vexatious. .....

[mayalld]

 

So are you saying that because you and a few others on this forum say he has no case Mr. Moore should stop. According to what is available online elsewhere there does appear to be evidence that there is a case.

 

I don't know and neither do you. You only think you know and wise you may be but infallible?

 

I am saying that because a number of Judges have said that he has no case, he should accept that this is the case.

 

"According to what is available online elsewhere" - is this something independent, or is it something that has been put online to advance Nigel's cause.

[Rich]

 

 

 

There are two sides of the coin.

 

Parts of the NHS were/are in an horrendous state and were it not for a relatively small number of people raising hell they would still be despatching patients with impunity.

 

I am certain that the attitude of the management of the various trusts when faced with these complaints and protests was very similar to that expressed on here regarding Mr. Moore's attempts. Should the protesters have given up?

[Guest]

 

Parts of the NHS were/are in an horrendous state and were it not for a relatively small number of people raising hell they would still be despatching patients with impunity.

 

I am certain that the attitude of the management of the various trusts when faced with these complaints and protests was very similar to that expressed on here regarding Mr. Moore's attempts. Should the protesters have given up?

 

I covered that point elsewhere in the thread when somebody accused me of possibly being neglectful of genuine complaints.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=62511&p=1196354

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=62511&p=1196900

 

So no I do not think the likes of those raising issues at Stafford and Cardiff and others should have been ignored that is not what I am saying at all.

Edited December 18, 2013 by The Dog House

[Rich]

 

So no I do not think the likes of those raising issues at Stafford and Cardiff and others should have been ignored that is not what I am saying at all.

Well, that is what appeared on my computer. Strange, must be some sort of warp in the ether

[Guest]

Well, that is what appeared on my computer. Strange, must be some sort of warp in the ether

 

Then you are not reading my earlier posts correctly it is perfectly clear the two situations are completely different.

[gaggle]

 

The problem is the resources (both financial and human) consumed while you try and deal with the issues they are raising even when there is no issue to raise.

 

At one point of my dealing with a vexatious complainant/litigant as a manager of several health services I could find myself working up to two or three days per week just dealing with just one patient and their family. This is against a background of the services I was responsible for having a total of around a total of 3,500 patients.

 

It was way too far away from being proportionate. You actually start to feel harassed in the truest sense of the word. I of course am speaking generally here as I have no idea how much money or time has been spent on this issue by CRT but I can only surmise the answer to both is considerable.

 

It is easy to see somebody as some sort of hero 'pursuing the cause' so to speak or even 'David V Goliath' but the truth is their actions have consequences for people and organisations not least in somebody being forced out of what they should be doing into doing something that added no value what so ever for any body else.

 

There are two sides of the coin.

 

If your complainants had to keep coming back and as you say harrassing you then you must not have done a good job when first dealing with them and thier complaints , if they had been given true and timely answers why would they need to keep going back , you may have thought you were managing the complaints but it is accepted that doctors and hospitals along with thier insurers wriggle and squirm and managers such as yourself would really only manage in the manner they allowed you to , dogsbodies who do as they are told and say what they are supposed to say , it is not the health managers who shed light on problems as a rule , they are part of the problems.

[Guest]

I can't quote you Gaggle because you have messed up quoting me. Just because somebody keeps coming back does not mean they are automatically in the right.

 

But yes they did keep coming back (A very small number and one in particular). They were given true and timely answers BUT simply refused to accept them as such.

 

The vast majority of those we investigated had an outcome that they were satisfied with in that changes were made or appropriate other action was taken. I am only speaking from my own experience here by the way.

 

Yes it is clear that in SOME parts of the service there have been very serious problems I am not saying there has not been what I am saying I was not part of that problem as I never worked in a culture that it seems was so evident at the Trusts already referred to.

[Rich]

 

Then you are not reading my earlier posts correctly it is perfectly clear the two situations are completely different.

I have no reason to think that any complaints made to you were acted upon in a satisfactory manner. But this is not the case in all complaints as we have seen on our television screens.

 

Concerning Mid Staffs, I would think that various chunks of management, and external bodies that should have checked, have made disparaging remarks about the complainers and wishing they would go away. Should these people then have given up?

 

I don't see any difference between the two situations, or even the three.

[Guest]

I have no reason to think that any complaints made to you were acted upon in a satisfactory manner. But this is not the case in all complaints as we have seen on our television screens.

