Attempt by our Committee to change the Club rules without notifying the members

[GrumpyOldGit]

It does strike me as very peculiar indeed that we have several posters on here, who have nothing at all to do with the club, yet they tell Nick that he is making a fool of himself, and should keep quiet.

They also tell the rest of us to stop posting on this thread.

Yet, there's not a squeak from any club members, putting their take on events.

From what I've seen on here, I say, good luck to you, Nick, if you have the energy to keep fighting!

(I should maybe declare that I live near this club, and am an ex-member, though I really don't have any inside information, one way or the other, about this sorry tale).

Well said NealB, Very strange that other Club members are quieter than Church Mice..................................Is the reign of terror sufficient to hold them at bay ? Seen this sort of thing before and even had one elderly gent crying on my shoulder when he was told ' You will not discuss sailing, handicaps or racing in the club bar . ' If he did so, he was advised that he would be thrown out of the club and would have to remove his boat from the storage yard. Small minded people, given a tiny amount of power, can become remarkably unpleasant.

 

[Seajet]

Small minded people, given a tiny amount of power, can become remarkably unpleasant.

Oh so right, and of course every time it's the non-sailors with big mouths !

My club is thankfully well off in this regard, but we still have a loudmouth who treasues his ' special hard hat ' ( I'm only surprised it hasn't got a revolving yellow light on top by now ) - and when a chum - first person to take me sailing in 1968, volunteered for the Murmansk Convoys, later a Designer for Follands, Hawkers & BAe - died he was refused an obituary ' as he wasn't a Committee Member ' - I went on the warpath about that one, printed Charlie Solley's obituary and posted it all over the clubhouse; a lot of decent members came to me, " Christ I never knew Charlie did all that, why wasn't it publicised ?! "

Clubs of any kind seem a great idea, and overall they are; but one needs a stout filter and a warning light above the bar for w*****s especially if they show a special prediliction for hats.

 

[Tintin]

Re: Verification of emails, are they genuine?

There is some concern over whether these emails are genuine or not.

Therefore I suggest, long-term forumites delegate a reliable trusted member who is welcome to visit and I will allow them access to the computer with the original emails, which will of course include full email headers etc.

One member of this forum may be able to verify at least some of the emails via a member of their current club, will pm them separately about that.

Nick - no-one cares enough to do this it would seem (from the distinct lack of offers).

That should tell you a lot about this situation - I think most just read this bizarre thread for a bit of light hearted amusement.

You are not coming across too well chap. Rather paranoid (asking for IP addresses FFS), and very small minded.

Move on.

Stop wasting your life.

 

[duncan99210]

Re: Verification of emails, are they genuine?

Cor, wow, fame at last. Not sure how I made it but I've become a member of some select committee, designated as baiters of the cruelly wronged St Nickc by some equally secret club committee. Not sure how I was recruited, as I've been living on board my boat in the Med for the last six years but clearly because I've not expressed sympathy about this farcical dispute I must be working away as an insider, telling porkies on behalf of a club committee so as to blacken the name of St Nickc.
Nick, your paranoia knows no bounds. I repeat the advice I gave earlier. Get a life. Move on. It ain't worth the ulcers you're giving yourself. Oh , and don't accuse me of being in league with the rather sensible folks from your old club, who haven't bothered to appear on here. I have never been involved with them and wouldn't want to be.

 

[oldgit]

Re: Verification of emails, are they genuine?

"Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a yachtsman scorn'd." ?

 

[Floyd Raser]

Floyd - I don't think you're a plant but should you wish it there is an easy plant test - what do you think about the sanity of people who purchase a 15hp outboard specifically for the purpose of fitting it to a Pandora? For my part I reckon they're almost as barmy as people who spend their time doing up old Horizon 26's instead of sailing.

I don't get the thinking here so I will offer you some of my own weird thinking and see if you can work it out: With reference to the photo (without the lady!) The boat is a heap of sh*t. 4 owners living close by - closer than the 142 miles my satnav makes me drive to clean mine - and they can't keep it any cleaner than that? Have they never heard of Patio Magic? I hope their houses/underpants are kept in better shape!
Clearly a daft idea but here's another: 4 owners - No.1 puts a 15hp outboard on - No.2 paints the entire boat bright pink - No.3 drills a series of small holes below the waterline......... Question: at what point do you stop ranting about the sanity of what's being done, and ask what is the motivation behind doing it? Or to put another way, when does the penny drop that you are being had? Someone's taking the p*ss. It's not meant to work, it's there to deliberately wind someone up. Now who could that be do you think? And why would anyone want to wind him/her up?

