|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian The Rollright Stones Forum | Start a topic | Search |
58 messages | Select a forum: |
Paulus wrote: Tough! Deal with it. I don't really have to you know. Sorry if that leaves the chip on your shoulder off balance. Paulus wrote: 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. Like I say - not my problem. I'm not a Rollright trustee - however what Paul is saying is not true. If the Rollright Trust want to sue him for saying publicly that they have embezzled funds then I'd understand their decision. They may of course decide it really isn't worth the aggro. The Rollright Trust accounts are public if anyone wants to see them. The Trust is a limited company and its accounts are sent each year to Companies House. Paulus wrote: 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. I think you are the one being dishonest Paul. There is no evidence to back up your assertions that the Rollright Trust has mishandled its finances. At no time when I was a trustee did I have any doubts whatever that the Trust's accounts were being handled entirely correctly. Paulus wrote: 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? So far as I remember this event happened before I became a trustee. I was not involved in any decision about what to do about moles at the Rollright Stones. However the problem was that English Heritage said that the moles were undermining the stones in the Kings Men Circle and that something should be done to prevent this because it could cause stones to fall over. The circle is a Guardianship Monument and EH have a lot of clout over what happens there. In the early days of the Rollright Trust EH sent in their own contractors to do such things as grass cutting without consulting the Rollright Trust first. I don't know if this what happened about the moles - it could have been EH. I do know that a great many attempts were made by Rollright volunteers to scare the moles off by all the means that could be found without using poison. This included toy windmills stuck into the runs, mothballs and male urine put down the holes and various other methods that various people suggested. None of these worked. At the time this happened allegations were made that the moles were killed with aluminium sulphate, which isn't a poison. I don't know what was actually used. However aluminium ammonium sulphate could have been used and is a repellent, not a poison. It would not have killed any mammals. I have checked the UK Pesticide Guide for 2001 and at that time no cyanide products were licensed to control moles. The use of strychnine was only licensed in 2001 for places with restricted public access, i.e. not places where the public might be expected to go. It would probably not have been legal to use it at the Rollright Stones in 1999 and I doubt very much whether it would have been. Paul does not seem to be correct in what he alleges. As I have already said though I wasn't involved in any decision about what do about the moles and don't know what was done. 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! Paulus wrote: 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). It's quite simple. When others looked after the stone circle more money was taken and banked than when Paul was there. It may be that they were nicer to the visitors, or that the weather was generally better, or any one of a number of other possible explanations. No doubt the people who read this will have some ideas of their own. And I don't expect much common sense from Paul in reply. I say this again , I'm not a Rollright Trustee. If anyone wants answers from people who are they should contact the Trust who I'm sure will be willing and able to deal with any enquiries. Reply | with quote | Posted by Andy Norfolk 31st December 2007ce 21:03 In reply to: Re: Rollrights - another attack! (Paulus) |
Messages in this topic: |
|