 

Concerning Mid Staffs, I would think that various chunks of management, and external bodies that should have checked, have made disparaging remarks about the complainers and wishing they would go away. Should these people then have given up?

 

I don't see any difference between the two situations, or even the three.

 

No I have made that quite clear.

 

Our difference of opinion seems to centre around our opinions as to whether what went on at Mid Staffs and other parts of the NHS is comparable to what some would have us believe is going on at CRT. ie is there some sort of systemic failure that is resulting in information being suppressed, documentation being altered etc etc......and as such it requires a knight in shining armour to expose it.

 

I do not share that view others may have a different opinion.

[matty40s]

 

It is fair to say that VERY occasionally, somebody who might in the ordinary run of things be thought vexatious does find the smoking gun, but to extrapolate this into thinking that everybody who goes down this route is of the same ilk is fanciful.

 

Why do I win, when Nigel loses.

Dave, again you are off target with your assertions re Nigel.

He lost this latest argument as he was involved too late to make a difference. It doesn't mean he hasn't won against BW/CRT before. Just because they didn't give NBW an exclusive press release when they lost, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You still havn't retracted your last error on the previous vanished thread that Nigel is bankrupt and doesn't pay his costs.

For too long BW were allowed to do what they liked and got away with many things that some at the top should have been accountable for.

It would be good to think that now Richard Parry is in charge, there will be a change of culture, it doesn't mean that some of the happenings previously shouldn't be investigated properly .

[gaggle]

In all sectors we have seen stories of those at the top of organisations getting up to all kinds of naughties , fraud ,drugs , use of prostitutes male and female , hotels paid for at a charities expense , why would any single organisation be immune from having people in the ranks capable of the same offences .

[Guest]

In all sectors we have seen stories of those at the top of organisations getting up to all kinds of naughties , fraud ,drugs , use of prostitutes male and female , hotels paid for at a charities expense , why would any single organisation be immune from having people in the ranks capable of the same offences .

I don't think anybody is saying any organisation is immune are they?

[gaggle]

Well mayalid seems to think Nigel or Allan have not the remotest chance of ever finding or proving that anything underhand has occurred within one organisation .

[NigelMoore]

Dave, again you are off target with your assertions re Nigel.

He lost this latest argument as he was involved too late to make a difference. It doesn't mean he hasn't won against BW/CRT before. Just because they didn't give NBW an exclusive press release when they lost, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You still havn't retracted your last error on the previous vanished thread that Nigel is bankrupt and doesn't pay his costs.

For too long BW were allowed to do what they liked and got away with many things that some at the top should have been accountable for.

It would be good to think that now Richard Parry is in charge, there will be a change of culture, it doesn't mean that some of the happenings previously shouldn't be investigated properly .

 

It rather appears that mayalld has become inextricably confused between reports concerning Nick Brown, Dave DeVere and myself.

 

As to the costs issues which various contributors has queried, there are outstanding Orders which have not yet been all quantified; as things stand at present, should I pursue the matter, a rough estimate according to the CPR Rules respecting

allowable LiP costs would put me about £50g in front of CaRT, even allowing for the Thornton Order.

 

To answer directly PaulC’s question on the issue, nothing is presently owed on Thornton’s Order for costs anyway, because that is subject to the outcome of the appeal that has been lodged against that and the substantive findings.

 

As to the primary reason given by the deputy judge for refusal of substitution as Claimant – that I was involved too late [as paraphrased by matty40s] – the deputy judge was quite simply ‘mistaken’ as to the facts. His assertion that I only applied immediately prior to hand-down was false to fact. In this and a number of other issues, his ability to retain an accurate recall of the relevant facts evidently failed over the two years he took to arrive at his judgment.

 

As to the rather ridiculous appraisal of my court record – it is true that I lost various successive arguments over the years. What mayalld has failed to appreciate is that in every instance where I appealed the issues found against me, the superior court found in my favour and decreed that the High Court had been in error. That does not equate to a history of failure on my part, it demonstrates a history of failures on the part of the High Court judges.

 

I am pleased for mayalld’s claimed successes in the arbitration processes he says he has been involved in, but – how many of his battles were fought in the High Court and Appeal Court?

