Paid Members herbie747 Posted June 26, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 26, 2013 Look at the bits I highlighted again though. You stated that to you it's not about the money. So what is your gain from this? Proving Danny Rodd is a cunt who couldn't run a company properly (which we already know). So you are going through this just to prove a point and as has been stated already a court isn't going to look kindly on someone taking its valuable resources just to prove a point. Would it help if you looked up the definition of that as it seems to be giving you problems more so than anyone else understanding what the dictionary definition is of fraudulent trading or a company director. Â Stop being a tosser - he's explained himself around a dozen times now - and his reasons are valid IMO. Some prick fucked him, and he wants to be a thorn in the side of said prick. Simple. You've never done anything on principle, even if it cost you time & money? Â Here's a little anecdote; I put a set of PC speakers up for sale last week for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat bern Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share Posted June 27, 2013 He still sticking by the whole "it was Maurice Brooke's fault not mine" gimmick or has that changed? Â This is why I want to get all the facts where did the money go ? Can't bullshit if we have all the bank and company records. Actually he will, but he is in a hole and will keep on digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat bern Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share Posted June 27, 2013 Look at the bits I highlighted again though. You stated that to you it's not about the money. So what is your gain from this? Proving Danny Rodd is a cunt who couldn't run a company properly (which we already know). So you are going through this just to prove a point and as has been stated already a court isn't going to look kindly on someone taking its valuable resources just to prove a point. Would it help if you looked up the definition of that as it seems to be giving you problems more so than anyone else understanding what the dictionary definition is of fraudulent trading or a company director. Â Stop being a tosser - he's explained himself around a dozen times now - and his reasons are valid IMO. Some prick fucked him, and he wants to be a thorn in the side of said prick. Simple. You've never done anything on principle, even if it cost you time & money? Â Here's a little anecdote; I put a set of PC speakers up for sale last week for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Good on you, fat bern, please keep us updated on how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond_dust Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Look at the bits I highlighted again though. You stated that to you it's not about the money. So what is your gain from this? Proving Danny Rodd is a cunt who couldn't run a company properly (which we already know). So you are going through this just to prove a point and as has been stated already a court isn't going to look kindly on someone taking its valuable resources just to prove a point. Would it help if you looked up the definition of that as it seems to be giving you problems more so than anyone else understanding what the dictionary definition is of fraudulent trading or a company director. Â Stop being a tosser - he's explained himself around a dozen times now - and his reasons are valid IMO. Some prick fucked him, and he wants to be a thorn in the side of said prick. Simple. You've never done anything on principle, even if it cost you time & money? Â Â Â Thats not the point is it? He was just advised to change how he said things before it got to court and right away he replied with the same attitude. He decided to talk down to me by spelling something out I wasn't arguing so I did it back. Personally I hope he does get somewhere because Rodd should get as much shit as he can for repeatedly doing it, but him saying "I'm not doing it just for what I lost I'm doing it because he was a prick himself" isn't the way to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted June 27, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 27, 2013 him saying "I'm not doing it just for what I lost I'm doing it because he was a prick himself" isn't the way to go about it. Â Says who? He doesn't have to say "I'm doing it out of spite" to any court or lawyer - but it can still be his personal motive. Â For as much as I agree with his sentiment, I'm not sure I envy the task. He's referring to taking Rodd to court over breaking "company" laws, etc - I'd be surprised to find that were was a proper company to begin with - i.e. with a proper shareholding, memorandum & articles of association, etc. This was some jackoff fanboy who probably just paid a few grand to Gauntly for the name, and then ran it out of his bedroom with no money, no resources, and no common sense. I'd say "the company" was nothing more than him just saying he had a company and kept calling it "1PW Limited" in his shitty press releases. The company 'ownership transfer 'was probably no more than an e-mail, and the real 1PW folded when Gauntly folded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted June 27, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 27, 2013 him saying "I'm not doing it just for what I lost I'm doing it because he was a prick himself" isn't the way to go about it. Â Says who? The company 'ownership transfer 'was probably no more than an e-mail, and the real 1PW folded when Gauntly folded it. Â I imagine your probably very