Nic wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:19 amI've made it clear that on the issue of copyright my primary argument was always the moral one. That remains the case. The vast majority of my posts, on here or on FB, supports this.eden wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:29 amIm not having a go at you, im just pointing out how your statements can be interpreted. More than once you have used the words "we" and "us" and stated how you have been involved in advising the committee, yet now your saying you haven't. LOLNic wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:00 am
You are free to interpret things as you see fit.
As I see it, I'm offering my opinion in a bid to avoid all this pain, in the direct knowledge of what is sometimes involved.
But for the record, I have no input whatsoever into any decisions by the LCGB committee or the legal advice it receives. I have not offered any and it has not been sought, verbally.orminwriting
It might be helpful if, instead of having a go at me, you focus on the issues.
You saying your trying to "avoid all this pain" is laughable considering the personal attacks you have thrown around over the last few weeks, one of which on an old long standing friend of yours.
Still, its not surprising as its what i expect from someone with a wishy washy character like yours.
Maybe if you STFU chatting s**t things could move on
The evidence also suggests that you choose to interpret things in a way that suits your narrative, regardless of what I say.
It doesn't work.
On-topic: I have not been asked for or given any advice to the LCGB on this issue or any other issue. I do support the LCGB and its committee and believe it will make the right choices on respect of the BLOA legal claim.
On-topic: although I stress that I'm not a lawyer, based on direct experience I believe there may be issues for GF and his organisation related to the common law tort of "passing off".
You are, of course, free to dismiss my comments as wrong or biased. If so, you might want to tell us why. But telling me to STFU is unlikely to be seen as a helpful contribution to the debate.
Don't stfu then... at last now everyone knows your posts are not in anyway official which is how you had been allowing them to be believed to be.
However you do seem to be privy to "facts" that "normal members are not privy to. Such as the conversations last week which you then lead "normal" members to believe had been carried out by "senior" LCGB members, whatever they may be, in a cinical attempt to sway opinions.
Members need info from the committee not from self appointed crazies who allow others to think they are speaking on behalf of the committee.
There are enough committee members that are both members of this forum and reading the posts yet they choose to allow people like you Nic to speak for them rather than speaking up their selves.
And as far as people trying to shut down the conversation.... the only person who has done that is Toot either on behalf if the committee or off his own back by demanding the other topic was locked down.