crt and the courts

[Phoenix_V]

What has happened to the recent topic on CRT and the Devere court case was reading it this morning

tonight it has disapeared, the older similar but more contentious thread can still be found so why has this discussion disapeared as if it never existed?

[mango]

What has happened to the recent topic on CRT and the Devere court case was reading it this morning

tonight it has disapeared, the older similar but more contentious thread can still be found so why has this discussion disapeared as if it never existed?

I expect it has gone on an ego trip.

[churchward]

What has happened to the recent topic on CRT and the Devere court case was reading it this morning

tonight it has disapeared, the older similar but more contentious thread can still be found so why has this discussion disapeared as if it never existed?

 

You obviously haven't been on this forum long.

I expect it has gone on an ego trip.

Arf!

Edited December 8, 2013 by churchward

[mango]

Thank you sir.

[NigelMoore]

It’s an excellent question. I was about to post copies of further court transcript extracts, and met the black hole you refer to.

 

The last thread you mentioned, I made definite allegations against named individuals. In this thread, no-one directly accused anyone of anything; just flagged up such allegations as had been made in public proceedings in the courts, responding to the CaRT comments on publicly available court proceedings.

 

Unfairly traduced parties can always demand backing for accusations, and/or sue for libel; those aware of their vulnerability to truth can only exercise brute force in demanding withdrawal of any public disclosure of such accusations.

 

There can be no greater affirmation of the true state of affairs in this matter.

 

 

[Guest]

Its an excellent question. I was about to post copies of further court transcript extracts, and met the black hole you refer to.

 

The last thread you mentioned, I made definite allegations against named individuals. In this thread, no-one directly accused anyone of anything; just flagged up such allegations as had been made in public proceedings in the courts, responding to the CaRT comments on publicly available court proceedings.

 

Unfairly traduced parties can always demand backing for accusations, and/or sue for libel; those aware of their vulnerability to truth can only exercise brute force in demanding withdrawal of any public disclosure of such accusations.

 

There can be no greater affirmation of the true state of affairs in this matter.

 

You have always got the option of setting up (and paying for) a website of your own... Edited December 8, 2013 by The Dog House

[Phoenix_V]

I would rather read it here. Thanks

[johnthebridge]

Nigel,

Do you know if BW "obtained" the parcel of land in contention with either Absolute Title or Possessory Title from the Land Registry?

[Guest]

I would rather read it here. Thanks

Then ask the mods to put the thread back up...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It’s an excellent question. I was about to post copies of further court transcript extracts, and met the black hole you refer to.

 

The last thread you mentioned, I made definite allegations against named individuals. In this thread, no-one directly accused anyone of anything; just flagged up such allegations as had been made in public proceedings in the courts, responding to the CaRT comments on publicly available court proceedings.

 

Unfairly traduced parties can always demand backing for accusations, and/or sue for libel; those aware of their vulnerability to truth can only exercise brute force in demanding withdrawal of any public disclosure of such accusations.

 

There can be no greater affirmation of the true state of affairs in this matter.

 

 

I have to say that I agree with Nigel Moore (but without the eloquence).

 

On Friday evening an article appeared in narrowboatworld where I quoted from the earlier thread -

 

......... Comments, which are still on the site accuse CaRT staff of both forgery and fraud. Bearing in mind that it was not so long ago that CaRT were threatening a boater with legal action simply for making an ‘unauthorised mockery of the Trust's logo', one wonders why it has not taken steps to sue the poster.

Criminal activity

One of the posts on the site alleges that CaRT 'is run by people who engage in criminal activity, and by those who work to keep a lid on that alleged activity, angling to protect their fellow directors and their departments from any adverse consequences of being found out, instead of confronting the situation and taking remedial action'.

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

 

Perhaps CaRT have asked for the thread to be pulled rather than sue Nigel Moore.

 

Trouble is, it appears they have asked for the wrong thread to be pulled.

[FadeToScarlet]

It’s an excellent question. I was about to post copies of further court transcript extracts, and met the black hole you refer to.

 

The last thread you mentioned, I made definite allegations against named individuals. In this thread, no-one directly accused anyone of anything; just flagged up such allegations as had been made in public proceedings in the courts, responding to the CaRT comments on publicly available court proceedings.

 

Unfairly traduced parties can always demand backing for accusations, and/or sue for libel; those aware of their vulnerability to truth can only exercise brute force in demanding withdrawal of any public disclosure of such accusations.

 

There can be no greater affirmation of the true state of affairs in this matter.

 

This is incorrect. The site and owners have not, repeat NOT, been contacted by CRT. There has been NO coercion of any form; the thread has been temporarily hidden whilst it is discussed by the moderator team and site owner.

[ditchcrawler]

Then ask the mods to put the thread back up...

Which one do we ask, I thought you were one.

[FadeToScarlet]

I have to say that I agree with Nigel Moore (but without the eloquence).