 

[Floyd Raser]

Re: Verification of emails, are they genuine?

Cor, wow, fame at last. Not sure how I made it but I've become a member of some select committee, designated as baiters of the cruelly wronged St Nickc by some equally secret club committee. Not sure how I was recruited, as I've been living on board my boat in the Med for the last six years but clearly because I've not expressed sympathy about this farcical dispute I must be working away as an insider, telling porkies on behalf of a club committee so as to blacken the name of St Nickc.
Nick, your paranoia knows no bounds. I repeat the advice I gave earlier. Get a life. Move on. It ain't worth the ulcers you're giving yourself. Oh , and don't accuse me of being in league with the rather sensible folks from your old club, who haven't bothered to appear on here. I have never been involved with them and wouldn't want to be.

Duncan,
Welcome to the inargural meeting of the "I've had my integrety questioned by Nick C Club". Unfortunately it's not as exclusive as it used to be; it started with a co-owner of a scruffy Pandora and grown and grown. It'll soon be even bigger than the Cree....No! Stop it.

 

[NickC]

RE your posts this evening suggesting you would like a long-serving forum member to view the mails. Given you seem to have been a web designer/developer at some stage I suspect you know as well as I do that e-mail is the most easily faked thing going... and that inspecting it and the headers doesn't make much difference to that. But I also don't see any reason to think you faked anything.

Email evidence:
My offer was an honest attempt to quell doubts about whether the correspondence is genuine or not, but if even that is being questioned how would you suggest I prove the validity of the correspondence?

The un-anonymised version of the website has been available for months to all members (therefore including Committee) but had to be removed recently after andygc insisted on leaving the link to it in a post here. Do you not think that if the consortium could have found anything fictitious or incorrect in there they would not have soon been on this forum jumping up and down with glee that they found any small error?

Bit if you do want more support from the forum, I still wonder if answering my post quoted below might help?

YachtAilsa,
I am more than happy to reply to genuine questions from rational members of the forum, especially from those that have taken the time to review the correspondence and documentation. What I don’t have time for is these irrelevant ‘strawman’ arguments from the obvious plants from the consortium. Your previous question looks like it got caught up with the daft arguments from committee members.

but that due to a lengthy series of accidental disclosures we all know the identity of?
But if the latter, then you would seem to be playing into the hands of the committee... so I'm guessing that's not it.

Earlier mistakes identifying the club:
At that time there was no point whatsoever in identifying the Club, everyone who had been following these threads knew exactly which club it was. They were simple honest mistakes, too close to the wood to see the trees perhaps.

Nick I think that I, and therefore perhaps others, might be more on board with this if I/they understood the purpose of the thread.

My reasons for persisting with this:

This little Consortium of Committee members have started the process of expelling me from the Club but have yet to finish it by allowing Ordinary Members a vote on the issue.

As they have now begun this process they must complete it by:

1. Specifying precise reasons for this expulsion.
2. Providing documentary evidence, witness statements etc, of these accusations.
3. Allowing a period of ‘fair representation’ to the members.
4. Allowing Ordinary Members a vote on the expulsion.

Either that or annul the expulsion and issue a full apology for their appalling behaviour, anyone think that is very likely.

Then of course there are the obvious reasons:

• Don’t see why I should be thrown out of a club I have been a member of for twenty-five years without having done anything wrong.
• Those responsible for the theft of that mooring chain should be made to pay back what they have stolen.

Mud sticks, no smoke without fire etc.
Allowing this situation to fade-away unresolved is not an option. Having sailed at various clubs up and down the East-Coast for many years, I will probably continue to do so and I will not abide the lingering stigma of people I meet at other clubs thinking ‘well he says he’s innocent but must have done something wrong to get expelled’. Precise accusations must be provided and backed by documentary evidence, Club Constitution and Rules must be adhered to and the matter dealt with properly, are these unreasonable requests?

Let’s remind ourselves of the timing of these events. For the benefit of the club I effectively buried both the theft of mooring chain issue and oversized-outboard issue by selling my portion of the boat share. Also at the same time handing over rights to my part of the trot to the new owner. It was only then after that the consortium decided to start with the expulsion procedure.

