|
Post by Graham on Oct 25, 2016 20:09:57 GMT
It was PaulG2, if I recall correctly, who posted somewhere else regarding so-called anti-CaRT campaigns, that these should properly be campaigns FOR the proper management of CaRT, rather than diatribes against the organisation as an entity entrusted with our priceless national asset. That is surely, what Tony, I, and others have been doing – in fact, a lot of what I have been promoting, in everything I have written, is more and more properly focussed enforcement of the law, instead of the power-hungry, pointless, and costly throwing around of weight for the sake of it. To view the “Boater Sues C&RT” thread as a purely ant-CaRT campaign is to blindly follow the specious argumentation of Mr Stoner at Leigh’s last hearing. There is something deeply ironic that Dan & Co are giving the lie to the decision Chief Master Marsh made on this very same accusation. I actually think D got caught with his pants down a Mod, possibly because someone put a thought in her mind about illegal publishing of info, closed the threads. Now Dan is not big enough to overrule his Mod, possibly because it has been said if you do we walk, don't know but there seems to be a lot of bend to the rule of .... rather than applying the written rules.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 25, 2016 20:16:24 GMT
I note no mention of legal advice Indeed not. Moreover - I note the curious wording emphasising that neither CaRT nor Shoosmiths have DIRECTLY contacted him, which raises rather obvious suspicions. How does one reconcile the assertion that there is no ban on discussing CaRT enforcement, with the statement of a ban on discussing caRT enforcement regarding Leigh and the lightship? The distinction is too profound for the likes of me. As you and I know unless a contact is official it means nothing thus a whisper in the ear that maybe would find it nice if ... |Has had heavy influence on D for what reason I doubt we will ever know. As for your second para; It is not reconcilable they are one and the same thing. I think in reality if an occasion arises where someone raise a heavy case with legs it will be found to be unacceptable when the whisper arrives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 20:24:56 GMT
DHutch...Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the shite rules. --------------------------- Fixed it...
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 20:41:08 GMT
This is weird – can’t find the final comment I quoted on “Boater Sues”, so there is only the emailed notification. And yet – there is this, re: “CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule”
Posted Today, 07:38 PM
Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.
Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Oct 25, 2016 20:43:53 GMT
This is weird – can’t find the final comment I quoted on “Boater Sues”, so there is only the emailed notification. And yet – there is this, re: “CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule” Posted Today, 07:38 PM
Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.
Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.That thread has been reopened but the original one remains locked currently, although a question has been asked.
|
|
alan
Junior Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by alan on Oct 25, 2016 20:48:10 GMT
I wonder if I will get a reply - I am temped to 'report' it so it gets 'Dan-review'
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 25, 2016 21:10:08 GMT
I wonder if I will get a reply - I am temped to 'report' it so it gets 'Dan-review' Alan stated that he'd reported it for precisely that reason.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 25, 2016 21:11:19 GMT
DHutch (http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=150) has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Following ongoing discussion and significant review, this thread is going to remain closed. Myself and the site staff do not wish to prevent members talking about current activity between waterways organisations such as CRT and canal users, however I also do not feel it is appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against such organisations. Members need to consider what they are posting and effect of doing so. We have not been contact directly by CRT or Shoesmiths. There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement. Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the site rules. --------------------------- That post (notwithstanding the self-contradiction within it) didn't remain up for long before Dan deleted it.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Oct 25, 2016 21:12:37 GMT
I wonder if I will get a reply - I am temped to 'report' it so it gets 'Dan-review' You should eat lots of beans to make your horn signal as loud as possible to warn young man Dan that your 'report' is arriving.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 26, 2016 0:14:17 GMT
This is weird – can’t find the final comment I quoted on “Boater Sues”, so there is only the emailed notification. And yet – there is this, re: “CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule” Posted Today, 07:38 PM
Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.
Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.I think it disappeared for a while, its back now. www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1906836Well I wonder if i'll get left anything in CWDF's will? i notice that right now, there is 1 person in CWDF chat, that is DHutch. Presumably he is getting used to how CWDF will soon be.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 26, 2016 0:35:06 GMT
This is weird – can’t find the final comment I quoted on “Boater Sues”, so there is only the emailed notification. And yet – there is this, re: “CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule” Posted Today, 07:38 PM
Following significant review and on going discussion, I would like to re-open this thread.
Please respect this decision, and my apologies for the time taken to review this case and others.I think it disappeared for a while, its back now. www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1906836Well I wonder if i'll get left anything in CWDF's will? i notice that right now, there is 1 person in CWDF chat, that is DHutch. Presumably he is getting used to how CWDF will soon be. How odd that he wrote it, removed it, put it back...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 26, 2016 6:36:13 GMT
How odd that he wrote it, removed it, put it back... He used to be indecisive, . . . but, nowadays he's not so sure !
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 26, 2016 7:51:20 GMT
odd but nevertheless fairly normal for that place these days?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 20:43:04 GMT
I have just returned to internet connectivity after an hiatus due to an unlikely combination of circumstances. I have posted a couple of belated responses onto CWDF, which, as they are tucked away in members only land, I reproduce here:
Posted Today, 07:35 PM
DHutch, on 26 Oct 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:http://www.canalworld.net/forums/public/style_images/master/snapback.png
This is all I am going to say on the topic, and I hope that we can move on from here and talk about the topic in hand, rather than the details of past site moderation.
For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I was very far from demanding, requesting or even just inviting you to say anything more on the topic at all. I accepted your right to do as you please here, and deemed your last word on that topic - in the last post you appended to it - to be an accurate explanation to all, that it was locked because you do not wish your site to be used as a platform for campaigning against CaRT. It follows that you so characterised those posts within that topic that were critical of CaRT &/or [presumably] organisations such as Shoosmiths whom they use to fight their battles.
It is needful to point out that any user comment on that post of yours is NOT dealing with “past site moderation”; for your words to have any meaning they must be read as a newly stated policy that CaRT and their legal wolves are not to be criticised – or at least, not to be criticised too often or too colourfully - from this point on. I am certainly not aware of any such policy existing previously.
Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, while I recorded my disagreement with any classification of my posts as part of a campaign against CaRT per se, I have not challenged your right to so classify my posts [as you seem to have], nor have I challenged your decisions based on that.
The post you responded to simply replied to specific questions from other members, and in doing so, merely directed them to your own words.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 30, 2016 20:47:43 GMT
I have just returned to internet connectivity after an hiatus due to an unlikely combination of circumstances. I have posted a couple of belated responses onto CWDF, which, as they are tucked away in members only land, I reproduce here: >SNIP thank you for posting it here Nigel
|
|