| Cardiff on 21:18 - Jan 16 with 1334 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 15:39 - Jan 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is not my job to do your work for you. The court records are given in the press and I reported on them accurately. Duty of care means people who order something cannot pass the buck. People have a responsibility to check their suppliers and contractors.
It they are false then the Guardian must have fabricated. it. They have a good reputation for good reason You call it false without checking which seem to be the way you go about you business.
I argued there was an aviation firm involved, you said there was no aviation firm , just a bloke touting for business on facebook.
You then say the"duty of care " belonged to the "aviation firm". Therefore logically in conclusion, you must believe there was no "duty of care" to the player by the person who organised the flight and paid the pilot.
I believe the Ageny has issues to deal with and still do, you do not . We will find out.
I only use registered taxi companies and do not put my family in unregistered ones. This ensures some level of regulation. I have got into an out of taxis abroad if I am not satisfied.
The thread is dead or got to the 'worm farming' stage it seems. [Post edited 16 Jan 2023 15:41]
|
Nothing to do with work, you claimed a conversation happened. I’ve asked if you could provide your source so I can read it and try and rationalise where you keep going wrong.
Duty of care is nothing to do with people booking transport, duty of care is on those that run the transport. You have been made aware of this by now.
No, you said Henderson ran an aviation firm. I correctly told you that he didn’t. The aviation firm is the one allowing the plane to be rented for private trips, I’d imagine that was one of a few in its fleet. You are connecting two different conversations and confusing yourself.
How do you know the aviation firm was not registered? |  |
|  |
| Cardiff on 23:49 - Jan 16 with 1281 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 16:44 - Jan 16 by bennytheblue |
It’s far from over….. |
Done and dusted.
FA, FIFA and the highest arbitration court in the land all deemed Cardiff liable for the debt owed.
No charges brought against the McKay business and the licenses that were in tact at the time remain so after investigation. It’s not illegal or against any regulations to book a flight.
So unless you want to go after a Facebook odd-jobber for £20m and essentially pay even more for the privilege of bankrupting him to cover a fraction of the new legal bill you will be liable for… it’s over. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 01:18 - Jan 17 with 1269 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 21:18 - Jan 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
Nothing to do with work, you claimed a conversation happened. I’ve asked if you could provide your source so I can read it and try and rationalise where you keep going wrong.
Duty of care is nothing to do with people booking transport, duty of care is on those that run the transport. You have been made aware of this by now.
No, you said Henderson ran an aviation firm. I correctly told you that he didn’t. The aviation firm is the one allowing the plane to be rented for private trips, I’d imagine that was one of a few in its fleet. You are connecting two different conversations and confusing yourself.
How do you know the aviation firm was not registered? |
The source is the press reports of the court case. Multiple press reports where the agent was cross examined. I do not need to prove it to you. You must do your own research. it is a fact you are not aware of it seems.
Duty of care applied to law in general. Booking a passenger on a fight that is known to be illegal and possibly uninsured, could be assessed as reckless by legal experts. It is for the law to decide if it is suitable for a civil case. I only give my opinion as a lay person of good sense.
i could be wrong. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 01:30 - Jan 17 with 1247 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 01:18 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The source is the press reports of the court case. Multiple press reports where the agent was cross examined. I do not need to prove it to you. You must do your own research. it is a fact you are not aware of it seems.
Duty of care applied to law in general. Booking a passenger on a fight that is known to be illegal and possibly uninsured, could be assessed as reckless by legal experts. It is for the law to decide if it is suitable for a civil case. I only give my opinion as a lay person of good sense.
i could be wrong. |
“I could be wrong”.
You are wrong, but you know that already.
I just read the full cross examination and he said nothing of the sort, which is why (I assume) you were reluctant to post it.
He was asked if he made McKay aware of the unqualified pilot, Henderson proclaimed he doesn’t know if he would have cared anyway (suggesting he did not inform him).
……..
Henderson tried to throw some of the mud on to McKay, declaring him so obsessed with getting a pilot at short notice that: 'I don't know if he would have cared' about Ibbotson's lack of qualifications.
When pressed on whether he kept it secretive to avoid losing the fee or potentially getting into trouble he replied “there was an element of that”. [Post edited 17 Jan 2023 3:50]
| |
| |
| Cardiff on 14:20 - Jan 17 with 1176 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 01:30 - Jan 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
“I could be wrong”.
You are wrong, but you know that already.
I just read the full cross examination and he said nothing of the sort, which is why (I assume) you were reluctant to post it.
He was asked if he made McKay aware of the unqualified pilot, Henderson proclaimed he doesn’t know if he would have cared anyway (suggesting he did not inform him).
……..
Henderson tried to throw some of the mud on to McKay, declaring him so obsessed with getting a pilot at short notice that: 'I don't know if he would have cared' about Ibbotson's lack of qualifications.
