vexatious. .....

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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?

I was under the impression that the threads were hidden because they were potentially libellous and the mods were concerned that CaRT might have the site taken down (rather than for the reason given above).

 

The reason new threads pop up is because this is a discussion forum and people wish to discuss. Attempts to suppress discussion by hiding or locking (or claiming that it is boring) inevitably result in more threads providing there is still an interest.

 

Del Brenner (Secretary of Regents Network and member of the London Waterways Commission) on 'Parry on 'Forgery and Fraud''.

 

 

 

 

[bassplayer]

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?

Well my opinion for what it's worth. A forum is one of the last forms of media where unfiltered two way free speech is available. We are pounded with one way media in the form of the papers, TV, radio, billboards, web sites...etc.

 

These days it takes a lot of bravery to host a forum if any form which allows people to find the truth for themselves by debate. Maybe Wikipedia have the same problem?

 

You guys do a great job with this site but I'd be scared too..I suppose it comes down to the big picture in the end...

[NigelMoore]

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.

 

The additional edit seems unnecessarily provocative.

 

I observed that the CEO dismissed the actions of top directors as irrelevant because they happened some time ago.

 

The “supporting evidence” for that is a matter of public record, where Mr Parry was quoted as saying: “use of the terrier plan as background evidence of its title was abandoned by British Waterways a long time ago so the issue of their use is entirely irrelevant.” [my emphasis]

 

The objectionable part of my post appears to be my criticism of that attitude as a serious failure. It simply is my expressed opinion, to which I am entitled and for which I do not need supporting evidence. I do not believe that the lapse of time renders past actions irrelevant to the present – those actions demonstrate the present character of the relevant directors, as does the dismissal of their import.

 

Others may find the CEO’s statement a perfectly acceptable pragmatic approach to the situation. I will be curious to see which others of you do so find it.

[bassplayer]

 

The additional edit seems unnecessarily provocative.

 

I observed that the CEO dismissed the actions of top directors as irrelevant because they happened some time ago.

 

The supporting evidence for that is a matter of public record, where Mr Parry was quoted as saying: use of the terrier plan as background evidence of its title was abandoned by British Waterways a long time ago so the issue of their use is entirely irrelevant. [my emphasis]

 

The objectionable part of my post appears to be my criticism of that attitude as a serious failure. It simply is my expressed opinion, to which I am entitled and for which I do not need supporting evidence. I do not believe that the lapse of time renders past actions irrelevant to the present those actions demonstrate the present character of the relevant directors, as does the dismissal of their import.

 

Others may find the CEOs statement a perfectly acceptable pragmatic approach to the situation. I will be curious to see which others of you do so find it.

Nigel, any chance you could use plain English for the likes of people like me? Why communicate with 50% of the population when you could communicate with 100%. Sorry, I failed English O'Level so I must be stupid..

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Nigel, any chance you could use plain English for the likes of people like me? Why communicate with 50% of the population when you could communicate with 100%. Sorry, I failed English O'Level so I must be stupid..

In plain English what Nigel is saying is that instead of making a very simple check regarding the claims of forgery and fraud, Richard Parry is claiming that it is irrelevant because they happened years ago.

 

 

[Lady Muck]

I was under the impression that the threads were hidden because they were potentially libellous and the mods were concerned that CaRT might have the site taken down (rather than for the reason given above).

 

Nope. The reason above is the reason it was removed.

[bassplayer]

In plain English what Nigel is saying is that instead of making a very simple check regarding the claims of forgery and fraud, Richard Parry is claiming that it is irrelevant because they happened years ago.

 

 

Sounds like a good parry by Parry then. Nigel - You know if you can't beat them you could always join them...

[Guest]

I was under the impression that the threads were hidden because they were potentially libellous and the mods were concerned that CaRT might have the site taken down (rather than for the reason given above).

Interesting - we don't agree on much but my understanding too was exactly the same.

 

Personally I still think that risk exists but as the mods do not seem to think so fairy nuff.

 

The additional edit seems unnecessarily provocative.

