crt and the courts

[mayalld]

 

 

Every MINOR victory , why is every victory MINOR ? if many victories have been won have they all been minor, defeats are just defeats ,why no MINOR defeats.

 

Nigel has NEVER (so far as I can tell) walked away from a court having won on every point, or even on a majority of the points he makes.

 

Rather, it appears to me that he approaches litigation with a scattergun approach, arguing a multitude of points, which are gradually dismissed and appealing in the hope that eventually he will win one.

 

Very occasionally, he scores a point, and he parades his victory, notwithstanding that it doesn't substantially affect the overall result.

[NigelMoore]

 

Very occasionally, he scores a point, and he parades his victory, notwithstanding that it doesn't substantially affect the overall result.

 

So this year’s Appeal Court decision did not substantially affect the question of BW’s powers to s.8 us where we were? The overall result was that they had been entitled to do so?

 

Any way isn't all a bit academic now given Nigel himself has acknowledged it was correct for the original thread to be taken down?

 

I don’t think I’ve quite said that it was “correct” for the thread to be removed, rather that I understood and accepted the rationale.

[Guest]

I don’t think I’ve quite said that it was “correct” for the thread to be removed, rather that I understood and accepted the rationale.

 

Pretty much means the same thing in my book but I understand and accept your desire to be precise.

[NigelMoore]

 

My latest defeat is the result of a court making a decision against me, despite the arguments that I had advanced and which were perfectly understood. It was a very fair and balanced judgment. I accept that on that occasion I was wrong.

 

Curiously, unless I’ve missed it somehow, I haven’t seen a CaRT Press Release announcing this latest victory of theirs.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On what grounds could the forum be taken to court in this instance can you elaborate.?

 

Others have banged on about how inaccurate NBW is etc etc, perhaps Allan can tell us how many times they have been taken to court to give us a reference point.

On the first issue you can take someone court on just about anything you like. It is up to the court to decide if you have grounds for doing so. However, courts like to see that efforts have been made resolve issues outside the court

 

Regarding NBW, my understanding is that it has never been taken to court. In all the years I have written for it I can only recall one case of a threat to sue (myself and the editor) if an article was not removed. This involved the EA and allegations of corruption. The article was removed as a courtesy to enable EA to justify its position. The outcome was that the article was reinstated and I received an apology.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

If n igel feels that the report is one sided due to being selective with what was mentioned, he can factually report the missing content.

 

That isn't what he did.

 

Amongst other things, I am pretty sure that I did. The Press Release announced:

 

“Brentford mooring claim ‘totally without merit’ and an ‘abuse of process’.”

 

Of course, it was silly to belittle it as a mooring claim, but more to the point is the selective quoting which I am certain I had mentioned.

 

Missing was the quote from the judgment: “Mr Moore’s support of Mr DeVere’s first application was without legal basis but is not totally without merit.” [my emphasis]

 

Missing also was the quote: “Mr Moore’s application to be joined as a claimant is refused since the claim, although not abusive if brought by him, has no prospects of success.” [my emphasis]

 

I seem to recall that I even noted the relevant judgment paragraph numbers for you, but obviously one of us has a bad memory. Maybe I had posted that in the prior thread?

[pelicanafloat]

Nigel, I find your posts lucid and descriptive of the events involved. I have a brain which allows me to draw my own conclusions on the subject, good or bad. I can quite understand that from the site's perspective it is possible that they may view the content as unworthy and withdraw the thread. It is perfectly acceptable behaviour.

 

I wish to understand more about the various situations that cause such vexation. What I don't wish to read is all the negative angst that some posters feel is their right to thrust upon us. Maybe the whole point of the disruptive element is to convey such an abusive level of boring content that I am forced to believe they must be suffering from some form of repetitive strain injury! I just wish there was a 'bar humbug!' button that could be applied those who think they contribute but in fact don't! (Maybe I'll get one for writing this..... Go ahead, make my day )

[Mick and Maggie]

Nigel's difficulty is that he is clearly very intelligent, knowledgable and articulate. But with those gifts comes an increased responsibility not to abuse them by presenting one's personal view as if it were irrefutable truth.