When pressed on whether he kept it secretive to avoid losing the fee or potentially getting into trouble he replied “there was an element of that”. [Post edited 17 Jan 2023 3:50]
|
Here is a Press Association except from the Inquest transcripts for Dorset in February 2022. In brackets.
{At Dorset Coroners' Court, Cathryn McGahey QC, for Cardiff City FC, said flight organiser David Henderson had been offering flights in private planes not allowed to carry paying passengers - known as "grey flights".
The agent was read a statement from Mr Henderson alleging he had told Mr McKay the flights were private, and that he had no licence to act as an air taxi or run charter flights.
Mr McKay said he had never heard this, and claimed he could not remember if he paid Mr Henderson in cash, despite taking 20 flights with him over the previous 14 years.} [Post edited 17 Jan 2023 14:20]
| |
| |
| Cardiff on 15:02 - Jan 17 with 1151 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Cardiff on 14:20 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Here is a Press Association except from the Inquest transcripts for Dorset in February 2022. In brackets.
{At Dorset Coroners' Court, Cathryn McGahey QC, for Cardiff City FC, said flight organiser David Henderson had been offering flights in private planes not allowed to carry paying passengers - known as "grey flights".
The agent was read a statement from Mr Henderson alleging he had told Mr McKay the flights were private, and that he had no licence to act as an air taxi or run charter flights.
Mr McKay said he had never heard this, and claimed he could not remember if he paid Mr Henderson in cash, despite taking 20 flights with him over the previous 14 years.} [Post edited 17 Jan 2023 14:20]
|
Pretty much proves they were both blaming each other. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:14 - Jan 17 with 1070 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 14:20 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Here is a Press Association except from the Inquest transcripts for Dorset in February 2022. In brackets.
{At Dorset Coroners' Court, Cathryn McGahey QC, for Cardiff City FC, said flight organiser David Henderson had been offering flights in private planes not allowed to carry paying passengers - known as "grey flights".
The agent was read a statement from Mr Henderson alleging he had told Mr McKay the flights were private, and that he had no licence to act as an air taxi or run charter flights.
Mr McKay said he had never heard this, and claimed he could not remember if he paid Mr Henderson in cash, despite taking 20 flights with him over the previous 14 years.} [Post edited 17 Jan 2023 14:20]
|
Then he clearly contradicts himself in the later cross examination where he states he doesn’t think McKay would care if he was made aware.
Clearly has no text on his phone to show the first claim. That’s not court worthy. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:26 - Jan 17 with 1074 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 21:14 - Jan 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Then he clearly contradicts himself in the later cross examination where he states he doesn’t think McKay would care if he was made aware.
Clearly has no text on his phone to show the first claim. That’s not court worthy. |
He was under oath. The Agent did not contradict it either.
The judge decides what is admissible not you. It was deemed admissible.
"Court worthy". Fair play you never give up.
They had worked together for 14 years on 20 previous flights. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cardiff on 21:36 - Jan 17 with 1033 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 21:26 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He was under oath. The Agent did not contradict it either.
The judge decides what is admissible not you. It was deemed admissible.
"Court worthy". Fair play you never give up.
They had worked together for 14 years on 20 previous flights. |
Yes he did. In the very next sentence.
They were both under oath.
“The agent was read a statement from Mr Henderson alleging he had told Mr McKay the flights were private, and that he had no licence to act as an air taxi or run charter flights.
Mr McKay said he had never heard this.”
There is nothing to give up on, I’m telling you how it is. This was a criminal investigation remember, if McKay was proven to be involved in such things he would also be in the dock.
It was a verbal accusation that he later contradicted, with zero evidence and a clear denial.
As I said, that’s not court worthy. Not a court in the land would accept that as evidence. It’s called “hear say” - which is inadmissible.
 | |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:39 - Jan 17 with 1045 views | pencoedjack |
Mods
Any chance of making a thread for Res & Dr P to clog up between themselves that the rest of us can ignore? |  | | |
| Cardiff on 21:46 - Jan 17 with 1031 views | KeithHaynes |
| Cardiff on 21:39 - Jan 17 by pencoedjack |
Mods
Any chance of making a thread for Res & Dr P to clog up between themselves that the rest of us can ignore? |
We will need permission from Chief who is unavailable for selection. |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 21:51 - Jan 17 with 998 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 21:39 - Jan 17 by pencoedjack |
Mods
Any chance of making a thread for Res & Dr P to clog up between themselves that the rest of us can ignore? |
Can’t you just not click on it?
I never understand that thought process. It’s like buying a ticket to a theme park and then complaining that you hate theme parks.
You put yourself there. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:22 - Jan 17 with 962 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Funny you mentioned Chief. He was wrong for 6 years kept swinging punches and just sort of disappeared when proven conclusively wrong. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:24 - Jan 17 with 940 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 22:22 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Funny you mentioned Chief. He was wrong for 6 years kept swinging punches and just sort of disappeared when proven conclusively wrong. |
Is that what you will do?