The original version didn't adequately identify the precise issue that concerns me about your latest postings hence the edit. If you think that bringing a bit more clarity is provocative then so be it.

Edited December 19, 2013 by The Dog House

[ackdaw]

its abount opinions , and every one has a shared right to them , and id like to hear both sides of the post , as many do , its not about being right and wrong , both are right but i reserve the right to change my mind on that , sometimes you dont need to prove the value of your argument , its a stand alone statement , though im willing to change my opinion on that too , what i find confusing is petes statement above , ive now got to reread all the posts to find a summerise is that any thing to do with sun rise in summer ? as the days are getting short time wise .

as ive a short term memory and get confused easy petes just totally buggerd this thread for me

[mayalld]

 

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?

 

 

None, because there was no need to do so.

 

If I were to lose at earlier stages, I would take serious stock and review whether it was possible that the reason for that is that I was actually wrong.

 

You seem to be cursed with losing at the lower levels on a regular basis and being unable to accept that you might be wrong.

 

I note that yet again the judge was mistaken. One wonders how they ever got to be judges if they are so incapable. Could I suggest that if you present your cases in the same way as you do here, your attempt at being Rumpole of the Bailey is probably the reason for their confusion.

 

Perhaps, so as to set the record straight, you would like to supply a list giving the following information;

 

1) Case that you were involved in

2) Outcome at first instance

3) Whether you appealed

4) Outcome on appeal

5) What costs were awarded

6) Whether those costs have been paid

[matty40s]

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.

1. You started it.

2. You can't stop it.

3. You can always stop posting on it and don't click on it, it might go away.....

[Guest]

1. You started it.

2. You can't stop it.

3. You can always stop posting on it and don't click on it, it might go away.....

 

1. Correct.

2. No shit Sherlock.

3. I doubt it in the short term at least.

[carlt]

 

None, because there was no need to do so.

 

If I were to lose at earlier stages, I would take serious stock and review whether it was possible that the reason for that is that I was actually wrong.

 

You seem to be cursed with losing at the lower levels on a regular basis and being unable to accept that you might be wrong.

 

I note that yet again the judge was mistaken.

If Judges were never mistaken then there would be no need for the higher courts.

 

The fact that a higher court has reversed a decision is usually a fair indicator that either the Judge was mistaken or had not been given all the facts.

 

I do agree with your statement that, in many cases, one wonders how they ever got to be judges.

 

In my experience the lower courts do tend to have a bias (which could be in either direction) whereas the higher courts take a more detached view of the legal intricacies of a case.

 

You say that you have been fortunate enough never to have had to resort to appealing to a higher court but, considering that you are never, ever wrong, if a lower court judge ever disagreed with your opinion you would take it to the highest possible level and still claim they were incompetent if you remained unsuccessful.

 

 

Perhaps, so as to set the record straight, you would like to supply a list giving the following information;

 

1) Case that you were involved in

2) Outcome at first instance

3) Whether you appealed

4) Outcome on appeal

5) What costs were awarded

6) Whether those costs have been paid

As you claim to have mastered the art of first time success with never any need to resort to a higher power perhaps you could provide a similar list of your triumphs, in the same detail.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The additional edit seems unnecessarily provocative.

 

I observed that the CEO dismissed the actions of top directors as irrelevant because they happened some time ago.

 

The “supporting evidence” for that is a matter of public record, where Mr Parry was quoted as saying: “use of the terrier plan as background evidence of its title was abandoned by British Waterways a long time ago so the issue of their use is entirely irrelevant.” [my emphasis]

 

The objectionable part of my post appears to be my criticism of that attitude as a serious failure. It simply is my expressed opinion, to which I am entitled and for which I do not need supporting evidence. I do not believe that the lapse of time renders past actions irrelevant to the present – those actions demonstrate the present character of the relevant directors, as does the dismissal of their import.

 

Others may find the CEO’s statement a perfectly acceptable pragmatic approach to the situation. I will be curious to see which others of you do so find it.

 

Here is part of what I wrote to Richard Parry on 18/11/2013 -

 

 

The allegation of forgery arises because the disputed land (i.e. the hatched land below the word 'DOCK') is not on the BW original terrier plan!

