Dispute at Pillings

[furnessvale]

Were I in Phil Spencer's position now with all the B/S and the impudent demand to have me removed I would do all I could to destroy PL! I would put my job on-the-line rather than give in. I would demand that the Board agree to cause the Marina to be permanently closed rather than give in to their finagling.

 

Hopefully, Mr Spencer is a level headed manager who is expecting a sensible conclusion to this fiasco that will satisfy Pillings moorers and all other CRT customers and suppliers.

 

If the BMF did not approve the standard NAA or now believe it to be unfair then surely all Marinas should be refusing to pay it.

I have to admit that all this companies within companies stuff is blowing my mind which, of course, is exactly what it is designed to do.

 

Given the history of this marina, would CRT be seen as acting unreasonably if they refused to negotiate a new NAA with anything other than a simple company which owned and operated this marina outright?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited March 28, 2014 by furnessvale

[Robbo]

 

What is the situation re copyright, if its a publicly available document?

 

Unless says otherwise I believe it's the property of the recipient unless the email states otherwise.

[Grace and Favour]

 

Unless says otherwise I believe it's the property of the recipient unless the email states otherwise.

However, in this particular example, as MtB has pointed out, NBW were on the cc list of the email from Phil!

 

Extract:

From: Phil Spencer

Sent: 27 March 2014 16:36

To: 'Pillings Back Office'; 'Pillings Lock'

Cc: 'Pillings Lock Reception Desk'; Roy Rollings; 'Paul Lillie'; Richard Parry; zoe.wright@shoosmiths.co.uk; Lynne Berry; editor@canalboatmag.co.uk; editor@wwonline.co.uk; editorial@towpathtalk.co.uk; editor@narrowboatworld.com

Subject: RE: New Company Set-Up Complete

Edited March 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Stilllearning]

However, in this particular example, as MtB has pointed out, NBW were on the cc list of the email from Phil!

 

Extract:

From: Phil Spencer

Sent: 27 March 2014 16:36

To: 'Pillings Back Office'; 'Pillings Lock'

Cc: 'Pillings Lock Reception Desk'; Roy Rollings; 'Paul Lillie'; Richard Parry; zoe.wright@shoosmiths.co.uk; Lynne Berry; editor@canalboatmag.co.uk; editor@wwonline.co.uk; editorial@towpathtalk.co.uk; editor@narrowboatworld.com

Subject: RE: New Company Set-Up Complete

So saying they couldn't publish it is pure bullsh!te ?

[Ssscrudddy]

Lol, so NBW seems to be getting in as much a mess as QMP/750Ltd/PLM/PLT, & I'm getting confuzzled.

I am asking if this is right...

2300CC is now the new 750CC (motorbikes)
750Ltd is now the new QMP (& not to be confused with the motorbike made by Kawasaki in the 80s)
PLT is now the new PLM
QMH is now the same QMH

?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

However, in this particular example, as MtB has pointed out, NBW were on the cc list of the email from Phil!

 

Extract:

From: Phil Spencer

Sent: 27 March 2014 16:36

To: 'Pillings Back Office'; 'Pillings Lock'

Cc: 'Pillings Lock Reception Desk'; Roy Rollings; 'Paul Lillie'; Richard Parry; zoe.wright@shoosmiths.co.uk; Lynne Berry; editor@canalboatmag.co.uk; editor@wwonline.co.uk; editorial@towpathtalk.co.uk; editor@narrowboatworld.com

Subject: RE: New Company Set-Up Complete

Quite right. I have been told the following -

 

The email was not accompanied by anything stating if it was meant for publication.

 

NBW has very recently published an article by Phil Spencer and thus its editor queried if the email was meant for publication or if Phil Spencer would care to write another article explaining CaRT's position..

 

As it stands, Phil Spencer has yet to reply.

 

Interestingly, a senior CaRT press officer has asked that Phil Spencer's previous article be altered but this has been refused.

