Registro Italiano Navale - Breaking News

[smackdaddy]

At some point in the near future I suppose.

I'm also going back and forth with a couple of other sources to get some additional corroborating info on this. It just takes some time.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

You know my view by now (!!) but good luck with it anyhow.

 

[bob234]

If Grant really was investigated by New Zealand police for theft of five grand, maybe his arrest was in the papers. Maybe it actually got as far as a trial in which case we can confirm a lot of what Grant's said.

I didn't realise Grant was investigated by the police? Or that he was arrested. Who said that - I must have missed it?

What I didn't miss was Grant King telling us there WAS a trial - and that Bambury's/Holdfast's case about theft was dismissed.

I haven't checked whether there really WAS a trial because, so far, all the important things Grant has told us have proved to be true. You might want to though!

Bob

 

[bob234]

Apparently someone has taken $5000 out of Rocna and spent it without getting receipts. It turns out it wasn't Grant who did that, he just handed the cash to Rina. I'd have thought whoever took the 5 grand out has some questions to answer & would be facing some kind of consequences from that. Maybe there's some record of that somewhere.

Hi again Toad,

You're seeing lots of things I am not seeing. Who said 'someone took $5000 out of Rocna'? I remember we were told that Bambury gave $5000 with instructions about how it should be used. I haven't seen anything that could be interpreted as suggesting that someone 'took' it without authority.

I'm wondering where you got that from?

Bob

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I didn't realise Grant was investigated by the police? Or that he was arrested. Who said that - I must have missed it?

Direct quote from Grant:

Charges against me in the NZ Courts brought by Bambury were today dismissed.

The basic overview is that Bambury complained to the police that I had stolen an amount of around 5k USD from him during my last trip to Shanghai.

another direct quote from Grant:

In a further attempt to shut me up the idiots have had me arrested and charged with theft of $5k.

This comes 12 months after the supposed event and after being asked by the officer why I was conducting a smear and hate campaign against them in online forums and trying to destroy their business.

I welcome the chance to produce to the courts my evidence to refute their claims and to prove my innocence.

Their claim is that I took money that they claim was for one purpose during my last trip to Rina and kept it for myself, when in fact I had been instructed to use it for another purpose than what they are now saying.

This opens the path for my evidence ( previously classed as "confidential records" ) to be reported on and made public when presented to the courts.

Once again I repeat that I do not have a problem with the charge or the claims made by them, I welcome being able to expose them completely in the courts.

What I didn't miss was Grant King telling us there WAS a trial - and that Bambury's/Holdfast's case about theft was dismissed.

Yeah, and details of that trial might be of interest to someone. I'd certainly like a read myself if there is any info in the public domain about it.

I haven't checked whether there really WAS a trial because, so far, all the important things Grant has told us have proved to be true. You might want to though!

I'd like to read any details of the trial that are in the public domain. It interests me. I can't see any harm in reading it. Do you anticipate any harmful effects of reading any public domain info on the trial? (Maybe there won't be any info, in which case, no harm done.)

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Hi again Toad,

You're seeing lots of things I am not seeing. Who said 'someone took $5000 out of Rocna'? I remember we were told that Bambury gave $5000 with instructions about how it should be used. I haven't seen anything that could be interpreted as suggesting that someone 'took' it without authority.

I'm wondering where you got that from?

Bob

I assumed the $5000 came from Rocna? Who else would wish to bribe someone to certify a Rocna anchor? I suppose it's possible that Bambury paid the bribe out of his own private cash which came from a source outside Rocna, but I'd have thought it would be almost impossible for Bambury to stand up in court and explain why he would have given his personal cash to a colleague. If he took $5000 out of Rocna without any recepits for where it went I'd expect the NZ tax people to be onto him like a shot as I doubt that bribes are a deductable business expense in NZ!!!

If you think I've misunderstood what happend maybe you can understand why finding out a bit more information from different sources would be useful for me (and perhaps others?).

