[brockwell-spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

So you mean it's guesswork...

I mean, if you were posting on here stating that a newspaper deliberately altered a photo to portray a person in a particular light, you'd have evidence to back it up - correct? You wouldn't seek to justify by saying "I don't think it takes a genius to work out". Your law degree must really be working for you right now...

You must have noticed the irony in you making a comment like that after saying that other posters on here need to be careful in their assertions about you. Hints and allegations about you are not ok, but you can make comments like that about a newspaper?

Suppose the paper saw your comment about them "obviously knocking logos off" - you'd be comfortable in explaining your comments to them and avoid the litigation you don't want for others on here?

Can you show me anywhere else online where that picture appears minus the logo apart from that newspaper article? If you can I'd change my theory... If not all the evidence suggests they chose to do it... I'm sure DB didn't say... Oh you're writing an article about me... Use this picture it's particularly flattering... Unless you can show me where else they took that photo from other than the RPI website where the logo is present... We can waste time putting theories forward and debating it if you want but you seem like a smart guy and you must surely agree that the only place the doctored picture appears is that article... And again.. There would be a logical explanation why, that's not an allegation about a newspaper trying to portray anyone as anything, they obviously just wanted a picture to go with the article.

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 16 April 2016 - 08:55 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Y'know what?

I've decided 'Brockwell Spireite' is right.

This is all just a cynical attempt to besmirch the name of an innocent, honest, internationally renown businessman by the Italian authorities, certain members of the media and 'Bob's Board' contributors for no reason whatsoever.

I'd like to get in touch with him to offer my most sincere apologies; so, if 'BS' will simply supply an accurate address for one of his companies or the name he's using this week...

PS: I'll do so after I've finished hacking NASA and the CIA.

[Stockholm Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Can you show me anywhere else online where that picture appears minus the logo apart from that newspaper article? If you can I'd change my theory... If not all the evidence suggests they chose to do it... I'm sure DB didn't say... Oh you're writing an article about me... Use this picture it's particularly flattering... Unless you can show me where else they took that photo from other than the RPI website where the logo is present... We can waste time putting theories forward and debating it if you want but you seem like a smart guy and you must surely agree that the only place the doctored picture appears is that article... And again.. There would be a logical explanation why, that's not an allegation about a newspaper trying to portray anyone as anything, they obviously just wanted a picture to go with the article.

I saw your sidestep, with a hint of moonwalk...

The thing is, I've asked you to substantiate a claim you've made and you haven't. To use pseudo-legal speak, you haven't even convinced me "beyond reasonable doubt".

I am a smart guy, but I don't "surely agree" with your speculation that a newspaper has doctored a picture. If I did, I would be complicit in endorsing your view of unethical practices by a newspaper and subject to the same potential litigation as you, the originator of the assertion.

If a newspaper already has a photo of somebody they are naming in an article, why would they go to the trouble and extra work of doctoring it? I mean, to use your own words, they obviously just want a picture to go with the article. It's not like newspapers can't advertise oil companies, is it? It's as nonsensical as your claim.

[brockwell-spireite]

MDCCCLXVI, on 16 April 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Y'know what?

I've decided 'Brockwell Spireite' is right.

This is all just a cynical attempt to besmirch the name of an innocent, honest, internationally renown businessman by the Italian authorities, certain members of the media and 'Bob's Board' contributors for no reason whatsoever.


I'd like to get in touch with him to offer my most sincere apologies; so, if 'BS' will simply supply an accurate address for one of his companies or the name he's using this week...



PS: I'll do so after I've finished hacking NASA and the CIA.

I've said time and again there are some questions there from what's been posted, if you don't like obvious things like a newspaper quoting the Italian anti Mafia police wire taps saying he didn't match fix because you want that to form part of the "due diligence" then that's up to you, take it to DA and see if you can get your wish and get CT sacked...

[brockwell-spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

I saw your sidestep, with a hint of moonwalk...

The thing is, I've asked you to substantiate a claim you've made and you haven't. To use pseudo-legal speak, you haven't even convinced me "beyond reasonable doubt".

I am a smart guy, but I don't "surely agree" with your speculation that a newspaper has doctored a picture. If I did, I would be complicit in endorsing your view of unethical practices by a newspaper and subject to the same potential litigation as you, the originator of the assertion.

If a newspaper already has a photo of somebody they are naming in an article, why would they go to the trouble and extra work of doctoring it? I mean, to use your own words, they obviously just want a picture to go with the article. It's not like newspapers can't advertise oil companies, is it? It's as nonsensical as your claim.

Well the original picture appears in Monza News in 2014 with the logo intact, it appears in the corriere in 2015 with the logo missing, in the mean time the picture with the logo has remeained ever present on the RPI website from beginning to end. A google image search doesn't reveal the image minus the logo on any other article or website, hence my theory. If that isn't logical to you then that's fair enough, thats my theory. All your talk of litigation etc is to sidestep the fact that looking at it logically DB hasn't altered that photo which would fit the picture that suits your agenda. I am happy for you to show me that picture minus the logo from another source if you have one?

