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

[NickC]

Has it reached the position that people "own" threads and their supporters will brook no dissension?

No but one should not hijack someone elses thread for ones own motives.

If anyone has that much to say on a particular subject it is only polite that they should start another thread to discuss their particular issues.

 

[Floyd Raser]

If the club is so pleasant, how come NickC's thread here.

Well we may never know the answer to that one but let me show you some unpleasantness:

Originally Posted by Rictus
"Quote"
If the committee have acted ultra vires, cannot you simply follow their lead and potter around the club and its environs, tinkering with your boat and going for a sail? If a complaint is made then you can have an informal chat with whoever makes the complaint and see if this whole affair can be resolved informally. "Quote"

Nick's answer:
"Are you a member of a sailing club? If so does your club's rules allow your Committee to throw someone out without allowing the Ordinary Members a vote on it?"

Now this is a shining example of how Nick conducts himself within this thread. Rictus has offered a sensible comment and received that for an answer. Rictus has now retired and offers no more help. He is one of the many who have done the same. THAT is being unpleasant and there is no excuse for it. Not only that, the above was the post which woke up the thread after a 19 day holiday. Why? It contributes nothing to the debate apart from attracting attention. So Nick attracts attention to himself by being unpleasant, there is the evidence.
Seajet, maybe it's not the club that's unpleasant.

Why the hell it matters whether I sail or not is beyond me. Sailing is not in the title of the thread and it's about club rules anyway. I have experience of clubs but I'm not one to post a CV before commenting (I'm so clever and you should listen to me because...) that kind of thing. And to the bloke who said I haven't contributed anywhere else: maybe as I'm not yet sailing it is against the rules for me to have told someone how to de-coke his engine. Oh dear, I am in trouble.

Here's an update for those who only read the last three posts before commenting:

It wasn't exactly speculation, just interpretation of the facts as presented by Nick himself way back in another post around page sixty something which I haven't got the time or inclination to go and find, but it's there somewhere if you wish to have a look and see if you come to a different conclusion.

But basically the pandora was abandoned by all the owners for 18 months and the engine became a mess. But they're all good buddies at this time. Nick restores the engine (well done Nick) but it's a bit fragile. Another shareholder takes the boat out and the engine gives up the ghost. Nick is pissed off but supplies another engine.

Now comes the twist, brace yourself: Either someone says something to Nick, or Nick assumes something, but the assumption is that someone is allowing all and sundry to use Nick's engine. That's the grey area but Nick is so pissed off he padlocks his engine up. So now Nick is actually saying "That's my engine and it's not for general use" metaphorically. That's true as far Nick's own post tells it.

This is my assumption:
The other shareholders become enraged at this and take their infantile revenge with the monster engine and a lot of stupidity. In other words: Tit for Tat.

BUT: None of this takes into account words: emails and verbal exchanges and their respective inflections. But the evidence of Nick's shifting versions of the truth and attitude toward criticism do not reflect well on him.
I will add that when this was first posted it sent Nick into a fury and I think it was the first time he accused me of being on the committee. Near the truth then? I don't know.

 

[NickC]

I believe Nick's position is that he's never been properly expelled.

As I recollect, Nick received a letter asking him to attend a committee meeting, and he consulted with a mate on the subject. The mate is a founder member of the club, and said "I wouldn't bother going, pal. They can't sanction you because a member facing disciplinary proceedings must be given a specific change and provided in advance with copies of all the evidence against them. That's always been the rules, since we founded the club, and it's never been changed."

Nick was not even told specifically why he was asked to attend, so didn't bother - expulsion would require the process to be adhered to.

Thus Nick's position is that the letter of expulsion he received is no more valid than if you or I had written it.

(My apologies if I've got something wrong, Nick - I'm sure you'll correct me if I have.)

Pretty close Strolls. No precise nor specific accusations were made prior to the hearing nor any supporting evidence produced.

A number of members all said much the same to me -

ignore their kangaroo court {hearing} they are just trying to bully you, they can't throw you out without putting it to the members thats what the Club Rules say and always have.

I also obtained legal advice which was quite clear:

A hearing must be properly convened, that means at a time and place agreeable to both party's (the middle of a pub is not an acceptable place for a disciplinary hearing), specific accusations must be made in advance and supporting evidence must be made available in advance.