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Direct quote from Grant:

Charges against me in the NZ Courts brought by Bambury were today dismissed.

The basic overview is that Bambury complained to the police that I had stolen an amount of around 5k USD from him during my last trip to Shanghai.

Grant said that the charges were dismissed. As I understand it that means that the trial never even started.

Judge. "Next case. Grant v Plod"
Plod. "Your honour. We've screwed up a little here your honour. We don't think that we have a case against Grant after all"
Judge. "Twats. You're wasting my time again. Case dismissed. You can go home now Grant. Sorry you've been messed about."
Grant. "Phew!"

No trial. Just the formality of the official dismissal.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

If you think I've misunderstood what happend maybe you can understand why finding out a bit more information from different sources would be useful for me (and perhaps others?).

The trouble with searching with google for trial details on someone called Grant Norman King is that Norman Kings Granted a lot of rights while they were in charge!

I've struck a blank on the trial. I've heard New Zealand is like a 3rd world country. Maybe their trials don't get mentioned online?

How many court cases have there been? Seems like at least two? (According to google there was a civil case in which Grant tried to recover 87 grand. Is that right? There's been this latest criminal case for theft.)

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Grant said that the charges were dismissed. As I understand it that means that the trial never even started.

Judge. "Next case. Grant v Plod"
Plod. "Your honour. We've screwed up a little here your honour. We don't think that we have a case against Grant after all"
Judge. "Twats. You're wasting my time again. Case dismissed. You can go home now Grant. Sorry you've been messed about."
Grant. "Phew!"

No trial. Just the formality of the official dismissal.

So what? If there isn't a trial, and/or there's no record of a trial then great. If there is I'd like to have a read of anything I can find out about it. If not, no harm done.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

So what? If there isn't a trial, and/or there's no record of a trial then great. If there is I'd like to have a read of anything I can find out about it. If not, no harm done.

Hells bells! You're not even looking for a needle in a haystack, you're looking for the eye of a needle in a field full of haystacks.
You obviously don't want to take my word for it. Fine. Waste your time if you want.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Hells bells! You're not even looking for a needle in a haystack, you're looking for the eye of a needle in a field full of haystacks.
You obviously don't want to take my word for it. Fine. Waste your time if you want.

Something very fishy here. Why do you care if I waste my time?

I've just spent 40 minutes searching for the trial, and I failed to find it. Maybe a waste of time but I enjoyed the search.

Now can someone remind me how many court cases there have been? Surely something as simple and clear as that can be established beyond doubt? There seems to be general grant@rocna.co.nz whaleboy grant norman king agreement that Grant has won more than 1. I think I've identified 2. One where Grant sued Rocna and the theft case.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Something very fishy here. Why do you care if I waste my time? .

You really don't get it do you? I don't care a hoot if you spend the next 25 years on a pointless quest. I can even have a chuckle at your entry into the world of conspricay theories when you say that there's "something very fishy here". I just hope that you don't intend to give us a blow by blow account of all the dead ends you are going up.

But, if it makes you happy, search away.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I don't care a hoot if you spend the next 25 years on a pointless quest.

Yet reading your posts it's pretty clear that you do care a lot. You've typed literally hundereds of words explaining how futile any attempt to confirm Grant's story will be. You've mocked. Maybe it's my imagination but there's even seems to be a fairly agressive tone to your posts on this.

You've been going after Rocna big style for ages. Yet on this they seem to be bang to rights and all of a sudden you don't want detail that might make life hard for Rocna to get out.

I can't guess why, but your posts on this are not made in a friendly attempt to save my time or smackdaddys. They're made for some other reason.

One more thing. I don't think Rocna have had a sinlge friend recently. Now all of a sudden there are three people vocally leaping to their defence over bribery. That's odd too.

Anyway, can someone tell me how many Grant/Rocna court cases there have been. I've counted two, but I think someone has previously refered to other cases in plural so that would make three. (if correct.)