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

Quite right. I have been told the following -

 

The email was not accompanied by anything stating if it was meant for publication.

 

NBW has very recently published an article by Phil Spencer and thus its editor queried if the email was was meant for publication or if Phil Spencer would care to write another article explaining CaRT's position..

 

As it stands, Phil Spencer has yet to reply.

 

Interestingly, a senior CaRT press officer has asked that Phil Spencer's previous article be altered but this has been refused.

 

 

Surely when it has been sent to the various editors and editorial departments of 'paper based' canal 'magazines' it has been done so it can be published - if not why do it ?

 

Are NBW just afraid they made a mistake 'backing' Little Lille ?

[Peter X]

Lol, so NBW seems to be getting in as much a mess as QMP/750Ltd/PLM/PLT, & I'm getting confuzzled.

 

I am asking if this is right...

 

2300CC is now the new 750CC (motorbikes)

750Ltd is now the new QMP (& not to be confused with the motorbike made by Kawasaki in the 80s)

PLT is now the new PLM

QMH is now the same QMH

 

?

 

Motorbikes? Haven't a clue, someone else can answer that.

 

750LLtd and PLT are both the new QMP, in that QMH owns 750LLtd which owns PLT which owns the freehold of the marina.

PLT is not (yet anyway) the new PLM because PLT so far just owns the marina and is hoping (in PL's fantasy world) to get a NAA. Nothing has yet been said to indicate that PLT will be doing anything else, e.g. hiring out moorings, running the café, or any other activity in the marina; that's still done by PLM.

 

QMH is the same as it ever was, letting the days go by. Except that it no longer owns QMP which is still being liquidated, but does own 750LLtd. QMH doesn't have Talking Heads; its head says nothing and the minority shareholder talks out of another part of his anatomy.

[Hawkmoth]

With all the shouting and moral indignation expressed on here about this tangled web (BTW I tend to agree with this indignation), I do wonder where actually the law will stand.

I'm sure that I am not the only one to think that all too frequently morals and the law don't talk to each other.

Bob

[ditchcrawler]

 

Unless says otherwise I believe it's the property of the recipient unless the email states otherwise.

Think Prince Charles's letters to Ministers that a paper what published.

[John Holden]

 

Unless says otherwise I believe it's the property of the recipient unless the email states otherwise.

 

No, copyright always rests with the originator.

[Jim Riley]

missed out on a few posts while out and about, but I have replied to Tom NBW

 

Hi Tom

Thanks for your prompt reply, however further perusal of the email header show you are already a recipient, presumably so youcan use the information, to tell it like it is.

From: Phil Spencer
Sent: 27 March 2014 16:36
To: 'Pillings Back Office'; 'Pillings Lock'
Cc: 'Pillings Lock Reception Desk'; Roy Rollings; 'Paul Lillie'; Richard Parry; zoe.wright@shoosmiths.co.uk; Lynne Berry;editor@canalboatmag.co.uk; editor@wwonline.co.uk; editorial@towpathtalk.co.uk; editor@narrowboatworld.com
Subject: RE: New Company Set-Up Complete

regards

Jim

​interested to see if I get a reply and what it might say, anyone have a "weasel to english" translator?

[Stilllearning]

Having just read over on NBW the most recent article by Allan Richards, I am reminded why tabloid newspapers are never read in our house. On the one hand he appears to loudly complain that it "is the boater that ends up paying. It always is!", and then promptly demands that all NAAs are scrapped. So all boaters will indeed pay more.

I am sure he's a nice enough bloke: not having done more than share a meeting room with him once, I don't know him, but please let's have some intellectual rigour, if he wants to be taken seriously.

[Ssscrudddy]

If the BMF did not approve the standard NAA or now believe it to be unfair then surely all Marinas should be refusing to pay it.

So what exactly have the British Motorcycle Federation got to do with all of this?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

No, copyright always rests with the originator.

That is my understanding as well.

