I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[[163233]]

It was a continued proof, I had finished my evidence and they were about to start theirs.

It's been continued to December for closing statements and judgement. Not really supposed to say any more but it was entirely typical of other cases, no surprises at all.

I'm sort of curious how you end up in court without actually demanding anything. Without any familiarity with Scottish law, don't you have to say "I asked for X and they didn't give it to me?" at some point. Whereupon you would have to demonstrate that you did in fact ask for X at some point.

So, what is X in this instance?

 

[ShinyShoe]

Rather annoying I tried to edit post and caught the delete button.

On phone. Cant be rs'd retyping it. If anyone got it in an email and thought it worth keeping - copy the contents in a PM and i will repost it.

Otherwise sorry if ur not fast ur last.

 

[197aerial]

> My goodness! What WAS I thinking. Instead of building a successful worldwide business I should have been following your business methods.

That's totally out of order. You voluntarily mentioned 85% referrals and I was interested. I haven't told you what to do, I have made no suggestions and I have not asked for any private or confidential information.

What are you getting so het up about?

> How much do you make by selling photos and how much do you make through litigation?

None of your damned business. But there are other related income streams not known to you.

What I make through litigation is simply money that I should have had months or even years before. I see it as being like late payment, instead of paying up front as decent people do the litigation requires people (companies, government agencies, political parties, councils, artists, TV companies, police forces, universities, etc etc) to pay, but VERY late. The costs and time render it a lower hourly rate than anything else I do.

I know a guy who sat down one night, cranked up the Google image search engine and tracked down £25,000 worth of stolen images. That's part of his income he didn't even know he had.

 

[RichardS]

My goodness! What WAS I thinking. Instead of building a successful worldwide business I should have been following your business methods. How much do you make by selling photos and how much do you make through litigation?

I don't understand why you've gone all stroppy and shouty when you ask Alan a civil question and he simply gave you a civil answer and made a couple of relevant observations?

Richard

Edit .... Alan's post and mine crossed in the post. He is absolutely right!

 

[Colvic Watson]

+1

Thank you, I was wondering if it was just me. What a sad and depressing thread.

 

[197aerial]

I'm sort of curious how you end up in court without actually demanding anything.

No idea what you're talking about. Who said that happened?

That case has been going on since November 2015 and today was, from memory, the 6th court hearing. The process I use - cease & desist, claim , negotiation and then either settlement or a court action (if it's worthwhile) has never been challenged by any court as inappropriate. There is a standard guide used mostly in England and not popular up here that's called: The Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes.

You'll see that it's pretty much exactly how I conduct these cases, same as most honest people do. But I can't use it if I can't prove that the offender was sent and received a copy so I follow the guidelines but don't mention that I'm using the guide, if you follow?

One guy complained that I had sent him two letters asking for payment and I threatened him with court procedure and the Sheriff basically said "Well, here you are, so the letters must have been accurate."

 

[chinita]

Thank you, I was wondering if it was just me. What a sad and depressing thread.

I agree, it does not belong here. I don't know where it belongs but not here.

 

[197aerial]

Interesting - I wondered if you would be able to tell us anything, but fully understand if you can't. I think I've been in Court once in my life, as a witness, so am not as au-fait with what goes on as you seem to be!

It's mostly boring. What people don't seem to understand is that the law is essentially boring. There are rules and there are precedents. As an example, the defenders this afternoon tried to call a witness who was the subject of an earlier action. (He lost.) The Sheriff bridled a little and went off the bench and checked a few law books which he quoted in court and said no, the guy couldn't give evidence. It all took over an hour and required me to sit still, not interrupt and let the Sheriff and their solicitor get on with it. I wasn't bothered, I had a few questions to ask him anyway but as I wasn't calling him I simply wasn't asked.

Pretty boring, eh?

 

[chrishscorp]

I agree, it does not belong here. I don't know where it belongs but not here.

+1

 

[[163233]]

No idea what you're talking about. Who said that happened?

I was referring to the DW case where you've said you haven't asked for anything, but there seemed some confusion. I see what you mean now. You're still in the first phase.

 

[197aerial]

I agree, it does not belong here. I don't know where it belongs but not here.

Forgive me asking this but I've been using this sort of forum for over 20 years or so, way back to the early Fidonet days.

Surely you know that if you don't like a thread you can just not read it? It's not compulsory.

I agree it's got very repetitive and just a wee bit tetchy in some parts but you're perfectly free to go away, in the most polite way possible.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It was a continued proof,

Note to southroners: a "proof" up here is what you call a "trial" down there, more or less. The difference, I gather, is that in Scotland the legal points are considered in a previous stage called the "debate" whereas in England the legal and evidential bits are all mixed up. However, IANAL and may have this wrong.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I agree it's got very repetitive and just a wee bit tetchy in some parts but you're perfectly free to go away, in the most polite way possible.

There is a forum here called "The Lounge" which is supposed to be for non-boaty stuff but is actually mainly a boorish shouting festival for a bunch of UKIP/BNP types. Since this thread isn;t really about boats, much, it should probably be there, but many of us avoid that place on principal.