I can't agree with you on this Nick. I don't think that Nigel finds his intelligence, knowledge and ability to articulate the message a 'difficulty' at all. Your comment comes across like you are wanting Nigel to 'dumb down' the text. But why would you want him to do that?

 

How on earth can Nigel be abusing anyone? Is this because you think other people on here can't appreciate or are not smart enough to make up their own mind - one way or another. Are we incapable of understanding an issue that Nigel holds to be an irrefutable truth. Mainly because he explains in well considered detail the whole of the issue. That the issue is presented complete with supporting information - articulated as he understands it to be.

 

I must admit I find Nigel's arguments to be quite compelling.

It was one of the most interesting and informative threads on here for a long long time.

Green one!

[Mick and Maggie]

Regarding NBW, my understanding is that it has never been taken to court. In all the years I have written for it I can only recall one case of a threat to sue (myself and the editor) if an article was not removed. This involved the EA and allegations of corruption. The article was removed as a courtesy to enable EA to justify its position. The outcome was that the article was reinstated and I received an apology.

The EA have their own critics on the inside. Here is a whistlblower site that takes the lid off.

 

http://www.insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk/

[Mick and Maggie]

Edited to remove duplicated posting.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mick and Maggie

[Mick and Maggie]

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

Has any of the site mods written to narrowboat world to ask for NBW to 'do the forum a favour' Requesting NBW to remove the item that might be causing the forum owner some embarrasment. I'm sure that would be a good place to start. I'm also sure that the opinions of those with an axe to grind with regard to NBW should not stand in the way of getting things sorting out for the forums benefit.

[Ange]

It was a great thread and I'm gutted that our resident Daily Mail reporter blew it out of the water. Are you paid for writing for that dreadful site Allan? It would take a lot of silver to put my name to that dreadful Daily Mail of the waterways. You do realise that if you carried a CWDF link in your signature on that site don't you? Hmm I expect you've accepted that as a price you're willing to pay. The point being that on this site you permanently carry a link to Narrow Minded World in your signature - on that site if you dare to link to CWDF you're banned instantly. Are you happy with that?

 

Anyways - I absolutely and totally respect the moderation team's decision to pull the thread in question. My only beef was when one member stated that if he were a moderator he would pull the thread because he found it boring. Thankfully there is very little chance that such a small minded person with so little attention span will ever be a moderator but there is the principle that dmr pointed out that no one person should dictate what the rest of us should read.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Ange

[Beaker]

humm im sure ive read something along these lines some were , how ever ive just been to the above posters and read the article , so at least ive some infomation and can form my own opinion on it all .

 

personally i smell a water rat with a fishy tale thats tried to catch a minnow and found itself fighting a shark , and you dont have to be irish to like the little people , do you ?

 

Meep??

[Guest]

Anyways - I absolutely and totally respect the moderation team's decision to pull the thread in question. My only beef was when one member stated that if he were a moderator he would pull the thread because he found it boring. Thankfully there is very little chance that such a small minded person with so little attention span will ever be a moderator but there is the principle that dmr pointed out that no one person should dictate what the rest of us should read.

 

Oh that will be me then.

 

Small minded? Short attention span, oh and what were the other ones recently oh yes shallow and creepy even?

 

There's that grudge spilling out again Ange - you really do need to grow out of it.

 

How little you know about me yet you still continue to offer a very short sighted opinion of me and my posts. It was an opinion which I am entitled to express Ange - thankfully because of the way this forum is moderated.

 

As it happens I do find some of the stuff about waterways 'politics' and some of the legal stuff extremely boring, we are all different and we all find different things interesting on here. That doesn't mean I am dictating what others can read it is a simple opinion on a particular thread and subject.

 

Good luck to those of you that find it interesting - I just do not, life's like that.