To quote from earlier in this thread:

1. First of all it was their decision to stop members being allowed to see minutes of Committee meetings.
2. Despite objecting to this, for the sake of keeping the peace at the Club, I dropped the matter and allowed them to get away with it.
3. Buoyed by their success in hiding the minutes from the members, then came the conspiracy to defraud issue over the mooring chain.
4. Despite having been tipped-off about the missing mooring chain we had to wait until the trot was out of the river some eighteen months later before it could be proven.
5. So emboldened by getting away with both the minutes issue and seemingly having got away with the mooring issue, they move on to the oversized outboard. Ridiculous because it also stops both themselves and the other owner from being able to sail their own yacht.
6. Again for the sake of the Club, and so as not to cause disruption, I agree to sell my part of the shared yacht along with the mooring and all historic disputes, to the third owner.
7. Now bolstered by having got away with the minutes issue, the mooring issue and the oversized outboard they have nothing left they can attempt to bully me with. It seems they were so incensed by this they then raised the proposal to have me expelled from the Club.

 

[Tintin]

Is it time for a poll - Would you want NickC in your club?

 

[yachtorion]

Email evidence:
My offer was an honest attempt to quell doubts about whether the correspondence is genuine or not, but if even that is being questioned how would you suggest I prove the validity of the correspondence?

You can't. But I doubt anyone seriously thinks you faked it. Selected which parts of it were published perhaps. The legitimacy of posting them I'm not so sure about.

Do you not think that if the consortium could have found anything fictitious or incorrect in there they would not have soon been on this forum jumping up and down with glee that they found any small error?

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that they aren't on here doing that seems to point in their favour.

I am more than happy to reply to genuine questions from rational members of the forum, especially from those that have taken the time to review the correspondence and documentation. What I don’t have time for is these irrelevant ‘strawman’ arguments from the obvious plants from the consortium. Your previous question looks like it got caught up with the daft arguments from committee members.

I've read the site and your long PM.. The mail exchanges appeared heavily selected starting well into the threads.. I only have your side and questions come from what you've said.

My reasons for persisting with this:

This isn't the question I asked. I think I understand your wish to continue your fight against the club. I wanted to understand your motivation for continuing with this thread, as I don't see how it helps your cause. In fact I think the opposite, which just makes the whole thing depressing.

Mud sticks, no smoke without fire etc.
Allowing this situation to fade-away unresolved is not an option. Having sailed at various clubs up and down the East-Coast for many years, I will probably continue to do so and I will not abide the lingering stigma of people I meet at other clubs thinking ‘well he says he’s innocent but must have done something wrong to get expelled’.

An excellent example of how self defeating this thread is. I'll bet you get worse reactions from this thread than the original incident would provoke and that more people will know about it.

As for your old club.. If the club doesn't like what's happening, they should replace the committee at the next AGM. Shouldn't be hard to arrange if members want it given the commodore is apparently over term. But this is a job for the members, not a self-appointed lone ranger.

Some of your replies have seemed a little... out there... it's all getting a bit Mike Corley - http://www.mi5.com/ and https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mi5guy spam

 

[duncan99210]

When this whole thing started up getting on for a year ago, I had some degree of sympathy for St NickC. It looked as if he'd been hard done by and deserved sympathy if not support. However, to date we have only ever heard his side of the story with no explanations of what has gone from other club members or the dreaded committee. This, combined with his accusation that I and others are somehow in league with his opponents, makes me think that perhaps the whole episode is nothing more than a chimera, conjured up out of St NickC's mind.
I've come to the conclusion that I too would probably have manipulated the club rules to get rid of this paranoid character. It's quite understandable if a little underhand. St NickC has now, I believe, two courses of action open to him: employ a lawyer to take the club to court (not sure what grounds he have under civil law, but I'm sure a good lawyer could figure out something, possibly user the HRA) or, as I've said before, get a life, forget the matter and move on. Regrettably, St NickC isn't good at taking advice, preferring to continue to endlessly repeat himself on here rather than actually doing anything.