RYA guidelines are also pretty clear:

The Respondent should have a full and fair hearing, in practice this means that he should:

• be told well in advance the precise nature and details of the complaint against him;
• be given well in advance any written statements made by witnesses;
• be entitled to cross examine any witnesses, produce his own witnesses, give evidence himself, and make a closing statement;
• not be subject to unreasonable time restraints in any of the above. For example, he should be given all the relevant documents at least 3 weeks before the hearing, and the committee should be prepared at the very least for a 2 - hour hearing; in many cases it will take longer.

 

[NickC]

Perhaps the committee of the club should write to Time Inc complaining about potentially libelous claims about the club and members.
That would get the thread removed. As I understand it, from many threads I have read.

How do I put this politely Mercury Rising – You have only been a member of the forum since May 2015, had you been a member since issues with this club were first discussed on here back in December 2013 you would not have missed the lead-up to this situation and earlier threads.

You will not find anything libelous which I have written about the Club nor it’s members; everything is backed by evidence. Those forum members who have taken the time to read the correspondence will have seen much of this.

 

[NickC]

Seeing as NickC has gone to some pains to ensure the club is not identified, and has asked anyone making this too easy to modify their posts

Like these examples below:

From the former “When shared ownership goes wrong — Legal advice required” thread:

- 15-11-14, 14:57

What? This one? xxx

Comrade Red, it would be very much appreciated if you could delete your message specifically identifying the club in question. Everyone can find it if they really want to but the identity of the club is not really relevant to the original spirit of this thread. I would much prefer it if there was no direct link to me club in question on this thread.

Many thanks,

or this

Andy,

Would you please remove the club name from your post #308.

If you remember the forerunner to this thread (the outboard engine one) was pulled because the committee complained that the club had been identified by forumites in various posts. Hence my request to you to remove your direct reference to the club name.

Many thanks,

 

[l'escargot]

No but one should not hijack someone elses thread for ones own motives.

If anyone has that much to say on a particular subject it is only polite that they should start another thread to discuss their particular issues.

You've stated that opinion before in an attempt to control what is posted on "your" thread. I don't think it worked then either - you've thrown all this out into the world and you have no control over the responses it receives...

 

[steveeasy]

How do I put this politely Mercury Rising – You have only been a member of the forum since May 2015, had you been a member since issues with this club were first discussed on here back in December 2013 you would not have missed the lead-up to this situation and earlier threads.

You will not find anything libelous which I have written about the Club nor it’s members; everything is backed by evidence. Those forum members who have taken the time to read the correspondence will have seen much of this.

Firstly ive not seen anything were nick has liabled or defamed the club or specific members. he would need to be very specific on which club. Additionally my limited understanding on liable or defamation is that if what you say is fact or truthful, then tuff.

Steveeasy

 

[Floyd Raser]

If I'm prejudiced, how come you quote my posts with words like ' gullible ' when I say things as I see them ?

I have stated I am not involved directly and am commenting on the whole thing as it strikes me; you seem to be the one with an agenda.

You appear gullible because you never express an exceptance that we may not have all the correct facts. Nick may be misrepresenting the truth. Of course, he may also be telling the whole truth but after the way he has behaved on here he's still a KXXXXXXD. Play hangman with that.
I have tried to express opinions as such, with "if it's true" here and there but people seem to prefer to see "I am anti Nick at all costs" what ever I actually write.

Not the first time I have been accused of having an agenda so let's try and explain that one. I came on here with the best of intentions and got insulted. Like Ken Livingstone, I retaliate. (although Ken seems to claim it's an exclusive trait of South London, it's not)
I enjoy writing. I suspect Nick is bending facts to suit his own agenda. Someone said on here that although this thread is unpleasant, it is strangley appealing. It is, I find it so.
This thread was a bear pit long before I ever joined it and as such is actually worthless. But it is good fun.

 

[steveeasy]

Well we may never know the answer to that one but let me show you some unpleasantness:

Originally Posted by Rictus
"Quote"
If the committee have acted ultra vires, cannot you simply follow their lead and potter around the club and its environs, tinkering with your boat and going for a sail? If a complaint is made then you can have an informal chat with whoever makes the complaint and see if this whole affair can be resolved informally. "Quote"

Nick's answer:
"Are you a member of a sailing club? If so does your club's rules allow your Committee to throw someone out without allowing the Ordinary Members a vote on it?"