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Yet reading your posts it's pretty clear that you do care a lot. You've typed literally hundereds of words explaining how futile any attempt to confirm Grant's story will be. You've mocked. Maybe it's my imagination but there's even seems to be a fairly agressive tone to your posts on this.

You've been going after Rocna big style for ages. Yet on this they seem to be bang to rights and all of a sudden you don't want detail that might make life hard for Rocna to get out.

I can't guess why, but your posts on this are not made in a friendly attempt to save my time or smackdaddys. They're made for some other reason.

One more thing. I don't think Rocna have had a sinlge friend recently. Now all of a sudden there are three people vocally leaping to their defence over bribery. That's odd too.

Anyway, can someone tell me how many Grant/Rocna court cases there have been. I've counted two, but I think someone has previously refered to other cases in plural so that would make three. (if correct.)

Fine.

And Elvis is still alive, the moon landings were faked in the back lot of some Hollywood studio, and aliens have landed in the fields around Stonehenge. When you've finished on your current batch of conspiracy theories you can sort all those out too.

Have fun.

 

[smackdaddy]

Yet reading your posts it's pretty clear that you do care a lot. You've typed literally hundereds of words explaining how futile any attempt to confirm Grant's story will be. You've mocked. Maybe it's my imagination but there's even seems to be a fairly agressive tone to your posts on this....

I tend to agree. It is a bit strange.

Of course, I also agree with the sage insight of this respected member:

It beats me why anyone even reads a thread they are not interested in yet alone bothers to post on it. Human nature, I suppose.

He's right. It's just kind of fun to be in the mud with everyone else. So go easy on the guy.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Fine.

And Elvis is still alive, the moon landings were faked in the back lot of some Hollywood studio, and aliens have landed in the fields around Stonehenge. When you've finished on your current batch of conspiracy theories you can sort all those out too.

So the reason you've invested your own time again and again to advise others to back off is to help to save us from wasting our own time. And yet having gone to all that effort to help us, you don't feel able to be even half way civil to us? No way.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

FWIW there are no online records (that I can find) of trials/court cases in NZ except their highest court:

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/

Maybe an Aukland Paper covered one or more of Grants court cases, but if so I can't find it.

Hopefully Grant will give us enough detail to track something down for us all to have a look at.

Also his evidence (previously classed as "confidential records") can be reported on and made public now. I'm deffo interested in that.

All interesting stuff. (And no harm done yet!)

 

[smackdaddy]

It seems that this post belongs in this thread:

This is a copy of an email sent to Rina on June 1 2011.

Dear Mr **,

Recently there has been much speculation and discussion worldwide regarding the Rocna certification and status of the Rocna claims to be certified.

During my time with Rocna I had many meetings with you and always found Rina to be a professional business to deal with and dedicated to ensuring that everything was to meet the conditions and specifications required for certification.

During one of my last meetings with you I was asked if the anchors that were used in the seabed tests in Auckland in December 2008 were of the same construction and material that was used in manufacture in China.

My answer to you , as I was instructed to tell you by Rocna, was that the material and construction was the same.

My answer to you was not truthful and I was instructed to tell you this so that you did not ask for seabed tests to be made again using the China constructed anchors.

This was because the tested anchors used were constructed of 800mpa steel for the shanks and the blade was welded using plate steel.

The China anchors , as you know, used a lower grade of steel for the shanks and the blade was a cast blade, not a fabricated welded blade.

You were also told that the metal was the same in New Zealand and China.
This was also not the truth as the China metal was not able to meet the specifications from the designer of the anchor.

My apologies again for giving you the wrong information in order for the certification process to move forward easier at the time, but I was under instructions from Mr Bambury to tell you this.

The current metal being used will not reach the same results as the anchors used in the seabed tests conducted in Auckland.

Mr Bambury has made public statements that the Certification is complete and the delay in them having a certificate to display is because your office is slow in compiling the information for issue of a certificate.