(What may have happened is that a portion of the BW terrier plan was photocopied, the hatching added the result photocopied again. Whilst, this is speculation on my part I am unable to envisage any other circumstance which accounts for the difference. It is also a matter of public record that the difference exists).

For completeness, I have added a comparison of the alleged forged document used for objection (upper) to the land that BYB were trying to claim (lower) [bW Terrier cp BYB claimed] and a very poor copy of the original terrier that BW disclosed at a much later date [Terrier original disclosed]. You can, of course, check the original yourself.

 

To claim that the matter is not relevant because the document in question is no longer being used is not a credible response to the above and a serious failure (in my opinion).

 

 

[matty40s]

As you claim to have mastered the art of first time success with never any need to resort to a higher power perhaps you could provide a similar list of your triumphs, in the same detail.

 

perhaps we should ask Dan if we have enough server space first.....

[carlt]

perhaps we should ask Dan if we have enough server space first.....

Love it! but I'm afraid I've reached my greenie limit for the day.

[Lady Muck]

perhaps we should ask Dan if we have enough server space first.....

 

I don't know if the current server is big enough.

 

[Guest]

 

I don't know if the current server is big enough.

 

 

That's just the bit Nigel is using though.

[Lady Muck]

No, actually that might be where the FOI requests are stored.

[carlt]

 

That's just the bit Nigel is using though.

Comparing your post count to Nigel's isn't this a black pot and kettle situation?

 

(and yes I know the same could be said of me).

[mayalld]

You say that you have been fortunate enough never to have had to resort to appealing to a higher court but, considering that you are never, ever wrong, if a lower court judge ever disagreed with your opinion you would take it to the highest possible level and still claim they were incompetent if you remained unsuccessful.

As you claim to have mastered the art of first time success with never any need to resort to a higher power perhaps you could provide a similar list of your triumphs, in the same detail.

 

There have been a small number of occasions where I didn't win. On mature reflection I decided not to pursue it, as my case was not watertight.

 

Over the past couple of years, I haven't had any of these, but I have had;

 

BW, Complaint regarding inappropriate management of visitor moorings at Bugsworth. Rejected at first level, upheld at second level.

BW, Complaint regarding abusive language from a volunteer lock keeper who took umbrage at being told that his assistance was not required. Resolved at first level.

Financial Ombudsman, complaint about insurance payout. Found in our favour, in the sum of £95k

PoPLA, appeal against PCN, found in my favour.

[Guest]

Comparing your post count to Nigel's isn't this a black pot and kettle situation?

 

(and yes I know the same could be said of me).

 

Of course, but then it just a bit of harmless fun, just as yours with about Dave, anyway it's now obvious we only need this for Daves' records.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by The Dog House

[carlt]

 

 

Over the past couple of years, I haven't had any of these, but I have had;

 

BW, Complaint regarding inappropriate management of visitor moorings at Bugsworth. Rejected at first level, upheld at second level.

BW, Complaint regarding abusive language from a volunteer lock keeper who took umbrage at being told that his assistance was not required. Resolved at first level.

Financial Ombudsman, complaint about insurance payout. Found in our favour, in the sum of £95k

PoPLA, appeal against PCN, found in my favour.

So 75% of those incidents you list involved an appeal of some kind, having failed at the first level.

 

Of course, but then it just a bit of harmless fun, just as yours with Dave.

Harmless fun?

 

I take my discussions with Dave very seriously (though devoid of animosity).

 

My comment about post counts was harmless fun, however.

[mayalld]

So 75% of those incidents you list involved an appeal of some kind, having failed at the first level.

 

You could chose to see it that way!

 

Alternatively, you could see that none of them required to be taken beyond the first level that was "detatched" from the original decision maker.

[Guest]

Harmless fun?

 

I take my discussions with Dave very seriously (though devoid of animosity).

 

My comment about post counts was harmless fun, however.

 

Well I sort of thought your comment about server size in response to Matty40s was in fun or jest if you prefer.

 

Clearly you meant it to be serious and I misinterpreted..... hey ho..