[dim view]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

I've said time and again there are some questions there from what's been posted, if you don't like obvious things like a newspaper quoting the Italian anti Mafia police wire taps saying he didn't match fix because you want that to form part of the "due diligence" then that's up to you, take it to DA and see if you can get your wish and get CT sacked...

Lot of waffle and arguments about minutiae going on to deflect from the main points, but what's obvious to me is....

An intermediary has put CT in touch with DB to make money, naively expecting CT to behave professionally and keep mum.

That's not happened, so now the intermediary has made what amounts to an ill thought out appearance on here to justify his actions to protect his integrity.

Back to the first sentence, the more you contribute, the more certain I am about what's going on.

[azul]

dim view, on 16 April 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

Lot of waffle and arguments about minutiae going on to deflect from the main points, but what's obvious to me is....

An intermediary has put CT in touch with DB to make money, naively expecting CT to behave professionally and keep mum.

That's not happened, so now the intermediary has made what amounts to an ill thought out appearance on here to justify his actions to protect his integrity.

Back to the first sentence, the more you contribute, the more certain I am about what's going on.

He certainly is strangely fixated about this unfortunate episode

[brockwell-spireite]

dim view, on 16 April 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

Lot of waffle and arguments about minutiae going on to deflect from the main points, but what's obvious to me is....

An intermediary has put CT in touch with DB to make money, naively expecting CT to behave professionally and keep mum.

That's not happened, so now the intermediary has made what amounts to an ill thought out appearance on here to justify his actions to protect his integrity.

Back to the first sentence, the more you contribute, the more certain I am about what's going on.

the only justification I've made is when I was alleged to be misrepresenting who I am, something I haven't done from day one and the only reason I ever posted . When it comes to the various newspaper articles I've simply pointed out a couple of points that don't fit in with the theories offered about DB or his intentions, I'm happy that you feel certain about what's going on, as above, take it to DA and let him sort it!

Azul.... There are certain people fixated by this story that is of no doubt!

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 16 April 2016 - 09:58 AM

[Stockholm Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

All your talk of litigation etc is to sidestep the fact that looking at it logically DB hasn't altered that photo which would fit the picture that suits your agenda.

Can you find where exactly that I or anyone else said that DB had altered the photo? I certainly never said that.

EDIT: You said that the newspaper had altered the photo, not DB - just in case you forgot

Maybe you making that statement suits your agenda? Or just clutching at another straw?

This post has been edited by Stockholm Spireite: 16 April 2016 - 11:24 AM

[brockwell-spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Can you find where exactly that I or anyone else said that DB had altered the photo? I certainly never said that.

EDIT: You said that the newspaper had altered the photo, not DB - just in case you forgot

Maybe you making that statement suits your agenda? Or just clutching at another straw?

I don't regularly re-read this thread, most of it is pretty tedious but the doctoring of the photo has been mentioned more than once with an implication that DB had done it, maybe not by you but that was the implication I took from the questioning of it from posts such as sammy's recent one, even if I were to look back this thread has been moderated and people have edited posts and frankly this train journey will end soon and il have better things to do.

I believe that given the picture with the logo still exists on the RPI website he wouldn't have removed the logo, the chronology of the articles would appear to back that up as would the lack of any other google images... I still look forward to you proving that the image with no logo exists elsewhere other than that article... Because the image with the logo exists in more than one place...

I'd also remind you that it is you who used the phrase unethical practices when it comes to the newspaper, that wasn't what I was implying at all, editing and doctoring photos happens on a daily basis in virtually all print media for VARIOUS reasons, aesthetic or otherwise, if your mind instantly chose to question the ethics of it then that's YOUR opinion not mine.

As for my agenda I don't have one, I am simply pointing out inconsistencies.

This post has been edited by brockwell-spireite: 16 April 2016 - 11:58 AM

[Wooden Spoon]

brockwell-spireite said:

1460807530[/url]' post='1202275']
I don't regularly re-read this thread, most of it is pretty tedious but the doctoring of the photo has been mentioned more than once with an implication that DB had done it, even if I were to look back this thread has been moderated and people have edited posts and frankly this train journey will end soon and il have better things to do.

I believe that given the picture with the logo still exists on the RPI website he wouldn't have removed the logo, the chronology of the articles would appear to back that up as would the lack of any other google images... I still look forward to you proving that the image with no logo exists elsewhere other than that article... Because the image with the logo exists in more than one place...

I'd also remind you that it is you who used the phrase unethical practices when it comes to the newspaper, that wasn't what I was implying at all, editing and doctoring photos happens on a daily basis in virtually all print media for VARIOUS reasons, aesthetic or otherwise, if your mind instantly chose to question the ethics of it then that's YOUR opinion not mine.

What do you make of the address given for RPI?

