|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian The Rollright Stones Forum | Start a topic | Search |
58 messages | Select a forum: |
Andy Norfolk wrote: Sorry Paul but this won't wash. Tough! Deal with it. Andy Norfolk wrote: Paulus wrote: I aint told anything to anyone about RT which isn't true (eg, the poisoning of the moles and wildlife at Rollright, sanctioned by RT, using funds paid to RT by pagans, green-groups, etc). In complete contrast to some RT members. That sounds OK until you remember what Paul wrote before... Paulus wrote: They make thousands each year on the place (though I clearly recall some considerable discrepancy between the amount actually taken over a couple of years and the amount they wrote for the taxman) That is libellous. The accounts of the Rollright Trust are published every year and subject to the scrutiny of the Charity Commission. What Paul alleges isn't true. If it's libellous, sue me. What I'm saying is true. If you've got a problem with it, take me to court. I'm not the person who wrote your accounts; I was merely one of your peasants who worked at the Rollrights. Simply: the amount we took during the period we worked there differed from the amount published. Now if that's a problem, don't get shirty with me about it old bean. Companies like yours are renowned at getting extra bitsa cash for their own pockets. I'm not the first person to see such things and I'm certainly not gonna be the last. If you've got the old books me 'n' Tom filled in showing the cash-takings every day, every week, over the period, have a look - and then see what went into your bank/s, hidden accounts, pockets, etc. If you, or anyone else for that matter, is gonna be dishonest - be it about Rollright's accounts, poisoning the wildlife, extra-marital goings-on - at least be honest about it. Andy Norfolk wrote: Perhaps he realised he'd gone too far and is now raising the issue of the moles to distract attention from his rather rash (and potentially actionable) statement. I'm glad you're mentioned this to be honest - cos it would be good to get to the bottom of the entire affair. Why did the Rollright Trust sanction the extermination of the mammaliam wildlife in and around the Rollright Circle? When was the decision sanctioned? Who decided to kill the mammals? Why were cyanogens (cyanide-containing toxins) used? How much did it cost? (readers please ask yourselves, have you donated any cash to RT like I did - a few hundred-quid's worth misself!) How many times did the Rollright Trust exterminate the wildlife at the Rollrights? (we found dead birds (who'd eaten the worms from the circle), a dead weasel, tons of dead moles, dead field-mice, etc) Why were no safety precautions undertaken to fence-off the stone circle (as law requires)? Why were there no safety-signs? (the company which performed the extermination of the animals there told us the site should be sealed-off for 48-hours to prevent the poison affecting any dogs, children and other people who may visit the circle) Do Rollright Trust still exterminate the indigenous species living in and around the circle? There's more issues related to this (Health & Safety contraventions relating to hazardous toxins is a big one), but I think I'll just wait for the responses to this issue first. Andy Norfolk wrote: However it is a matter of fact which could easily be demonstrated by the Trust's records that income from visitors has always been significantly higher when other people than Paul were responsible for the takings. Odd that! Well please Andy - show the evidence. In writing. Otherwise you're a bullshitter (I know you're a bullshitter over this, but other people don't, so I'll expect you to show this evidence which you say should be open and available as a result of Charity Commission regulations, etc). But just in case you want any help: The daily takings for the Rollrights over the 2yr period me 'n' Tom worked there, 6- sometimes 7-days a week, were written down daily and the takings handed over at the end of each week. Who else worked there during those 6-7 days Andy? Ey? C' mon - tell me mate! It certainly wasn't you - you were never there (unless someone 'important' might be turning-up, of course - you couldn't miss that could you!?), so how do you know? Ey? There were the occasional Sundays when we weren't there doing the takings which, as common sense tells anyone (though perhaps not you or other RT idiots!), is the day you get more tourists turning up. Monday to Friday we have less takings cos people work - are you with me here? Ey? Saturdays working folk tend to do their shopping, yeah? (difficult stuff to comprehend Andy) So the Sundays we weren't there, when more people were gonna be turning up, would explain, quite simply, an increase in any daily takings. Does that sound sensible? Wot d' y' reckon? (phew....I had to think quickly to get away with that one!) I look forward to your responses. Though don't expect much. Reply | with quote |  31st December 2007ce 18:48 In reply to: Re: Rollrights - another attack! (Andy Norfolk) |
Messages in this topic: |
|