Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 11:19:20 GMT
. . . the statement that was made that "crt haven't applied any pressure" or whatever they said. Was just a smoke screen, I'm sure it was done informally and dans just folded like the spineless wimp he is. I fluctuate over any recognition that this might be the case. While the stupidity of an action is no reliable indication that it could not have been instigated by either CaRT or Shoosmiths, it does need pointing out just how stupid it would have been, had either or both pressured for the shut-down. As I commented in one of the relevant threads – having a direct conduit into the thinking and argument and plans of an opponent is a priceless asset; closing down that conduit shuts them off – not only from the fly-on-the-wall insights, but – from the counter-arguments volunteered by CaRT supporters, and by those with no part in the game other than an interest in offering challenge for its own sake. I shall sorely miss the contributions of mayalld in particular, because he has been able to come up with far better arguments against my own positions than Mr Stoner QC has managed – and having the opportunity to run tactics and argument past such enthusiastic scrutineers is of itself invaluable – as Mike Todd accurately observed in the ‘sheep’ thread. I hadn't previously considered any of what you have just posted, it now makes perfect sense why you and Tony are so keen for all information to be available. I've never had any legal dealings apart from buying two houses, so to me with limited knowledge of how the legal system works I was under the misconception that the element of suprise was a better tactic. Thanks to you both for improving my understanding of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Oct 14, 2016 11:24:47 GMT
. . . the statement that was made that "crt haven't applied any pressure" or whatever they said. Was just a smoke screen, I'm sure it was done informally and dans just folded like the spineless wimp he is. I fluctuate over any recognition that this might be the case. While the stupidity of an action is no reliable indication that it could not have been instigated by either CaRT or Shoosmiths, it does need pointing out just how stupid it would have been, had either or both pressured for the shut-down. As I commented in one of the relevant threads – having a direct conduit into the thinking and argument and plans of an opponent is a priceless asset; closing down that conduit shuts them off – not only from the fly-on-the-wall insights, but – from the counter-arguments volunteered by CaRT supporters, and by those with no part in the game other than an interest in offering challenge for its own sake. I shall sorely miss the contributions of mayalld in particular, because he has been able to come up with far better arguments against my own positions than Mr Stoner QC has managed – and having the opportunity to run tactics and argument past such enthusiastic scrutineers is of itself invaluable – as Mike Todd accurately observed in the ‘sheep’ thread. Both sides know the evidence that will be presented, what they don't know is what the argument will be for this or that and the way it will be used. Nigel & Tony have used that site as a bouncing board to expand their knowledge and the possible arguments. It is a good way to go if you don't have legals with whom to bounce the ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 11:35:14 GMT
I fluctuate over any recognition that this might be the case. While the stupidity of an action is no reliable indication that it could not have been instigated by either CaRT or Shoosmiths, it does need pointing out just how stupid it would have been, had either or both pressured for the shut-down. As I commented in one of the relevant threads – having a direct conduit into the thinking and argument and plans of an opponent is a priceless asset; closing down that conduit shuts them off – not only from the fly-on-the-wall insights, but – from the counter-arguments volunteered by CaRT supporters, and by those with no part in the game other than an interest in offering challenge for its own sake. I shall sorely miss the contributions of mayalld in particular, because he has been able to come up with far better arguments against my own positions than Mr Stoner QC has managed – and having the opportunity to run tactics and argument past such enthusiastic scrutineers is of itself invaluable – as Mike Todd accurately observed in the ‘sheep’ thread. Both sides know the evidence that will be presented, what they don't know is what the argument will be for this or that and the way it will be used. Nigel & Tony have used that site as a bouncing board to expand their knowledge and the possible arguments. It is a good way to go if you don't have legals with whom to bounce the ideas. Yes, I understand that now, it just goes to show the good of not stifling discussion. Everyday is a school day, I shall go home a little wiser today
|
|
|
Post by geo on Oct 14, 2016 11:38:55 GMT
Both sides know the evidence that will be presented, what they don't know is what the argument will be for this or that and the way it will be used. Nigel & Tony have used that site as a bouncing board to expand their knowledge and the possible arguments. It is a good way to go if you don't have legals with whom to bounce the ideas. Yes, I understand that now, it just goes to show the good of not stifling discussion. Everyday is a school day, I shall go home a little wiser today The day I stop learning I hope it is because I have left this world. Talking solves problems and people learn stifle it and talking is a waste of time. ETA and the world is a better place the more we talk
