Zoner's Questions for Tara Brady

[McNasty]

So it's ok to suggest he is being fraudulent on the internet but you can't do it in person?

I don't know what you mean ? :dim:

 

[jamesmut2000]

Exactly..I feel most questions were not asked as there was no point as people knew the answer would be a smokescreen.

And there was me thinking that questions weren't asked because people were full of themselves on the net beforehand , but when it came to the actual event failed to act. I believe the phrase is 'all mouth and no trousers'.

 

[Cricko]

And there was me thinking that questions weren't asked because people were full of themselves on the net beforehand , but when it came to the actual event failed to act. I believe the phrase is 'all mouth and no trousers'.

Did you ask any questions as you seem to be full of this internet chat. .I was not allowed as I was only a Proxy vote.

 

[jamesmut2000]

I don't know what you mean ? :dim:

I didn't think it was that difficult a question....:smile:

 

[McNasty]

And there was me thinking that questions weren't asked because people were full of themselves on the net beforehand , but when it came to the actual event failed to act. I believe the phrase is 'all mouth and no trousers'.

Next year you go and ask the questions and we will have a night off from trying to inform the people who didn't go. I would much prefer a night in with my lady and not have to justify myself and others to you.

 

[jamesmut2000]

Did you ask any questions .I was not allowed as I was only a Proxy vote.

No I didn't - but I wasn't suggesting that I was going to before the event. And saying that you weren't allowed to as you were a proxy vote is crap in my opinion- no one was asked to prove they were actually a shareholder or a proxy before they asked their questions.

 

[Cricko]

No I didn't - but I wasn't suggesting that I was going to before the event. And saying that you weren't allowed to as you were a proxy vote is crap in my opinion- no one was asked to prove they were actually a shareholder or a proxy before they asked their questions.

Well then stop giving it the big bollocks when you were not even there to ask a question.

 

[jamesmut2000]

Next year you go and ask the questions and we will have a night off from trying to inform the people who didn't go. I would much prefer a night in with my lady and not have to justify myself and others to you.

You don't have to justify yourself to me.

 

[McNasty]

You don't have to justify yourself to me.

So what is with the continuing interrogation then ?

 

[jamesmut2000]

Well then stop giving it the big bollocks when you were not even there to ask a question.

If people hadn't been giving it the big bollocks beforehand about what they were going to ask and then not doing it we wouldn't be having this discussion. And just to make it clear this is not a personal attack on yourself or Ken. I don't know either of you 'in real life' so I'm not grinding any particular axe.

 

[jamesmut2000]

So what is with the continuing interrogation then ?

I thought this was a discussion board? It's not an interrogation - it's just an opinion being expressed. As I have just said in another post it's not a personal dig.

 

[Firestorm]

You seem to believe anything as long as it is on paper and within the accounts.Once again I say you are naive or just acting dumb or missed the post of mine about creative accounting.

Do you operate in the real world or believe everything you see in print as factual accountancy wise?

Where did that come from ?

I tend to believe what I see in an audited set of accounts unless I see evidence to the contrary, if thats naive then I hold my hands up.

I also presumed that you had seen something which evidenced that the accounts were incorrect. I assume from the tone of your response that there is nothing concrete enough for you to evidence any wrong doing .

 

[chadded]

Don't always believe what you read.

Well what do you know then? From the above quote, you are making out that you know something that we don't. So why not say it. If it is true, then I doubt Ron has a superinjunction in place to stop the truth coming out, so again, why not say it? Honestly, you're worse than Napster in his prime... :raspberry:

 

[Firestorm]

You seem to believe anything as long as it is on paper and within the accounts.Once again I say you are naive or just acting dumb or missed the post of mine about creative accounting.

Do you operate in the real world or believe everything you see in print as factual accountancy wise?

I didn't miss the post about Creative accounting, I am still waiting for your response to my question about which assets you feel have been exaggerated.

I have gone back over the thread in which creative accounting was mentioned and that related to RM taking money out of the club.
Now it is being mentioned in the case of lying in the narrative element of the account and relating to the proceeds in the disposal of assets.

Which one is it ?

 

[Firestorm]

He would say he was being accused of fraud and sue for slander.

Ideal, then any evidence of the creative accounting could be brought up in defence.

It would only be slander if it was untrue

 

[McNasty]

Ideal, then any evidence of the creative accounting could be brought up in defence.

It would only be slander if it was untrue

Would that mean we could have access to all his accounts and bank dealings ? If so would you be able to act for the person's defence ?

 

[Firestorm]

Would that mean we could have access to all his accounts and bank dealings ? If so would you be able to act for the person's defence ?

I would imagine that the evidence you currently have in which the accusation is being based on now will be the basis of the defence. Any request for access to information you haven't already got will likely be seen as a "fishing" exercise.

Now, I am no legal expert , but this would seem to be fairly common sense.

 

[chadded]

He would say he was being accused of fraud and sue for slander.

If however, Cricko comes out and says that he has information, that he has no idea how reliable it is, that RM may not have paid the said amount, then it's not slanderous. Cricko will have admitted that the information may be wrong, and stops short of accusing anyone of any wrong doing. However, it will lend a lot more credibility to John's argument that a simple comment of 'Don't believe everything you read.' Most people know not to believe everything they read, for instance the Sun newspaper recently ran a story on me being in a jacuzzi with 2 page 3 models, a bucket load of champagne and half of Colombia's cocaine. Bollocks, there were 4 of them, and it was 3/4, but I digress.