 

BTW - If you are concerned about people being 'nasty' to you resulting in you having to block whoever it is (and make a big public show about doing it but not saying who it is) if I were you I would examine some of your posts and ask yourself 'could it be something I have posted? I don't know who you have upset so much that you have had to block them but maybe you could on reflection have rather expected it?

[alan_fincher]

It was a great thread and I'm gutted that our resident Daily Mail reporter blew it out of the water. Are you paid for writing for that dreadful site Allan? It would take a lot of silver to put my name to that dreadful Daily Mail of the waterways. You do realise that if you carried a CWDF link in your signature on that site don't you? Hmm I expect you've accepted that as a price you're willing to pay. The point being that on this site you permanently carry a link to Narrow Minded World in your signature - on that site if you dare to link to CWDF you're banned instantly. Are you happy with that?

 

I have previously challenged Allan about this, and although I don't have the answer to hand, IIRC it was that Allan believes that NBW gives him a large audience for his material that he would not otherwise get, so he is prepared to live with what many think about NBW, and its editors usual rules of engagement.

 

That of course is Allan's decision, but it does of course mean that Allan's pieces sit amongst a lot of other ill-informed and inaccurate material, often filled with bile and bigotry, as well as alongside editorial "rants" that seem little more than deliberate trolling.

 

I don't for a moment dispute that Allan is passionate about raising certain issues, and trying to keep them in the public eye, and in general I have no problems with people expressing their strong opinions about where CRT, EA, or anybody else may not be acting in the best interest of boaters.

 

However I do object to what appears to often be very selective quoting of other people's material from elsewhere on a site where the people who are being quoted are generally, (but I admit not always!), denied a right of reply.

[nicknorman]

I can't agree with you on this Nick. I don't think that Nigel finds his intelligence, knowledge and ability to articulate the message a 'difficulty' at all. Your comment comes across like you are wanting Nigel to 'dumb down' the text. But why would you want him to do that?

 

How on earth can Nigel be abusing anyone? Is this because you think other people on here can't appreciate or are not smart enough to make up their own mind - one way or another. Are we incapable of understanding an issue that Nigel holds to be an irrefutable truth. Mainly because he explains in well considered detail the whole of the issue. That the issue is presented complete with supporting information - articulated as he understands it to be.

 

I must admit I find Nigel's arguments to be quite compelling.

 

I don't think you quite get my point. I don't want nigel to dumb down, I want him to use his exceptional abilities in a more balanced and responsible way. He is not abusing anyone, but abusing his powers by using the full force of them to make his case even though he knows it is not the only perspective. A bit like physically strong big bruiser using force to get his way even if in his mind, it is for a good cause.

 

The rest of your post rather makes my point.

Edited December 10, 2013 by nicknorman

[Ssscrudddy]

I can understand why it was done. Try commenting about a deleted thread on a commercial forum & see what happens, they are still allowing the discussion here.

I know of a vaping forum that was eventually closed down. When that coach was stopped with a suspected bomb, it turned out to be an ecig. The owner of a big vaping company made a spoof video about the incident claiming it was him. It didnt go down well & all sorts of crap ensued. Eventually the owner of the vaping company threatened legal action & the owner of the forum closed the forum as she wasnt able financially to take him on. He also threatened some other forums where it was being discussed, notably an American forum where they called his bluff (no juristriction). The owner of the vaping company made himself look really bad with his disgusting comments & behaviour.

If you're interested in the gory details here is a google search that brings up the relevant stuff (ignore the 1st link as that is the company in questions website)

[Tuscan]

NBW gets panned for lifting articles without referencing the source then panned for lifting articles and revealing the source. Personally I take what I read or hear in any media , CWDF, NBW , BBC , waterwaysworld etc etc and assume what I'm reading or hearing has been edited in a certain way then form a view.

 

In the meantime I hope these type of arguements keep being posted and being challenged.

[Mick and Maggie]

 

Oh that will be me then.

 

Small minded? Short attention span, oh and what were the other ones recently oh yes shallow and creepy even?