 

[Robbo]

 

No, copyright always rests with the originator.

 

They will own the words, but if you are the recipient of the email you own the email. Or that's what a quick Google has come up with - to be honest it's not clear.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Robbo

[John Holden]

 

They will own the words, but if you are the recipient of the email you own the email. Or that's what a quick Google has come up with - to be honest it's not clear.

 

Own the email, but that isn't the same as owning what is in it.

[MtB]

Not sure how anyone can 'own' an email, being an arrangement of words.

 

Own the rights to their arrangement of the words perhaps. The concept of intellectual property applies here, I think...

 

 

MtB

[mayalld]

 

They will own the words, but if you are the recipient of the email you own the email. Or that's what a quick Google has come up with - to be honest it's not clear.

 

It becomes slightly abstract when you are talking about e-mail, but if we go back to old fashioned physical letters;

 

The recipient owns the physical thing, and can keep it, read it, destroy it as he sees fit.

The sender owns the copyright in the content, and as such the recipient cannot publish it without consent.

[Dangerous Dave]

If your agreement ws with QMH (as a long term lease holder) then rpesumably that agreement is now as void as the former NAA!

 

 

Ga-sooks...I believe you are right!

 

We are trying to find out if the court order of costs for QMP & PLM is valid too.

The receiver has been asked also an independent solicitor but as yet no response.

 

Apart from PLM's solicitor threatening us with extra costs at a court hearing should we continue to ask for a variation order!

weren't Lillieput from Gullible's travels?

 

 

Your be called a nasty Man again with remarks like that hahahaha

Edited March 28, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[Paul G2]

Mike Todd, on 27 Mar 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

 

If your agreement ws with QMH (as a long term lease holder) then rpesumably that agreement is now as void as the former NAA!

 

Ga-sooks...I believe you are right!

 

 

 

QMH is the holding company. It is not in liquidation. Any contracts anyone has with QMH should not be affected by the QMP liquidation.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paul G2

[Dangerous Dave]

 

QMH is the holding company. It is not in liquidation. Any contracts anyone has with QMH should not be affected by the QMP liquidation.

 

I think Mike meant QMP ltd The leasehold agreement landlord of our now defunct lease

[Dangerous Dave]

I have noticed that in all the directors and managers of all the scene at Pillings..Mrs Steadman hasn't been mentioned.

 

Someone pointed out that she and him indoors are divorcing..Could it be that she is the clever clogs of business matters and now this has gone tits up ,or as seems so for all the freaks at PLM,the empire of the Steadmans is going up the creek !

 

Especially so it if as someone mentioned PL,CSH and Matt are now 3 ** * ***!

[Midnight Rider]

 

The email was not accompanied by anything stating if it was meant for publication.

 

 

Seems bleed'n obvious to me that if you copy in the waterways press then you expect them to use it. I suppose that expecting the truth from NBW after they have taken their stand is too much to ask.

[Peter X]

I offer here a quotation from

http://www.ihaveawebsite-nowwhat.co.uk/copyright/

... and am fairly confident that doing this does not place me in breach of copyright law!

 

MYTH: "I received it in an email - so I can use it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. Technically even the text in e-mails you receive (or write) are all copyrighted to the original author. You are committing an offence by forwarding or extracting this information. But in reality if someone tries to sue over an ordinary message that has no commercial value, they would be unlikely to succeed, but you should always ask first.

 

Phil Spencer's e-mail has no commercial value, in that he could not hope to argue that someone would wish to buy it. In theory he could publish a book of memoirs at some point in the future and use the e-mail in it, but I think a judge would take a cynical view of that idea.

As others have suggested, I think NBW are just giving an excuse not to publish, and that if you send an e-mail to lots of boat owners and particularly to various waterways magazines (whether paper or Internet or any other media) there is a clear implication that there is permission to publish. If you write a letter to a newspaper, they surely won't feel the need to contact you before publication unless you specifically ask them to.