right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Southside crew Posted June 27, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 27, 2013 I wish you all the luck in the world but don't fancy your chances much - hope I'm wrong ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat bern Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share Posted June 27, 2013 him saying "I'm not doing it just for what I lost I'm doing it because he was a prick himself" isn't the way to go about it. Â Says who? He doesn't have to say "I'm doing it out of spite" to any court or lawyer - but it can still be his personal motive. Â For as much as I agree with his sentiment, I'm not sure I envy the task. He's referring to taking Rodd to court over breaking "company" laws, etc - I'd be surprised to find that were was a proper company to begin with - i.e. with a proper shareholding, memorandum & articles of association, etc. This was some jackoff fanboy who probably just paid a few grand to Gauntly for the name, and then ran it out of his bedroom with no money, no resources, and no common sense. I'd say "the company" was nothing more than him just saying he had a company and kept calling it "1PW Limited" in his shitty press releases. The company 'ownership transfer 'was probably no more than an e-mail, and the real 1PW folded when Gauntly folded it. Â Well it was a limited company and he was a director.In many ways I would prefer if it wasn't a limited company as there would be no limited liability to try and hide behind I am aware the whole thing is one big balls up but is that an excuse ? You make your bed you gotta lie in it or in Rodds case lie out of it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat bern Posted June 27, 2013 Author Share Posted June 27, 2013 Look at the bits I highlighted again though. You stated that to you it's not about the money. So what is your gain from this? Proving Danny Rodd is a cunt who couldn't run a company properly (which we already know). So you are going through this just to prove a point and as has been stated already a court isn't going to look kindly on someone taking its valuable resources just to prove a point. Would it help if you looked up the definition of that as it seems to be giving you problems more so than anyone else understanding what the dictionary definition is of fraudulent trading or a company director. Â Stop being a tosser - he's explained himself around a dozen times now - and his reasons are valid IMO. Some prick fucked him, and he wants to be a thorn in the side of said prick. Simple. You've never done anything on principle, even if it cost you time & money? Â Â Â Thats not the point is it? He was just advised to change how he said things before it got to court and right away he replied with the same attitude. He decided to talk down to me by spelling something out I wasn't arguing so I did it back. Personally I hope he does get somewhere because Rodd should get as much shit as he can for repeatedly doing it, but him saying "I'm not doing it just for what I lost I'm doing it because he was a prick himself" isn't the way to go about it. Â Â Look the guy took me for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 I am not bringing a case against him because he has pissed me off. It is because he has pissed me off that I am bringing a case against him.BIG DIFFERENCE Â Â Â Well good luck with it all mate. I hope you succeed where others have failed. I've read the above 6 times and I'll be honest, I'm struggling to grasp it, it's like a Mensa spot the difference and also, It's early and I'm stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 While there is no difference between those two statements, I imagine he's saying "the case isn't built around the fact he's pissed me off. I've got a case irrespective of that. But because he's pissed me off I'm going to bring that case" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 I assumed that. A similar thing happened at work, regarding reports, half the team worded a measurement as '4 square metres' and the other half stated '4 metres squared'. Â Had to really get my maths head on and took me ages to figure out what the hell was going on, we figured tgat the 'd' does in fact make a difference, i hope. Six of us managed to sus it in the end, but bloody hell... Maths and questions arn't my idea of lunch time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat bern Posted June 28, 2013 Author Share Posted June 28, 2013 Well the more information I get the more interesting and pathetic it is,I may end up writing a book and selling film rights ! Unbelievable stuff  Bollocks to fraud and theft when they get this to court they may bring back hanging ! Trust me this guy is fucked,big time.  So keep any information coming please and put this thread on other forums I have been asked to put 1PW in the thread title as well as many will not know Danny Rodd.  I will keep posting when I have anymore news. Thanks FB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 Well the more information I get the more interesting and pathetic it is,I may end up writing a book and selling film rights ! Unbelievable stuff  Bollocks to fraud and theft when they get this to court they may bring back hanging ! Trust me this guy is fucked,big time.  So keep any information coming please and put this thread on other forums I have been asked to put 1PW in the thread title as well as many will not know Danny Rodd.  I will keep posting when I have anymore news. Thanks FB   Sell your book rights to Ian, it would make a brilliant Ian's Indy wank thread re-visited edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.