 

[Floyd Raser]

[*]Buoyed by their success in hiding the minutes from the members, then came the conspiracy to defraud issue over the mooring chain.
[*]
[*]Now bolstered by having got away with the minutes issue, the mooring issue and the oversized outboard they have nothing left they can attempt to bully me with. It seems they were so incensed by this they then raised the proposal to have me expelled from the Club.
[*]
[/LIST]

For those who keep on about a lack of response from the club here: just in passing, the word "defraud". This is one of the snippets slipped in which some people miss. From this and more positive evidence on the phantom website, I think there may be a potential court case involving fraud or deformation. The legal advice given to the club by the RYA may be to stay away from forums and other forms of social media as a defence lawyer may be able to use it (harassment?). Whatever the case it's clear that the club are standing together to a man.
Just how important is this or any other forum in the big scheme of things? Not very.

 

[johnphilip]

Would the moderators be good enough to consider if this has gone on too far and remove the thread?

 

[Daydream believer]

Would the moderators be good enough to consider if this has gone on too far and remove the thread?

Already asked--- but nothing has happened so far
Perhaps if a few more requested it then they may reconsider.
Hit the triangular button on the bottom left of the post

 

[RichardS]

Would the moderators be good enough to consider if this has gone on too far and remove the thread?

Already asked--- but nothing has happened so far
Perhaps if a few more requested it then they may reconsider.
Hit the triangular button on the bottom left of the post

Seriously? I've never pressed that button and I never will.

It's the internet. If you don't like it switch it of. End of.

Richard

 

[rgarside]

Seriously? I've never pressed that button and I never will.

It's the internet. If you don't like it switch it of. End of.

Richard

+1

Or don't continue to read it, or don't post replies

 

[Daydream believer]

+1

Or don't read it, or don't post replies

Until you read it you do not know what it says- so , with due respect, the first part of that comment is a bit non productive.
If one starts off & enters into a debate one does not necessarily know how it is going to develop.
i am sure that you are aware of threads that can get pretty nasty & i recently started a thread in which a response to someone was a bit sharp to say the least, whether by deliberate intention, or on the spur of the moment.
The moderator quickly deleted most of it, plus some numerous non nasty replies

That is the moderator's right & It is good that they are watching for items that are not generally considered fair & reasonable.
I tend to think that they do pull some things that could be left to take their course & some things that might be pulled but that is only my opinion
At the end of the day I think some posters are allowed to go a little far but it does sometimes make amusing reading- Depending on what side of the debate you sit

In any thread if one thinks that someone is making derogatory comments or accusations about them - & i emphasise " any thread" not just this one- is one not entitled to ask to have the comments removed?

 

[Floyd Raser]

In any thread if one thinks that someone is making derogatory comments or accusations about them - & i emphasise " any thread" not just this one- is one not entitled to ask to have the comments removed?

The comments yes, but the whole thread? Johnphillip seems to be suggesting a restriction to free and open debate because he doesn't like it. I think the comments would have to really offensive and out of proportion before they would be pulled.

 

[NickC]

But I doubt anyone seriously thinks you faked it. Selected which parts of it were published perhaps

YachtAilsa,

Nope, messages not deliberately selective. All emails related to expulsion and what I assume to be related issues up to whatever date it was I did the email extract included. With the exception I think of one later email included at the suggestion of a member to put into context previous messages.

Let’s remember at this so called ‘hearing’ absolutely no documentation, nor any evidence of any kind whatsoever, was produced. So that brings the sum total of documentary evidence to err… none!

Anyone remember that first letter from committee; so vague that, without any supporting evidence, not worth the paper it was written on, there was no case to answer. And then the second letter which completely changed the reason for expulsion and bore no connection whatsoever to aforementioned first letter. The whole lot really had descended into farce.

So member was actually expelled for reasons different to those he was accused of at the hearing! According to second letter, and taking into account the timing, the member was in reality expelled because of the thread here about the oversized outboard engine. Those who read it will remember I made no derogatory comments about the club at all, in fact quite the opposite. That thread now removed although I do have a copy of it for anyone interested.:encouragement:

 

[NickC]

Seriously? I've never pressed that button and I never will.

It's the internet. If you don't like it switch it of. End of.

Richard

+1

Hey, it’s great this internet thingy, I just add Floyd to me ignore/idiot list and I don’t have to read anymore of his drivel, same for elsie. Doesn't Floyd post a lot for someone who said they were never going to post again

To those that don’t want to read my posts, just add me to your ignore list and unsubscribe from this thread, simples. Those that do wish to continue debating the matter may then to do so in a rational manor without trolls.