 

Martin you missed out the punch line.... 'and then there is my negative side'.

 

More power to your pen, you hold an opinion and I respect it for what it is. I might choose not agree with it. We could debate the difference until the cows come home.

 

But even I, perfect as I am, I have to admit to having just the one small failing. I would never trust the opinion of anyone who does not like dogs and votes for politicians.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have previously challenged Allan about this, and although I don't have the answer to hand, IIRC it was that Allan believes that NBW gives him a large audience for his material that he would not otherwise get, so he is prepared to live with what many think about NBW, and its editors usual rules of engagement.

 

That of course is Allan's decision, but it does of course mean that Allan's pieces sit amongst a lot of other ill-informed and inaccurate material, often filled with bile and bigotry, as well as alongside editorial "rants" that seem little more than deliberate trolling.

 

I don't for a moment dispute that Allan is passionate about raising certain issues, and trying to keep them in the public eye, and in general I have no problems with people expressing their strong opinions about where CRT, EA, or anybody else may not be acting in the best interest of boaters.

 

However I do object to what appears to often be very selective quoting of other people's material from elsewhere on a site where the people who are being quoted are generally, (but I admit not always!), denied a right of reply.

I recall that you earlier stated that you have not read my narrowboatword article, Alan.

 

I think you will find that Nigel is quite happy with what I quoted him as saying as representative of the allegations he has made.

 

Richard Parry has been in receipt of the documents that support Nigel's allegations together with my own views on the matter for some three weeks now.

 

Hopefully, he will take some action.

[alan_fincher]

I recall that you earlier stated that you have not read my narrowboatword article, Alan.

 

I think you will find that Nigel is quite happy with what I quoted him as saying as representative of the allegations he has made.

 

Correct,

 

And I hope I have made it clear that my issues with NBW are generic not because of any particular current article.

 

I can't claim to never read anything on there, because occasionally people direct me at it, and suggest that I should, but as a general principle i do not now usually follow any links to that site.

 

My reasons for this are those I repeatedly make clear.

 

It may be that occasionally the Sun or the Daily Mail publish something that is factually accurate and/or incisive alongside the other dross in those publications, but for exactly similar reason I would not spend time delving into them to see if that were the case!

[Guest]

 

Martin you missed out the punch line.... 'and then there is my negative side'.

 

 

[Mick and Maggie]

I think you will find that Nigel is quite happy with what I quoted him as saying as representative of the allegations he has made.

 

Morning Allan.

I must agree, I thought your contribution was a well rounded posting and was perfectly acceptable as being representative of the issues as outlined by Nigel.

 

However, I have just noticed that the Forums NarrowBoat World seismometer is reading 7.9 on the 'holier than though' scale. There was a 7.3 recorded on the 'attitude of superior self-righteously piousness' and it was off the chart on the hypocritically and sickening sanctimonious scale. So no change there then.

[ditchcrawler]

Mr Moore is providing this site with a great thread that is informing us of the alleged "shenanagins", " acting the goat " at the head of the waterways and if canal and river trust dont like what he is posting they will be in touch , pretty fast if they think what he says is untrue , for anyone to pretend they are not fully aware of what he is posting beggars belief , they monitor or pay people to monitor all media for anything that relates to them , they are aware and have not objected so please get the thread up again ,its not like the newspapers are going to keep us informed .

 

edited .

Several CaRT employees are members of this Forum if I remember correctly.

.

 

I doubt you will find another forum that is less "controlled" than CWDF. And don't forget it is all for free.

No its not, it costs Danial a lot of money and lots of us support him with that.( I don't now how to add the donate link)

[Tesla]

Several CaRT employees are members of this Forum if I remember correctly.

No its not, it costs Danial a lot of money and lots of us support him with that.( I don't now how to add the donate link)

 

It is free to use, Daniel's costs are covered by the generous donations which are naturally very welcome. That is very different to a service where you pay a monthly subscription for example.