A CHALLENGE TO ROBINSON


 Nov 13 2011, 06:00 PM
Post #5
GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,756
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

Description: http://www.greenockmorton.org/forum/style_images/1/spacer.gif

QUOTE(Rhubarb Mess @ Nov 13 2011, 05:40 PM) 
I wouldn’t expect you to!
I am genuinely astonished the new chairman has offered on more than one occasion to go over things away from this site.
Smart man.

I have offered to any trust member or loan note holder who has concerns to go over why the trust has acted the way it has and that offer still stands. Members have every entitlement to ask questions about how the trust has operated.

I would expect you can see the difference between that and posting details of an ongoing court case on an open forum like this.





Mortonjag would expect that they can Nicholas, but much more to the point, why is it that when the Trust committee’s actions have been called in question by non-members/note holders, you have repeatedly contacted them personally to offer (and in some instances to provide in graphic detail) your entirely biased version of events pertinent to the ‘ongoing court case’? 


All of the requisite evidence to back up Mortonjag’s statement will, if deemed necessary, be published in detail on this blog…. 


…. and now to your pronouncement above:


ANSWER THIS PLEASE:


How many such requests from an antipodean Trust member benefactor have you now ignored completely Nicholas? Does beneficence preclude membership rights, or to put it more simply – is your nose in a poke because a Trust member appears to be supporting the exposure of truth and the procurement of justice?


Mortonjag understands that since joining the Trust in April 2011 the antipodean benefactor has:


1/ still to receive formal confirmation of status despite numerous requests to the membership secretary.


2/ been described ungraciously in official correspondence from the Trust Secretary (a man less than half his age) as ‘a persistent little bugger’.


3/ had EVERY SINGLE communication to yourself ‘blanked’ completely – so much so that in an attempt to obtain answers to legitimate concerns he has been reduced to offering expensive trans-global telephone discussions which you, in your capacity as Trust Chairman, are STILL ignoring completely.


Since October you have been sent six separate requests to ‘go over’ details – reasonable requests from a Trust member – which you have chosen to treat with idiosyncratic contempt.


Everything is documented Nicholas. There is abundant proof that emails to Trust personnel are reaching their intended destination.


Are you still so busy with your ‘whispering campaign’ to every ‘Tom Dick and Harry’ gullible enough to believe your Fairy Tales, that you are unable to perform your constitutional duties?


If so, you are clearly unsuitable for the position of Trust Chairman, and Mortonjag suggests that you relinquish that position forthwith.