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 14, 2016 11:43:45 GMT
They have told me that they have sort legal advice . . . One might have though that, while it was not directly addressing the issue of Forum responsibility for member’s posts, the attitude of Chief Master Marsh in his recent judgment - when dealing with CaRT’s complaints over my discussing Leigh’s ongoing case on CWDF – could be seen as an indication that this activity did not in fact present any legal problem, and that provided the party to the action was agreeable, revealing the submissions and debating the contents was not an activity that would disqualify anyone from acting as Advocate for the party. Indeed, he seems to have gone out of his way to acknowledge that the dissemination of such information and analysis online comprises “ an extremely useful resource for boaters to rely on”. There are not too many practising counsel out there who would be superior authorities to the Chancery Masters. It should be noted, moreover [though this would be clearer from perusing the actual transcripts], that CaRT were not objecting to the online discussion of the case per se; they were quoting certain of my posts to suggest that I had hijacked the case to pursue an agenda of my own, disregarding Leigh’s interests or input. So whatever legal advice CWDF may have sought on the matter, IF it recommended blocking of the topics, that would only have been because the advisors themselves would not have wanted to lay themselves open to being sued for bad advice, and were playing ultra safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 11:50:52 GMT
Yes, I understand that now, it just goes to show the good of not stifling discussion. Everyday is a school day, I shall go home a little wiser today The day I stop learning I hope it is because I have left this world. Talking solves problems and people learn stifle it and talking is a waste of time. ETA and the world is a better place the more we talk Sage words indeed! Maybe system 4-50 could do with learning that life lesson!
|
|
|
Post by geo on Oct 14, 2016 11:55:22 GMT
They have told me that they have sort legal advice . . . There are not too many practising counsel out there who would be superior authorities to the Chancery Masters. IF it recommended blocking of the topics, that would only have been because the advisors themselves would not have wanted to lay themselves open to being sued for bad advice, and were playing ultra safe. I would suggest that any member of the profession that gave advice that lead to the removal could well be in problems for poor advice, particularly in view of the Chief Master's recent Judgement which was well publicised. Immediately there comes to mind the possibility of either yourself or Tony having good reason to sue for defamation as the site has implied and I have it in writing (PM) that they were protecting the claimant in one case and the defendant in the other as you two were not is the only implication I can come to.
|
|
|
Post by bettina on Oct 14, 2016 12:12:07 GMT
. . . the statement that was made that "crt haven't applied any pressure" or whatever they said. Was just a smoke screen, I'm sure it was done informally and dans just folded like the spineless wimp he is. I fluctuate over any recognition that this might be the case. While the stupidity of an action is no reliable indication that it could not have been instigated by either CaRT or Shoosmiths, it does need pointing out just how stupid it would have been, had either or both pressured for the shut-down. As I commented in one of the relevant threads – having a direct conduit into the thinking and argument and plans of an opponent is a priceless asset; closing down that conduit shuts them off – not only from the fly-on-the-wall insights, but – from the counter-arguments volunteered by CaRT supporters, and by those with no part in the game other than an interest in offering challenge for its own sake. I shall sorely miss the contributions of mayalld in particular, because he has been able to come up with far better arguments against my own positions than Mr Stoner QC has managed – and having the opportunity to run tactics and argument past such enthusiastic scrutineers is of itself invaluable – as Mike Todd accurately observed in the ‘sheep’ thread. Completely off topic...but firstly may I say how nice it is to see you posting here. Although I hadn't posted to either of the section 8 threads on cwdf, I was checking in on one of them fairly regularly - I found it most interesting and informative. Although some of your posts I struggle to understand bits & pieces of (NO knowledge of English Law, and particularly NONE pertaining to canals & boats) I was able to get the general gist (I think) and was happily gaining incite from someone who knows what they are talking about rather than just sharing an opinion. Secondly (and even further off topic)...what is your advatar? I've looked at it, turned my head from side to side and still can't figure out what it's meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 14, 2016 12:14:30 GMT
Immediately there comes to mind the possibility of either yourself or Tony having good reason to sue for defamation as the site has implied and I have it in writing (PM) that they were protecting the claimant in one case and the defendant in the other as you two were not is the only implication I can come to. How very curious! Especially given Chief Master Marsh’s quoting of Leigh’s stated wish “ to scream it from the rooftops”! Leigh does not want protection from scrutiny of his case; his whole life is spent publicising perceived attacks on civil freedoms [and whether he is justified in some or all of his beliefs is immaterial to his motivations]. As to the lightship, there is as yet no case at all, and Tony has said that CWDF have not rung the owner to confirm his wishes respecting public disclosure of his circumstances and debate over the legalities. Not that I have the slightest interest in suing for defamation. If I was so inclined, I would have my life taken up with protest against all the overt “ Relentless & Obstinate” accusations, let alone mere implied rebukes! I have more than enough to be getting on with as it is, and far bigger boys to play with.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 14, 2016 12:20:13 GMT