If I can be of further assistance or give you any more information please contact me again.

regards and thanks
Grant King

 

[smackdaddy]

And this one...

The following is a copy of my reply email to Peter Smith on Jun 7 2011 after he contacted me for information and evidence so that he could find reason totake the manufacturing license away from Bambury.

It very quickly became apparent after discussions the next day with Craig that they were both working with Bambury to find out just how much I knew.

It is also quite apparent now that he did not pass this information on to CMP during the due diligence process.

Hi Peter,

It is good to hear from you.

Brian and Steve started using lower grade shank material right from the very first anchor made in China.

The first indication of that came when I bumped Linox out of the circle in my second visit to China and they started posting on the forums about substandard metals. I managed to get those postings deleted and then started to question both Brian and Steve who both just played the "dumb stare" game and carried on regardless.

When the "Venice" bend occurred I really started to put pressure on with them and they found every way possible to prevent the truth being found.
The truth was revealed to me, in confidence, by Lee who was concerned over the compromising of our personal friendship and the resulting fallout from future fault claims as they were still behind the 8 ball financially in their dealings and expenses on the "anchor project" as they call it.

Now with the HF business being only a tiny drop in their income they were still concerned about integrity and as I developed my relationship with Lee it became apparent that honesty was very important to him.

I crossed swords with Steve and Brian many times during the last 12 months of working with them about metals and specs and yet they continued to carry on behind the scenes regardless.
They were using Q420, Q450 and a few others and I changed it to Q620 in the later stages to try to bring it up closer to meet specs.
Steve was still ordering, and Tanya was signing purchase orders for the Q420 when I left, or should I say got left.

The Rina certification drawings were redone with the lower grade shanks so that they could be approved. If Craig studies the drawings they have then he will see this quite clearly.

I was also sent to Rina in 2010 to pay bribe money to various parties to speed the drawing and approval process through. I have not made that public yet although I have told Steve by email I will do so as he has , and will not, address the issue of the huge amount they still owe me.

I know that there is little hope of me ever recovering any money from them either now or in the future.

I don't really give a **** about them or what ever reasons they gave you for getting rid of me as I know most of what bull**** they have been spreading around but the simple truth is that I was in Steve's way in his relentless pursuit of taking full control from Brian of the business. I was also asking too many questions and demanding too many answers from him about the various differences that were occuring and being revealed in the early part of 2010.

There are more test results about to hit the forums from 2 other parties that show a degrading of the specs and substandard metals being used. The metal tested has a chromium addition to make it harder and is not Q&T and tests out well below even the Manson test results.

The same goes for the stainless shanks, they were changed to 316 right at the start as well and they have never used 2205.

The actions of Brian and Steve are destroying the market and what is coming out lately is only the tip of the iceberg.

It is a pity that this is happening to probably the best anchor design ever produced and it is not too late to save it, but not in Bambury's hands.
I have never in my life come across such an unethical pair and it baffles me as to why they have not been revealed before through all the many decades of shady business practices.

As for my business, it is closed and I am being a solo father to my youngest daughter who I won sole custody of last November through the courts.( perhaps that tells you just how serious my past history must be)

I will contact Craig in the next couple of days and discuss things with him.

regards
Grant

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

It seems that this post belongs in this thread:

I *think* Rina might be off the hook on that. I assume Rina certify anchor "A". If Rocna then decide to sell a completely different anchor then Rina can't really be blamed, or expected to do ongoing work to ensure that the anchor being sold is the one they certified.

That may not be the case though. Maybe certifying firms have some kind of obligation to look out for subsiquent switches. It's certainly in their interest to. (How does Rina certification add value to a product if the consumer can't be sure the product he's buying is the one they certified.)

There's two paragraphs of amusing conjecture.

A question - I wonder if there's a procedure to inform Rina of changes to designs so they can rubber stamp approval in the event of changes they consider to be minor.