Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s

Featured Posts

 

 

It is just that I find it dangerous to second guess what the "silent majority" want and most often find each "side" claims it is they who speak for them and assume they (silent majority) agree with them.

 

I speak for myself and hope that there will always be a vocal section (minority or majority) who disagree with me and are willing to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

despite comments from the judge about his persistence!

 

 

Sorry, but put simply Nigel needed every bit of persistence he had, had he not been persistence in achieving what he believed was, and was proved to be, right. Well as Litigant in Person, a layperson who takes on the professionals his odds of winning were low, everything was stacked against him. He needed that persistence to get the matter to court, to use the system to his best effort, to defeat the professionals, to finally take it to the Court of Appeal. I suspect that the Judge quietly admired Nigel for his persistence, without it he would have lost even though he was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As I and many understand it, Tony and Nigel haven't pushed the boundaries of legislation, CRT have, acting outside the boundaries set down in the acts, as far as they can manage. This is being challenged for the benefit of us all.

 

Is the opposite of a fluffybunny a big bald wolf? The silent majority agree with me on thisicecream.gif

My expression 'pushing the boundaries' was meant to indicate just that: unless and until they are proved guilty by a court then they remain innocent and in Nigel's case - as I said - he eventually won his case, thereby defining a little bit more about where the boundary actually lies. The other cases which are not currently under discussion here will both, potentially, tell all of us a little more about where the courts currently think the boundary lies.

 

There are, of course, others who wish to test the boundaries of the legislation to breaking point. But mostly less high profile. Others, however, suggest that, like high voltage power lines, it is much safer to stay well away from danger!

 

We have yet to see whether CaRT have operated outside the legislation as that is what is under consideration in at least one case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be little doubt that this thread would indicate that robust discussion can be conducted on this site,

 

that it can be conducted in a polite way without personal attacks,

 

it is very popular with participants and silent observers alike,

 

and even though we do not agree we all have shared interests in boating, and this place.

 

I for one do not wish to go to facebook, or to post on any other forum.

 

Home sweet home.

 

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be little doubt that this thread would indicate that robust discussion can be conducted on this site,

 

Rog

 

ironic really that a ban had to implemented to get to a point where a debate could again take place - a ban was needed to get rid of the trouble makers - the forum went right down hill and i also nearly didnt come back - but of late i have started to enjoy it again. - good work Team.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My expression 'pushing the boundaries' was meant to indicate just that: unless and until they are proved guilty by a court then they remain innocent and in Nigel's case - as I said - he eventually won his case, thereby defining a little bit more about where the boundary actually lies. The other cases which are not currently under discussion here will both, potentially, tell all of us a little more about where the courts currently think the boundary lies.

 

There are, of course, others who wish to test the boundaries of the legislation to breaking point. But mostly less high profile. Others, however, suggest that, like high voltage power lines, it is much safer to stay well away from danger!

 

We have yet to see whether CaRT have operated outside the legislation as that is what is under consideration in at least one case.

Mike,

 

They aren't on trial - they won't be found guilty of anything.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

They aren't on trial - they won't be found guilty of anything.

JP

I believe CRT are being taken to court in one of the cases highlighted(past tense) on here, for illegal removal of a boat by s8- very similar to the lightship case which has obviously not got that far yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe CRT are being taken to court in one of the cases highlighted(past tense) on here, for illegal removal of a boat by s8- very similar to the lightship case which has obviously not got that far yet.

No one is facing criminal charges and no one will serve sentence. They may be required to remedy their previous actions and pay compensation and/or costs. The use of terms 'innocent' and 'guilty' doesn't seem appropriate or fair to any party be it LR, TD or C&RT.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ironic really that a ban had to implemented to get to a point where a debate could again take place - a ban was needed to get rid of the trouble makers - the forum went right down hill and i also nearly didnt come back - but of late i have started to enjoy it again. - good work Team.

 

There was no need for a wholesale ban to be implemented at all.

 

What should have happened was that the worst of the excesses be removed and the rules that were in place enforced.

 

The forum has lost many valued contributors who probably won't return.

 

To be honest if there isn't some sort of visible action from the admin team soon I will be among them.

 

It's a bit like the Brexit thread "amnesty"...allowing this one to run whilst continuing to stifle debate elsewhere is not good enough.

 

At the moment I am engaging in friendly, lively debate on the unmentionable forum without the single minded hyperbole of old (but with the odd entertaining fruit loop tolerated) which I still can't do here.

 

There needs to be change and it needs to be announced soon or the exodus will surely continue.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There was no need for a wholesale ban to be implemented at all.

 

What should have happened was that the worst of the excesses be removed and the rules that were in place enforced.

 

The forum has lost many valued contributors who probably won't return.

 

To be honest if there isn't some sort of visible action from the admin team soon I will be among them.

 

It's a bit like the Brexit thread "amnesty"...allowing this one to run whilst continuing to stifle debate elsewhere is not good enough.

 

At the moment I am engaging in friendly, lively debate on the unmentionable forum without the single minded hyperbole of old (but with the odd entertaining fruit loop tolerated) which I still can't do here.

 

There needs to be change and it needs to be announced soon or the exodus will surely continue.

good reply - but shame members couldnt respect others and keep it civil, - will be interesting to see how the forum developes - i am on a few forums that have all declined except one which i am a mod on - its stronger than ever, mostly because all the members police it themselves to an extent - its free to chat about anything yet the main subject is still top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There was no need for a wholesale ban to be implemented at all.

 

What should have happened was that the worst of the excesses be removed and the rules that were in place enforced.

 

 

Oh yes there was. Your proposal was implemented here but you seem to have missed it. a dozen or two posters persistently refused to self moderate so the bannings began. What action would you propose when the rules are routinely and persistently ignored by a subset of posters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh yes there was. Your proposal was implemented here but you seem to have missed it. a dozen or two posters persistently refused to self moderate so the bannings began. What action would you propose when the rules are routinely and persistently ignored by a subset of posters?

I'd ban them like they have done in the past.

 

There was no need for the wholesale rule changes, just targeted bans and suspensions.

 

Banned trolls soon tire of sock puppetry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring on the fruit loops , it's gone a bit dull of late. Fluffy bunnies are a good alternative to cat food . Fluffy bunny curry , yum.

 

Leave out the real nasty stuff, suspensions and bans are the best way to deal with the really evil customers.

 

I do have a very thick skin but there are some things that press my buttons .

 

I think a sin bin into which all argument threads could be dumped would be a better idea , everybody could chose to read or avoid.

 

I'm a bit mystified why so many threads are locked , seemingly un controversial topics too. Is there some mischief making going on ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring on the fruit loops , it's gone a bit dull of late. Fluffy bunnies are a good alternative to cat food . Fluffy bunny curry , yum.

 

Leave out the real nasty stuff, suspensions and bans are the best way to deal with the really evil customers.

 

I do have a very thick skin but there are some things that press my buttons .

 

I think a sin bin into which all argument threads could be dumped would be a better idea , everybody could chose to read or avoid.

 

I'm a bit mystified why so many threads are locked , seemingly un controversial topics too. Is there some mischief making going on ?

Sorry but things move on. If you like being controlled stay here. If not move on. It's a simple choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.