I fluctuate over any recognition that this might be the case. While the stupidity of an action is no reliable indication that it could not have been instigated by either CaRT or Shoosmiths, it does need pointing out just how stupid it would have been, had either or both pressured for the shut-down. As I commented in one of the relevant threads – having a direct conduit into the thinking and argument and plans of an opponent is a priceless asset; closing down that conduit shuts them off – not only from the fly-on-the-wall insights, but – from the counter-arguments volunteered by CaRT supporters, and by those with no part in the game other than an interest in offering challenge for its own sake. I shall sorely miss the contributions of mayalld in particular, because he has been able to come up with far better arguments against my own positions than Mr Stoner QC has managed – and having the opportunity to run tactics and argument past such enthusiastic scrutineers is of itself invaluable – as Mike Todd accurately observed in the ‘sheep’ thread. I think you have hit the nail on the head why cart/shoosmiths would want to close the discussion down. Because it is of assistance to you, they tried to remove you through the court. That failed now they have gone the other route of applying pressure on Dan. Taking into account assistance you have received plus the garnering of public support and the bad publicity they have received, it makes perfect sense to me. But then I am an advocate of reading "the art of war" by sun tzu. If Dave mayal has been so helpful to you, why not pm him with an invitation to join a thread on here. Explaining why you find responding with him so useful and that you feel open discussion is no longer possible on cwdf. I think he wouldn't be able to resist. Remember he wouldn't have to post here under his real name. Please carry on the good work Nigel there are a lot of boaters who owe you a debt of gratitude, if they realise it or not.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Oct 14, 2016 12:22:19 GMT
Immediately there comes to mind the possibility of either yourself or Tony having good reason to sue for defamation as the site has implied and I have it in writing (PM) that they were protecting the claimant in one case and the defendant in the other as you two were not is the only implication I can come to. How very curious! Especially given Chief Master Marsh’s quoting of Leigh’s stated wish “ to scream it from the rooftops”! Leigh does not want protection from scrutiny of his case; his whole life is spent publicising perceived attacks on civil freedoms [and whether he is justified in some or all of his beliefs is immaterial to his motivations]. As to the lightship, there is as yet no case at all, and Tony has said that CWDF have not rung the owner to confirm his wishes respecting public disclosure of his circumstances and debate over the legalities. Not that I have the slightest interest in suing for defamation. If I was so inclined, I would have my life taken up with protest against all the overt “ Relentless & Obstinate” accusations, let alone mere implied rebukes! I have more than enough to be getting on with as it is, and far bigger boys to play with. I am aware of the view of the two participants As to being implied I was being polite I was just trying to make the point that a deletion like that could have wider consequences than most would think. Particularly when the site goes into writing about protecting the participants to someone who is with the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 14, 2016 12:26:27 GMT
Secondly (and even further off topic)...what is your advatar? I've looked at it, turned my head from side to side and still can't figure out what it's meant to be. Thank you for the kind words bettina, and my apologies for the poor quality photograph. It is my brass platypus tiller-pin. I had difficulty getting it in focus while single-handing down the Trent and attempting to get it as foreground to the landscape [couldn’t afford to let go the tiller and step back far enough].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 14:50:48 GMT
It's nice to see carlT back and giving them some grief Shame he doesn't feel inclined to get involved here, I've always enjoyed his posts. Looks like I've got to eat my words
|
|
|
Post by carlt on Oct 14, 2016 15:18:29 GMT
It's nice to see carlT back and giving them some grief Shame he doesn't feel inclined to get involved here, I've always enjoyed his posts. Thank you for those kind words. I have been stirring the pot for a couple of days but have decided that I am in agreement with JohnV that there is no going back. As the folk that made CW what it was gravitate to here I cannot see the spark returning so, whilst I may look in from time to time, I don't see much of a future there for me. Besides all my closest buddies are here now....(ironic smiley)
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 14, 2016 15:45:46 GMT
I reckon cwdf will end up being the plumber, Fincher, graham rabies,Dan and the mods talking to themselves. Oh and of course Debbie figgy spying.
|
|