highlight being:

From the start, Mr Bennison misunderstood the meaning of the term “abusive registration”, thinking that it referred to a domain used to criticise others.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:45 pm

John Uskglass wrote:What a hoot! The highlight being:

From the start, Mr Bennison misunderstood the meaning of the term “abusive registration”, thinking that it referred to a domain used to criticise others.


Straight into the misinformation. No, he said the site was set up simply to abuse the actual BHF domain by confusing those looking for advice. It was nothing to do with making actual abusive personal comments.

Nominet seemed to think JB was claiming ownership of the BHF name, which he wasn't. They dismissed it on that basis hence the need to take further action.

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2163
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:50 pm

Please forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't Benniston the geezer who has boasted about the massive amounts of money he makes? And £26000 will bankrupt him? :lol:
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:50 pm

In English?

Edit - oh, you tidied it up. It's not for me to say what he does with his money.
Last edited by Ted Striker on Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2163
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:53 pm

Ted Striker wrote:In English?

I have corrected it. Posting on a phone while wearing latex gloves ain't easy.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:54 pm

rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Ted Striker wrote:In English?

Posting on a phone while wearing latex gloves ain't easy.


Whatever floats your boat.

beaujest
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby beaujest » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:56 pm

Ted Striker wrote:
John Uskglass wrote:What a hoot! The highlight being:

From the start, Mr Bennison misunderstood the meaning of the term “abusive registration”, thinking that it referred to a domain used to criticise others.


Straight into the misinformation. No, he said the site was set up simply to abuse the actual BHF domain by confusing those looking for advice. It was nothing to do with making actual abusive personal comments.

Nominet seemed to think JB was claiming ownership of the BHF name, which he wasn't. They dismissed it on that basis hence the need to take further action.


Were you in Court to witness the case or are you speaking from hearsay?

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2163
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:57 pm

I take it I have got the right bloke :lol:
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:07 pm

beaujest wrote:Were you in Court to witness the case or are you speaking from hearsay?


Were you in court or are you relying on Bungle's interpretation on her site?

I've read all the case files and the ruling from Nominet. It's clear they misunderstood what the complaint was about. JB made absolutely no mention of owning the name BHF yet nominet dismissed the claim on that basis.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2654
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:46 pm

Ted Striker wrote:
beaujest wrote:Were you in Court to witness the case or are you speaking from hearsay?


Were you in court or are you relying on Bungle's interpretation on her site?

I've read all the case files and the ruling from Nominet. It's clear they misunderstood what the complaint was about. JB made absolutely no mention of owning the name BHF yet nominet dismissed the claim on that basis.
Can someone put a link or list of the court report please so that we can all see what went on and not have to rely on two websites with differing agendas?
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:20 pm

How would bennison kicking off with web firm get him off his £26k debt. He can't afford to appeal via the civil system again ?
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

King Lud
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:18 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby King Lud » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:32 pm

Oh God, not these bunch of pillocks again! All we need now is Tuco to come in and bore us all into oblivion.

Or has he already started? :whistle:

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2654
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:50 pm

SteveUK wrote:How would bennison kicking off with web firm get him off his £26k debt.
I think it is his "kicking off" with Nominet that got him into that situation in the first place. He isn't trying to avoid a £26k debt by taking action against someone . It the action he has already taken that has caused the debt. I would think he could appeal.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:57 pm

I'm not sure . He could only appeal if he could underwrite the costs, which he can't. The 26k stands regardless of the appeal . It's a live debt.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:10 pm

ArthurWankspittle wrote:Can someone put a link or list of the court report please so that we can all see what went on and not have to rely on two websites with differing agendas?

The original summary Nominet adjudication is here - http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2017/D00018586.pdf We may never see a detailed judgement from the more recent hearing, unless one of the parties publishes it.

I am content to know that the odious scoundrel Bennison has made a fool of himself, whatever the particular circumstances. Just hope we don't get all the warring factions crowding in here to squabble about it....
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:33 pm

I think bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain sounds like something from a kindergarten nappyspat, too foolish to matter.
Realistically, how many people are going to care if BHF is/are wrong, and how many of the few of them are going to find BHFAWA to see what they say.
The name Bennison seems to ring a vague bell from some old thread, and it is often a laugh to see someone throwing money at m'learned friends (I like the idea of doing 2 hours work in six months, cost £10000, but if it has to be done in a week it costs £20000 more.)

I think some barristers would charge a couple of grand to leave immediately if the chambers were on fire.

Somehow I have no sympathy for BHFAWA if they are publishing stuff yet hiding their contact details behind a net privacy service. Publishing stuff is a responsible activity, or should be. No shame, no need to hide.

This seems like 'plague on both your houses' thread.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: diarmuid and 1 guest