Now this is a shining example of how Nick conducts himself within this thread. Rictus has offered a sensible comment and received that for an answer. Rictus has now retired and offers no more help. He is one of the many who have done the same. THAT is being unpleasant and there is no excuse for it. Not only that, the above was the post which woke up the thread after a 19 day holiday. Why? It contributes nothing to the debate apart from attracting attention. So Nick attracts attention to himself by being unpleasant, there is the evidence.
Seajet, maybe it's not the club that's unpleasant.

Why the hell it matters whether I sail or not is beyond me. Sailing is not in the title of the thread and it's about club rules anyway. I have experience of clubs but I'm not one to post a CV before commenting (I'm so clever and you should listen to me because...) that kind of thing. And to the bloke who said I haven't contributed anywhere else: maybe as I'm not yet sailing it is against the rules for me to have told someone how to de-coke his engine. Oh dear, I am in trouble.

Here's an update for those who only read the last three posts before commenting:

It wasn't exactly speculation, just interpretation of the facts as presented by Nick himself way back in another post around page sixty something which I haven't got the time or inclination to go and find, but it's there somewhere if you wish to have a look and see if you come to a different conclusion.

But basically the pandora was abandoned by all the owners for 18 months and the engine became a mess. But they're all good buddies at this time. Nick restores the engine (well done Nick) but it's a bit fragile. Another shareholder takes the boat out and the engine gives up the ghost. Nick is pissed off but supplies another engine.

Now comes the twist, brace yourself: Either someone says something to Nick, or Nick assumes something, but the assumption is that someone is allowing all and sundry to use Nick's engine. That's the grey area but Nick is so pissed off he padlocks his engine up. So now Nick is actually saying "That's my engine and it's not for general use" metaphorically. That's true as far Nick's own post tells it.

This is my assumption:
The other shareholders become enraged at this and take their infantile revenge with the monster engine and a lot of stupidity. In other words: Tit for Tat.

BUT: None of this takes into account words: emails and verbal exchanges and their respective inflections. But the evidence of Nick's shifting versions of the truth and attitude toward criticism do not reflect well on him.
I will add that when this was first posted it sent Nick into a fury and I think it was the first time he accused me of being on the committee. Near the truth then? I don't know.

What is so wrong with a few chaps falling out over a boat. is it not perfectly normal, id never kid myself a share could work between more than two. why one person was expelled as a consequence of a normal everyday occurrence is the point in question. unless you had been a member for 25 years, youll never know the hurt.

Steveeasy

 

[Floyd Raser]

How do I put this politely Mercury Rising – You have only been a member of the forum since May 2015, had you been a member since issues with this club were first discussed on here back in December 2013 you would not have missed the lead-up to this situation and earlier threads.

You will not find anything libelous which I have written about the Club nor it’s members; everything is backed by evidence. Those forum members who have taken the time to read the correspondence will have seen much of this.

Absolutely true Nick, you have never said anything libelous about them. But you have insulted them on here, like every time to insult me by accusing me of being one of them, you are actually accusing them of misrepresentation. You are insulting them and they will know they being insulted. You don't have to name the club because it is inferred. And you still expect them to give you an apology?

 

[Floyd Raser]

What is so wrong with a few chaps falling out over a boat. is it not perfectly normal, id never kid myself a share could work between more than two. why one person was expelled as a consequence of a normal everyday occurrence is the point in question. unless you had been a member for 25 years, youll never know the hurt.

Steveeasy

Absolutely Steve. Normal blokes would sort it out over a good row and move on, not take to the web.

 

[lpdsn]

No you have not got that wrong some within the Club who have offered me their support have suggested they have been threatened that their internet traffic and emails are being watched.

I have no doubt that they are given how widespread surveillance is these days. But there are quite strict rules on lawful interception and they wouldn't allow a small yacht club in Essex to monitor their members to that extent, even if they had the capability.

Could you elaborate.

 

[Otter]

I have no doubt that they are given how widespread surveillance is these days. But there are quite strict rules on lawful interception and they wouldn't allow a small yacht club in Essex to monitor their members to that extent, even if they had the capability.

Really? The govt wouldn't allow the committee to use GCHQ to monitor the member's emails and web searches? I find that hard to believe.

 

[yachtorion]

This thread has been through every possible permutation now, and we have some people saying some disturbingly paranoid things that could well be indicative of health issues.... There are people coming along who haven't been in the thread since the start and posting some things that really don't make sense if you're been all through it... especially if you've seen some of the earlier posts before they were edited.

Do we think it might be best to stop replying now? If Nick wants to post to keep his fight alive that's his right.... we don't have to feed the thread.