[moondog]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I don't regularly re-read this thread, most of it is pretty tedious but the doctoring of the photo has been mentioned more than once with an implication that DB had done it, maybe not by you but that was the implication I took from the questioning of it from posts such as sammy's recent one, even if I were to look back this thread has been moderated and people have edited posts and frankly this train journey will end soon and il have better things to do.

I believe that given the picture with the logo still exists on the RPI website he wouldn't have removed the logo, the chronology of the articles would appear to back that up as would the lack of any other google images... I still look forward to you proving that the image with no logo exists elsewhere other than that article... Because the image with the logo exists in more than one place...

I'd also remind you that it is you who used the phrase unethical practices when it comes to the newspaper, that wasn't what I was implying at all, editing and doctoring photos happens on a daily basis in virtually all print media for VARIOUS reasons, aesthetic or otherwise, if your mind instantly chose to question the ethics of it then that's YOUR opinion not mine.

As for my agenda I don't have one, I am simply pointing out inconsistencies.

It doesn't appear that way to me, it looks very much like you want to check it's okay for Bingham to emerge somewhere else but need to fully check out what is known here first.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

A bit of a breakthrough on this thread, I see.

An acceptance of what the authorities have to say.

[brockwell-spireite]

moondog, on 16 April 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

It doesn't appear that way to me, it looks very much like you want to check it's okay for Bingham to emerge somewhere else but need to fully check out what is known here first.

Haha I have no idea where you get that from... Feel free to chase DB wherever you like... I know you've got the time on your hands!

[dim view]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

Haha I have no idea where you get that from... Feel free to chase DB wherever you like... I know you've got the time on your hands!

did you also recommend Gordon Hill?

[moondog]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

Haha I have no idea where you get that from... Feel free to chase DB wherever you like... I know you've got the time on your hands!

To state the obvious from your postings on here

I can understand after a 6 year search for a client you don't want to let go.

It wouldn't be much of a chase







.

[brockwell-spireite]

moondog, on 16 April 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

To state the obvious from your postings on here

I can understand after a 6 year search for a client you don't want to let go.

It wouldn't be much of a chase


What reserve game you off to on your own next?? Make sure you post the updates X




.

[moondog]

I was in the area for another reason as it happens and didn't post any updates on here, not that it had anything to do with "Turner & Sutcliffe going international". Incidentally I noticed you were posting on this thread whilst the rest of us were at today's match...

[Stockholm Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 16 April 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I don't regularly re-read this thread, most of it is pretty tedious but the doctoring of the photo has been mentioned more than once with an implication that DB had done it, maybe not by you but that was the implication I took from the questioning of it from posts such as sammy's recent one, even if I were to look back this thread has been moderated and people have edited posts and frankly this train journey will end soon and il have better things to do.

I believe that given the picture with the logo still exists on the RPI website he wouldn't have removed the logo, the chronology of the articles would appear to back that up as would the lack of any other google images... I still look forward to you proving that the image with no logo exists elsewhere other than that article... Because the image with the logo exists in more than one place...

I'd also remind you that it is you who used the phrase unethical practices when it comes to the newspaper, that wasn't what I was implying at all, editing and doctoring photos happens on a daily basis in virtually all print media for VARIOUS reasons, aesthetic or otherwise, if your mind instantly chose to question the ethics of it then that's YOUR opinion not mine.

As for my agenda I don't have one, I am simply pointing out inconsistencies.

Let me repeat - I asked you to confirm you knew the newspaper had doctored the photo; you presented a response as only a theory. Hardly concrete, is it? With all your legal background, that's not exactly a staunch defence of your acquaintance, is it?

I look forward to you proving the image was altered by the newspaper for their own means - you are the one who has made that claim. Or are you going to hide behind the "I don't need to do anything for you" reasoning again? If that's the case, then I will refer you to your own doctrine of "I don't have to prove anything to you" and then stalemate is reached - I get the feeling that you would be happier with that than me. The burden of proof is still with you, sir.

As for the "unethical practices" I refer you to your own comment about people (or newspapers) pursuing their own agenda. That's the comment you made, not me. You made a comment that your friend DB had not altered the image. I'm not promoting or condoning unethical practices. Indeed, I would refer you to the quote on the RPI website that states:


We are dedicated to proper business practices and ethics in commodities at all times
source: Here you go


Perhaps you could also educate the savages and decipher what your friend means when he talks about "RPI's wherewithal and massive capacity" - or is that something you will add the rule of 'Omerta' to?

EDIT: Sorry for the typos folks, just back from watching games in Malmö and Norrkörping. It's been a long day

This post has been edited by Stockholm Spireite: 16 April 2016 - 11:55 PM

[brockwell-spireite]

moondog, on 16 April 2016 - 09:56 PM, said:

I was in the area for another reason as it happens and didn't post any updates on here, not that it had anything to do with "Turner & Sutcliffe going international". Incidentally I noticed you were posting on this thread whilst the rest of us were at today's match...

As I said in one post... I was on a train... Friends wedding in Bury st Edmunds... Very nice it was too... Much better than watching Di Maio get bullied