And actually, it is a bit boat-relevant, because many people blog about their sailing adventures and it's probably worth discussing what happens if you're cavalier about other people's IP when doing so.

 

[197aerial]

I was referring to the DW case where you've said you haven't asked for anything, but there seemed some confusion. I see what you mean now. You're still in the first phase.

With Dylan Winter, yes. His ongoing silence isn't helping and we all know he's reading and posting here.

He seemed for example to think it was a good idea to post a court list telling you all that I was suing someone in Livingston Sheriff Court (never add an e to Livingston, they get livid about it) and there was a hearing today. I knew that of course, he just posted it to stir things up. I had no reason to and wasn't ging to mention it at all. It's irrelevant as far as this forum is concerned. After all, it's not new information that I take people to court, is it?

I have good reason to suspect he's in contact with other parties known to me from previous cases. There may be something brewing that he thinks is clever.

I also note the guy who was going to be his "lawyer" (sorry, I forget the name and it's an odd spelling) is keeping his head well below the parapet. Maybe he's changed his mind? Or decided to charge?

 

[chinita]

Forgive me asking this but I've been using this sort of forum for over 20 years or so, way back to the early Fidonet days.

Surely you know that if you don't like a thread you can just not read it? It's not compulsory.

I agree it's got very repetitive and just a wee bit tetchy in some parts but you're perfectly free to go away, in the most polite way possible.

The title of this Forum is:

'Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut - chat about cruising, debate this months hot topic'

So where does a private argument between two private individuals over a legal matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with yachting fit into that definition?

 

[197aerial]

Note to southroners: a "proof" up here is what you call a "trial" down there, more or less. The difference, I gather, is that in Scotland the legal points are considered in a previous stage called the "debate" whereas in England the legal and evidential bits are all mixed up. However, IANAL and may have this wrong.

Ah. A trial is criminal, a proof is civil. A debate is an option in some higher levels but I've never been involved in one.

The main difference between criminal and civil is the standard for evidence. In criminal the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt where as in civil it's on the balance of probabilities. That's much easier to prove. As an example, if someone is sent a recorded delivery letter, signs for it personally but then says in a court that they didn't read it, it can't be proved that they're lying to the satisfaction of a criminal court. But in civil court, on the balance of probablities, they read the letter same as anyone would and the court may well assume that as a fact.

Small Claims is my field, up to £3,000, though I'm involved in a Summary Cause action as well. They're very similar but the rules vary a little (but importantly) in terms of the delivery of summonses, citing witnesses and dates for lodging material to be relied on.

Above those are Ordinary cases worth £15,000 or more (I think) but they require the use of a solicitor and that's against my code of ethics.



... On-topic section. Oh look, a big boat on the television.

 

[197aerial]

The title of this Forum is:

'Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut - chat about cruising, debate this months hot topic'

So where does a private argument between two private individuals over a legal matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with yachting fit into that definition?

Well, as the thread was started by Dylan Winter who, by all accounts is some sort of guru/legend/father figure* of the yachting world, you might like to ask him that question.

Maybe he'd argue that it's a hot topic? Or was?

Can I point out that this thread was underway long before I joined in? My first post was #178.

Either way, nice to see you're making an effort to stick around, even if it is only to complain.


* Delete where applicable. Or, you prefer, just delete.

 

[chinita]

Probably not a boat but a ship.

Anyway, you could get over all of this by asking 'Which anchor for the Kyles of Bute?'

You will make friends (and enemies) for life.

You could also ask DW for any hot tips on tea lights.

You are correct that DW started it, I think he was stupid so to do - but we rarely agree anyway so no surprise there. Not knocking your reaction. Your points are well made.

I simply think it is an inappropriate subject.

If you don't like my opinion, tough. I am not going anywhere.

 

[197aerial]

> Probably not a boat but a ship.

I bow to your superior etc. It was about four feet long, wooden and on an old Antiques Road Show.

> Anyway, you could get over all of this by asking 'Which anchor for the Kyles of Bute?'

I never anchor in the Kyles of Bute. I might get run over by the Waverley.

> You will make friends (and enemies) for life.

I will make friends. The enemies can be ignored.

> You could also ask DW for any hot tips on tea lights.

No, I'll pass thanks. I have my own views and they're pretty well set in stone.

> Not knocking your reaction. Your points are well made.

Thank you.

> I simply think it is an inappropriate subject.

It was kind of foisted on the forum. Where else can I defend myself? In any case if there was a referendum I'd vote to end the thread.

I'd also vote to bring back hanging or, to keep it on topic, keel-hauling.

> If you don't like my opinion, tough. I am not going anywhere.

Sorry, I may have picked up your mood wrongly from your posts. I have no objection at all to your presence.

As I mentioned elsewhere I'm an old hand at the forum game and I try to tolerate all views. Except Justin Beiber fans, of course.

 

[chinita]

FFS, don't mention 'Capital Punishment'.

I did, and was almost strung up for it.