 

The disconnect from reality as to my court successes applies to his appraisal of Nick Brown [in concert with Nigel Johnson]; the fact that a number of High Court judges declared that his current judicial review application had no merit is irrelevant in the face of the superior judge’s determination that there was a case to answer [whether that succeeds or not].

 

I have been hesitant to respond as above until now, because it tends to reduce serious issues to the level of pathetic personal chest-thumping, which inevitably detracts from the main concern which should [for all CaRT ‘customers’] be concentrating on the fitness of the authority’s administration. However, it seemed to me that for so long as such constantly repeated nonsense went unchallenged, a skewed perception of the facts would become possibly ingrained.

 

The character of the administration is crucial to long term success of the authority; more so now as a charity than it ever was when a protected quango. It is entirely inadequate to dismiss the actions of top directors as irrelevant, simply because they happened some time ago, and to do so is a serious failure of the new CEO, which bodes ill for the future.

[Guest]

I have realised now how stupid it was to start this thread as it has just given Nigel another platform to air his views when we still don't know what Dan's take on it all is.

 

It might be a good idea if this thread is locked too and I will suggest it to the mods by reporting this post.

Edited December 18, 2013 by The Dog House

[Tuscan]

Why should he or any one else not air their views, if no one was interested then there would be no more posts and it would just slip to obscurity. If maylld can argue his point to which he is fully entitled I am interested to read the other side . This way at least you can begin to form an opinion one way or another. Or choose to ignore the thread if you wish.

[Guest]

Why should he or any one else not air their views, if no one was interested then there would be no more posts and it would just slip to obscurity. If maylld can argue his point to which he is fully entitled I am interested to read the other side . This way at least you can begin to form an opinion one way or another. Or choose to ignore the thread if you wish.

You are missing the point.

 

Nigel is making allegations against CRT and it's CEO, that is basically what got the last two threads locked.

[gaggle]

I have realised now how stupid it was to start this thread as it has just given Nigel another platform to air his views when we still don't know what Dan's take on it all is.

 

It might be a good idea if this thread is locked too and I will suggest it to the mods by reporting this post.

Pathetic ,absolutley pathetic , you need to stop bothering the mods , really , something i dont know what is just wrong with this continuous behaviour from you, mod botherer go to bed or just ignore the thread .

[Tuscan]

You are missing the point.

Nigel is making allegations against CRT and it's CEO, that is basically what got the last two threads locked.

Where in his last long post before yours does he say that. Or indeed anywhere in this thread. Edited December 18, 2013 by Tuscan

[Guest]

Pathetic ,absolutley pathetic , you need to stop bothering the mods , really , something i dont know what is just wrong with this continuous behaviour from you, mod botherer go to bed or just ignore the thread .

You ably describe yourself..

Where in his last long post before yours does he say that. Or indeed anywhere in this thread.

Last paragraph.

[Lady Muck]

You are missing the point.

 

Nigel is making allegations against CRT and it's CEO, that is basically what got the last two threads locked.

Is it? Losing the will to live here. We pulled the threads because we weren't happy with the way they were being used on another website. Dan was away, we wanted to give him a chance to read them and to speak to Nigel. It's only fair. I have no idea if he's done either of these things yet.

 

How many threads are we up to now? 2? 3? More than that?

[Guest]

Is it? Losing the will to live here. We pulled the threads because we weren't happy with the way they were being used on another website. Dan was away, we wanted to give him a chance to read them and to speak to Nigel. It's only fair. I have no idea if he's done either of these things yet.

 

How many threads are we up to now? 2? 3? More than that?

 

 

It's your call as ever.

 

Leave it up if you are OK with it.

[Tuscan]

You ably describe yourself..

 

Last paragraph.[/

 

There is nothing in this thread that is not said far worse when talking about the house of Lords or current or former governments , energy companies.

[Guest]

There is nothing in this thread that is not said far worse when talking about the house of Lords or current or former governments , energy companies.

The mods seem to concur that it's OK to accuse an individual senior officer of CRT of 'a serious failure' with no supporting evidence, so i'm OK with that it's their call.

Edited December 18, 2013 by The Dog House

[bassplayer]

 

I am saying that because a number of Judges have said that he has no case, he should accept that this is the case.

 

"According to what is available online elsewhere" - is this something independent, or is it something that has been put online to advance Nigel's cause.

You really do believe we live in a fair democratic society don't you? Good luck with that...