On Friday evening an article appeared in narrowboatworld where I quoted from the earlier thread -

 

 

Perhaps CaRT have asked for the thread to be pulled rather than sue Nigel Moore.

Trouble is, it appears they have asked for the wrong thread to be pulled.

The forum have NOT been contacted by CRT.

 

I note you carefully did not mention the comments appended to the posts in the original thread distancing the site owner from the views expressed within the post.

 

Clearly, this was not enough. That thread has now been removed also.

 

Edit to add: As this thread has now been removed also, are you going to update the NBW article?

Edited December 8, 2013 by FadeToScarlet

[Guest]

Which one do we ask, I thought you were one.

Then you are incorrect. Simples. But then you knew this really as you are on here enough to know the mods have 'site crew' under their avatar.

Edited December 8, 2013 by The Dog House

[Phoenix_V]

I have the greatest respect for the site owner and site crew but this is an important topic and deserves an airing I trust that with suitable and light moderation this will be possible?

[churchward]

It’s an excellent question. I was about to post copies of further court transcript extracts, and met the black hole you refer to.

 

The last thread you mentioned, I made definite allegations against named individuals. In this thread, no-one directly accused anyone of anything; just flagged up such allegations as had been made in public proceedings in the courts, responding to the CaRT comments on publicly available court proceedings.

 

Unfairly traduced parties can always demand backing for accusations, and/or sue for libel; those aware of their vulnerability to truth can only exercise brute force in demanding withdrawal of any public disclosure of such accusations.

 

There can be no greater affirmation of the true state of affairs in this matter.

 

 

As always trying to take the morale high ground. Oh to be as virtuous!

 

The plain truth is we all play by the rules of the forum and the mods and owners permission so if you don't like those conditions play elsewhere.

[Guest]

I have the greatest respect for the site owner and site crew but this is an important topic and deserves an airing I trust that with suitable and light moderation this will be possible?

Do you really think a small unpaid team of mods really have the time to sift out stuff that may cause the site to be taken down while any legal complications get sorted?

[Phoenix_V]

yes

[Tuscan]

Its a great shame that subjects like this can not be aired and discussed.

 

Yet topics like snouts in the trough are no different in my view

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tuscan

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have the greatest respect for the site owner and site crew but this is an important topic and deserves an airing I trust that with suitable and light moderation this will be possible?

So do I.

 

On the basis that CaRT have not asked for either thread to be removed, I would ask why the moderators have seen fit to do.

 

As has been made very clear, Nigel Moore's comments are his alone and not endorsed by the site.

 

So what is the problem?

[kevinl]

You have always got the option of setting up (and paying for) a website of your own...

I totally agree, this site is brought to us free by Daniel and the hard work of the site crew, if you want to make potentially libellous comments set up a site under your own name then put a link on here if you like. I think it's out of order to run person grievances against any organisation on here and frankly I'd bar anyone who did it. While I don't doubt everything you say is true and you can prove it all take it somewhere else.

K

[FadeToScarlet]

So do I.

 

On the basis that CaRT have not asked for either thread to be removed, I would ask why the moderators have seen fit to do.

As has been made very clear, Nigel Moore's comments are his alone and not endorsed by the site.

So what is the problem?

Well, the reason why is, to be blunt, you. Because you have published an article referring to comments made in the original thread, and have linked to it all over Facebook etc., these comments have been bought to a far wider audience, and so it was decided that it was better to play it safe.

 

It's regrettable, but when people find that comments on a discussion forum are likely to be taken, quoted out of context and not directly linked to elsewhere, then discussion has to be moderated and curtailed when subjects are, or might be, contentious.

[nicknorman]

Nigel does make some interesting points and, scarily, I find myself siding with him just a little bit! But where he errs it to present his side of the story as if it were fact, when in fact it's just his personal take on the matter. A take that, in the case in question, was clearly not shared by the impartial adjudicator. If he could recognise that there are alternative interpretations and perspectives, his posts would be more rounded and less likely to come under the knife.

[Starcoaster]

Please join me in a slow hand-clap for NBW.

Again.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Starcoaster

[Lady Muck]

yes

Well I don't, can't speak for anyone else.

Sometimes we remove possibly contentious threads so we can discuss them with the site owner. It is only fair, he may not have even seen the thread in question. I certainly had not read it until my attention was drawn to it today. And knowing that our site owner is only just back from abroad, he may not have seen it either.

It's his site, we'd like to give him a chance to make his own mind up. It's his site and his spare time hobby, so please give him a break.

As yet he hasn't been online.

So do I.

 

On the basis that CaRT have not asked for either thread to be removed, I would ask why the moderators have seen fit to do.

As has been made very clear, Nigel Moore's comments are his alone and not endorsed by the site.

So what is the problem?

If there is any problem at all it is that the site owner is not fully aware of what has gone on in his absence. There is no conspiracy, no one was pushed to do it and i have no idea as to whether CRT had even seen it. Edited December 8, 2013 by Lady Muck