I too think it should have been moved to the lounge. Suspicion that a sailing club is using military intelligence to spy on it's members doesn't belong in PBO. It's much more the lounge's bag.

 

[[159032]]

– You have only been a member of the forum since May 2015, had you been a member since issues with this club were first discussed on here back in December 2013 you would not have missed the lead-up to this situation and earlier threads.
.

There are people coming along who haven't been in the thread since the start and posting some things that really don't make sense if you're been all through it...

I have (for my sins) been back through the thread and even read about the monster engine. God knows why. It is a petty argument by someone who just can't let go.

Bottom line:
Leave the club to their own machinations or take the legal line.

I can't see any other resolution.
You are obviously not going to sweet-talk your way back in.

 

[NickC]

NickC probably has moved on and is actively pursuing his own interests, How ironic is that.

Sorry to let you down Steve, didn't see your message until after I had done a fair bit of posting last night. Just been busy elsewhere so can't sit on here all day.

Still feel the need to come back occasionally to set the record straight. After all the whole purpose of this thread has become to clear my name of these false accusations.

 

[NickC]

Quite. It's an internal matter which the OP has brought out into the internetworkweb world.

The club should have no interest in justifying itself to the rest of us.
If they are sure they have acted within their rules and the OP is sure they have not the remedy lies in arbitration or the law.

My threads have been posted here on this Sailing forum as a last resort after all attempts at rational resolution had failed, they were genuine requests for advice and opinions of how best to deal with these issues.

This thread was started only after the Committee had attempted to deceive and change the Club’s Rules to suit their own agenda! Read the first post.

The “When shared ownership goes wrong - Legal advice required” thread was posted only after the following exchange of emails:

From: Nick
To: {partner4}; {partner6}
Cc: {partner5}
Subject: Pandemonium outboard

{partner4}/{partner6},

Chaps, can we get this 15hp lump ashore as it is not working as it is stopping us from being able to use the boat.

We couldn’t use it for half the year because there was no mooring and now that is back we still can’t use it.

Many thanks,
Nick
​

This was their response:

From: {partner6}
To: Nick
Cc: {partner4}; {partner5}
Subject: Re: Pandemonium outboard

Nick

The engine belongs to me and {partner4} only.

You do not have any permission inplied or otherwise to use it any use by you will be considered as theft and a breach of my rights to enjoy my property. You have no right whatsoever to interfere with my property and should you do so the appropriate civil tort will employed to recover by civil means appropriate damages at an agrivated level. You also have no right to gain directly or indirectly from any part or service what so ever from my engine.

Last year you were informed that in my case the i would make arrangements to supply a replacement engine. No reply was made by you so it is reasonable to assume that you raised no objectiobs. I would also draw your attention to an e mail quite rightly telling us that the insurance policy stipulates a back up engine needs to be fitted. Fit the engine you have worked on and are advertising as fully serviced. When we we working on the boat when it was out of the water we ensured the outboard bracket was fully working. So fit the engine and do not interfere with my property.

FYI. The parts are available for my and {partner4}s engine ufortunately i am out of the country when i return they will be fitted and this engine will return to full time service.​

When faced with that level of irrationality what would you do?

 

[lpdsn]

Really? The govt wouldn't allow the committee to use GCHQ to monitor the member's emails and web searches? I find that hard to believe.

How on earth did you get to that from my post?

Nick C said their e-mails and internet are being watched and I replied no doubt they are being watched but that a small yacht club couldn't do it and wouldn't be allowed to do it.

And NickC still hasn't elaborated on his original post re surveillance.

 

[NickC]

Well, there's no law against members having a cruiser (or a share in one!), but the moorings, as far as I am aware, are nothing to do with the club itself, even if some club members have use of them.

Correct, moorings are a private arrangement between each mooring holder and the landowner, totally unrelated to the club in any way. However anyone with a mooring would have to be a member of the club to use the car park and launching ramp.

 

[NickC]

Nick was not even told specifically why he was asked to attend

Just been pointed out to me that there is an even easier way to prove that the alleged ‘hearing’ offered was not a genuine hearing but a Kangaroo Court.

Take a look at the letters below from the Committee. Read carefully and you will notice how these both specify completely different reasons for expulsion!

Therefore no genuine opportunity was provided to defend against the accusations made in ‘Final letter of expulsion’, this confirms beyond all doubt that the alleged hearing was nothing more than a Kangaroo Court.


Letter of threatened expulsion:

Final letter of expulsion: