Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

I think it was implied that items were damaged by person or persons unknown but that circumstantial evidence could place marina staff in the viciniy. However, it was also confirmed that staff admitted that they had rendered a boat inoperable due to outstanding debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Security cameras are just one of the things promised that never materialised, like the security gates to the pontoons that ended up being a plastic chain link because the money ear-marked for them had to be "used elsewhere".

 

If we're allowed to mention co-incidences, it was the same year that PL took an interest free loan from the "fledgling business" (CSH's phrase)

Edited by Phantasm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Security cameras, aren't their any?? I thought they advertised excellent security

 

If not pass on this link.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=65621. Alarm's and cameras

 

Maybe of help

 

Col

 

 

There are cameras..Looking after the Caff,and one aimed at the workshop!

They do scan a wide area though so some of the boats are covered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are they worried someone might nick the infamous café furniture?

 

 

That reminds me..I think someone said that CSH had the commission in redesigning the decor..Perhaps that's why he got so bitchy with Ally and others recently(?)

 

It's more for the sake of PL needing security as has been known on more than one occasion he does seem to rub people up the wrong way..I think there is a camera in the office or/and back passage also..Whilst we were being accused of knobbling the electric meters ,some one close to management was stealing cards and was caught on cctv..Or so we were told via the cafe/office gossip dept!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That reminds me..I think someone said that CSH had the commission in redesigning the decor..Perhaps that's why he got so bitchy with Ally and others recently(?)

 

It's more for the sake of PL needing security as has been known on more than one occasion he does seem to rub people up the wrong way..I think there is a camera in the office or/and back passage also..Whilst we were being accused of knobbling the electric meters ,some one close to management was stealing cards and was caught on cctv..Or so we were told via the cafe/office gossip dept!

Phwwwght - - - Coffee all over keyboard!!!!

 

There's a phrase in your post that I obviously interpreted incorrectly!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and its value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

Sorry you are wrong with that.

Its nothing to do with what you think, the thread would have been taken down if it had been.

Edited by Loddon
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Security cameras are just one of the things promised that never materialised, like the security gates to the pontoons that ended up being a plastic chain link because the money ear-marked for them had to be "used elsewhere".

 

If we're allowed to mention co-incidences, it was the same year that PL took an interest free loan from the "fledgling business" (CSH's phrase)

CCTV cameras were installed... Not to cover the entrance, parking, or boats..... They are long range cameras designed to spot people that don't collect dog poo on the dog walks around the marina. They were installed after PL's failed idea of forcing all dog owners on the marina to pay to have their dogs DNA recorded so that he could take poo samples from around the marina, and compare them to the resident dogs, so fines could be levied. Oh, then the dog toilets were installed......

 

 

*edit fro spleling miskates

Edited by Marc Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

 

You try to use a few big words to make yourself look erudite, but the fact is you are just a simple-minded little troll, trying to stir controversy where there is none.

 

ETA - In the unlikely event you actually mean what you said... Hate speech is a real problem, and of the biggest problems is that hate speech often leads to hate action. If you want to see real hate speech, google any racial or other pejorative you can think of and you'll find plenty of real hate speech.

 

Absolutely nothing that has been said here even remotely resembles hate speech. To try to somehow relate what has been written here to hate speech serves no purpose but to trivialize a real problem. If you really believe what you said, you need to get out more.

Edited by Paul G2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

For someone whos not a big fan of Wiki you dont half look up some obscure stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

You must have found some interest or entertainment in this thread if you have taken the time and trouble to watch it since January. I fail to see how your link to the article in Wikipedia has any reference to this thread at all. It is not an attempt to incite hatred against a protect group or individual, it has nothing to do with race, religion, ethnic minorities, disability or sexual orientation. It has to do with an outrageous and immoral action by a small number of diverse individuals.

 

"Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]"

 

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][62][63][64][65][66][67] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches, does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[68]

 

Edited by Phantasm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

Whut? Hate speech? This thread (apart from a couple of posts which have been moderated) has been perfectly well behaved, and is a credit to CWDF members and the Mod Team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cliftoma, on 12 Apr 2014 - 5:23 PM, said:

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

 

Did you actually read the link you posted ?

Here - I'll help you :

 

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation

 

There have been examples of 'animosity' against certain individuals involved in the 'situation' - however none of them are for reasons of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation so could no be (under your own criteria) be "Hate Speech"

 

I note that "hate speech" by reason of incompetance is not listed.

 

Some strong words have been used but as the evidence has come out they appear to be more than justified - and in all probability some of the actions at Pillings Lock should have lead to criminal prosecution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whut? Hate speech? This thread (apart from a couple of posts which have been moderated) has been perfectly well behaved, and is a credit to CWDF members and the Mod Team.

 

 

Apart from the email sent to a couple of innocent ex customers of Pillings Lock Marina as seen on page 3 !!

 

Now that's" hate speech", from a cowardly individual

Edited by Dangerous Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCTV cameras were installed... Not to cover the entrance, parking, or boats..... They are long range cameras designed to spot people that don't collect dog poo on the dog walks around the marina. They were installed after PL's failed idea of forcing all dog owners on the marina to pay to have their dogs DNA recorded so that he could take poo samples from around the marina, and compare them to the resident dogs, so fines could be levied. Oh, then the dog toilets were installed......

 

 

*edit fro spleling miskates

 

 

And then it came to pass that the dog walking areas for berth holders were sealed off to make room for a business selling Shetland Ponies with the owner never asked to clear up after them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched this thread since January it has provoked my great contemplation of the purpose of the discussion and it’s value. Although I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, this article seems to sum things up quite succinctly and I leave it you to work out why…

Click here to find out in Wikipedia

Of all the stupid comments that I have ever read on any site ever - this has got to be the top one. There has been nothing relating to hate speech anywhere. Though some individuals involved in the reneging on the NAA have apparently done enough to engender a lot of anger and dislike, if not positive hatred. But as for comments about gender, orientation, skin colour, etc etc - there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously... they were planning on using the furniture in part settlement for next years bills!

 

Nooooo! Not the comfy chair! Everything CRT have said recently indicates that they have no intention of allowing PLT or any other marina owner to do a QMP in future, but it would be reassuring I think if a CRT announcement could spell out this new policy explicitly. Something along the lines of "NAA fees must be paid quarterly a week before that quarter begins, and if not paid on time there will be a warning followed by the marina entrance being blocked when the paid-for period has expired".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.