Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 20:51:51 GMT
Another post I responded to, because I do not wish to give any appearances of "flouncing" or cutting off any avenue of publication -
Raybo, on 26 Oct 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:http://www.canalworld.net/forums/public/style_images/master/snapback.png
Nigel,
Isn't it possible that the "Provocative and inflammatory posts" originated from other posters on the thread? My recollection of your posts is that they are detailed and considered, rather than inflammatory.
I understand you would want clarity on where the boundary between tolerable and intolerable lies to avoid posting under a sword of damocles, but would be surprised if your own posts were too close to the line and would hope you could continue to post on CWDF.
I would certainly hope that that was considered to be the case, but that description was linked to the primary reason given for locking the thread, which was that it was considered to comprise a campaign against CaRT & Shoosmiths. It seems very likely in that context, that critical posts such as mine were considered provocative and inflammatory.
Moreover, whether unhappy coincidence or not, the terms of objection to the thread as comprising a campaign against CaRT, are identical to the description of my posts used by CaRT and Shoosmiths in their pleadings before Chief Master Marsh.
They accused me, specifically, of usurping Leigh’s case in order to conduct a campaign against them, utilising his case and this forum to promote causes of my own, rather than Leigh’s. They produced two witness statements exhibiting copied posts from the now locked thread, as suggested evidence of their accusation.
The posts used were :
www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1712925
www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1825130
The Chief Master characterised CaRT’s case thus: “putting my own gloss on the CRT's case, its concern is that Mr Moore is part of a campaign being pursued against the CRT on behalf of boat owners who dislike the CRT's approach and that the conduct of Mr Ravenscroft's claim will be adversely affected if Mr Moore acts as an advocate for Mr Ravenscroft. The CRT fears the claim will be used for the purposes of a campaign against the CRT, rather than for the resolution issues that directly concerns Mr Ravenscroft.”
The vocabulary is uncomfortably close to Dan’s.
Having read the posts, and listened to my explanation that I was NOT campaigning against CaRT per se, but campaigning to have them abide by the law, the Chief Master declined to accept CaRT’s argument and characterisation of my input, and indeed, volunteered the observation that my contributions were “no doubt, an extremely useful resource for boaters to rely upon.”
Maybe that has been the problem all along. Although I have protested firmly that it seems inconceivable that either CaRT or Shoosmiths should want to close down a priceless conduit into their opposition’s thinking, Dan’s denial that either contacted him “directly”, gives rise to the inevitable suspicion that he was indirectly contacted – giving the lie to anything I have said to the contrary, in reliance on common sense.
I still struggle to comprehend that, but in any event it is of little interest or import to me; it is CaRT’s loss – and CWDF’s – not mine. What it leaves me with, is total uncertainty over what might be considered acceptable from me, as opposed to what might cause the alternative thread also to be locked down.
Presumably, simply posting updates will be tolerated provided I make no comment on them. I can do that, for those who wish to discuss these amongst themselves, to the extent that such will now be permitted. For any explication and discussion with my own input, you will, of course, now have to go elsewhere.
My intent is education – of myself first of all, but also - for the sake of all those with an interest in these matters, especially those who might face illegal action against them, and who need the sort of resource to material that I would so dearly have appreciated back in the day. Whence those in need derive that information is not important [whether from here or elsewhere]; the only relevant issue is whether it is available.
Raybo, on 26 Oct 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:http://www.canalworld.net/forums/public/style_images/master/snapback.png
Nigel,
Isn't it possible that the "Provocative and inflammatory posts" originated from other posters on the thread? My recollection of your posts is that they are detailed and considered, rather than inflammatory.
I understand you would want clarity on where the boundary between tolerable and intolerable lies to avoid posting under a sword of damocles, but would be surprised if your own posts were too close to the line and would hope you could continue to post on CWDF.
I would certainly hope that that was considered to be the case, but that description was linked to the primary reason given for locking the thread, which was that it was considered to comprise a campaign against CaRT & Shoosmiths. It seems very likely in that context, that critical posts such as mine were considered provocative and inflammatory.
Moreover, whether unhappy coincidence or not, the terms of objection to the thread as comprising a campaign against CaRT, are identical to the description of my posts used by CaRT and Shoosmiths in their pleadings before Chief Master Marsh.
They accused me, specifically, of usurping Leigh’s case in order to conduct a campaign against them, utilising his case and this forum to promote causes of my own, rather than Leigh’s. They produced two witness statements exhibiting copied posts from the now locked thread, as suggested evidence of their accusation.
The posts used were :
www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1712925
www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1825130
The Chief Master characterised CaRT’s case thus: “putting my own gloss on the CRT's case, its concern is that Mr Moore is part of a campaign being pursued against the CRT on behalf of boat owners who dislike the CRT's approach and that the conduct of Mr Ravenscroft's claim will be adversely affected if Mr Moore acts as an advocate for Mr Ravenscroft. The CRT fears the claim will be used for the purposes of a campaign against the CRT, rather than for the resolution issues that directly concerns Mr Ravenscroft.”
The vocabulary is uncomfortably close to Dan’s.
Having read the posts, and listened to my explanation that I was NOT campaigning against CaRT per se, but campaigning to have them abide by the law, the Chief Master declined to accept CaRT’s argument and characterisation of my input, and indeed, volunteered the observation that my contributions were “no doubt, an extremely useful resource for boaters to rely upon.”
Maybe that has been the problem all along. Although I have protested firmly that it seems inconceivable that either CaRT or Shoosmiths should want to close down a priceless conduit into their opposition’s thinking, Dan’s denial that either contacted him “directly”, gives rise to the inevitable suspicion that he was indirectly contacted – giving the lie to anything I have said to the contrary, in reliance on common sense.
I still struggle to comprehend that, but in any event it is of little interest or import to me; it is CaRT’s loss – and CWDF’s – not mine. What it leaves me with, is total uncertainty over what might be considered acceptable from me, as opposed to what might cause the alternative thread also to be locked down.
Presumably, simply posting updates will be tolerated provided I make no comment on them. I can do that, for those who wish to discuss these amongst themselves, to the extent that such will now be permitted. For any explication and discussion with my own input, you will, of course, now have to go elsewhere.
My intent is education – of myself first of all, but also - for the sake of all those with an interest in these matters, especially those who might face illegal action against them, and who need the sort of resource to material that I would so dearly have appreciated back in the day. Whence those in need derive that information is not important [whether from here or elsewhere]; the only relevant issue is whether it is available.