Although you didn’t when you said he was insured so I guess you have more staying power.
Anyway, wasn’t chief banned or am I thinking of someone else? If so then his disappearance has nothing to do with his discussions with you. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:39 - Jan 17 with 932 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 22:24 - Jan 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Is that what you will do?
Although you didn’t when you said he was insured so I guess you have more staying power.
Anyway, wasn’t chief banned or am I thinking of someone else? If so then his disappearance has nothing to do with his discussions with you. |
I understand your need for the last word on this thread just like Chief. I was not aware he was banned although he did enough to get a ban including labelling me a Nazi Sympathiser. He was backed by another poster who has sensibly decided to go a for a fresh start wit a new user name.
I do not know why the Chief left here. His arguments were proven incorrect as yours will be in my opinion. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 22:49 - Jan 17 with 897 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 22:39 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I understand your need for the last word on this thread just like Chief. I was not aware he was banned although he did enough to get a ban including labelling me a Nazi Sympathiser. He was backed by another poster who has sensibly decided to go a for a fresh start wit a new user name.
I do not know why the Chief left here. His arguments were proven incorrect as yours will be in my opinion. |
My argument has already been proven correct.
- You said he was insured, I said he wasn’t…. I was proven correct.
- I said they will be liable to pay, you said they wouldn’t be as they did nothing wrong… I was correct.
- I said they don’t have a leg to stand on to sue Nantes, you brought up hear say as evidence which as we know isn’t permissible in court… I was proven correct.
So which part are you expecting will be proven wrong exactly? | |
| |
| Cardiff on 23:48 - Jan 17 with 875 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 22:49 - Jan 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
My argument has already been proven correct.
- You said he was insured, I said he wasn’t…. I was proven correct.
- I said they will be liable to pay, you said they wouldn’t be as they did nothing wrong… I was correct.
- I said they don’t have a leg to stand on to sue Nantes, you brought up hear say as evidence which as we know isn’t permissible in court… I was proven correct.
So which part are you expecting will be proven wrong exactly? |
It is just bluff and bluster. You just week after week say the same thing. " I have proven myself correct again folks", when you have not.
I am not convinced by your arguments at all and you most recent post is in the same vein. Many others have you on ignore for the same reason leading to the owner of this site re issuing your interesting vote so a decent number of readers might be able to see it.
I do accept being surprised that Cardiff city did not insure the player while signing his contract. I could not say if he was insured on not for sure. I see it as standard good practice. Your other points are fake.
I believe there a few years left in this case and explained why. You believe it is over. We will see how it turns out. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 23:52 - Jan 17 with 863 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 23:48 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is just bluff and bluster. You just week after week say the same thing. " I have proven myself correct again folks", when you have not.
I am not convinced by your arguments at all and you most recent post is in the same vein. Many others have you on ignore for the same reason leading to the owner of this site re issuing your interesting vote so a decent number of readers might be able to see it.
I do accept being surprised that Cardiff city did not insure the player while signing his contract. I could not say if he was insured on not for sure. I see it as standard good practice. Your other points are fake.
I believe there a few years left in this case and explained why. You believe it is over. We will see how it turns out. |
How is it either bluff or bluster?
Sala has been proven to be a Cardiff player, and Cardiff have been found liable for the payment. The reasons given in both the FIFA document and the CAS are for the EXACT reasons I stated. It doesn’t deviate one iota.
Your argument against what I have said seems to boil down to a hear say inadmissible quote that was contradicted anyway.
I would guess 4 people have me on ignore; because they cannot argue against the points I make and it leads them to get themselves into trouble by abusing me. When the site owner re-posted due to that, the vote for “yes” went up by one, yep one.
You aren’t debating with Chief now lad, you can’t sneak things past me. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 00:23 - Jan 18 with 855 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Cardiff on 23:52 - Jan 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
How is it either bluff or bluster?
Sala has been proven to be a Cardiff player, and Cardiff have been found liable for the payment. The reasons given in both the FIFA document and the CAS are for the EXACT reasons I stated. It doesn’t deviate one iota.
Your argument against what I have said seems to boil down to a hear say inadmissible quote that was contradicted anyway.
I would guess 4 people have me on ignore; because they cannot argue against the points I make and it leads them to get themselves into trouble by abusing me. When the site owner re-posted due to that, the vote for “yes” went up by one, yep one.
You aren’t debating with Chief now lad, you can’t sneak things past me. |
The evidence of the aviation intermediary was not a quote . It was a written statement. It was accepted by the court.
And do not call me "lad" Sunny . | |
| |
| Cardiff on 01:46 - Jan 18 with 836 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Cardiff on 00:23 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The evidence of the aviation intermediary was not a quote . It was a written statement. It was accepted by the court.
And do not call me "lad" Sunny . |
The written statement was based on hearsay, hear say can be in written and verbal form.
And it’s Sonny, not Sunny. | |
| |
| Cardiff on 08:48 - Jan 18 with 789 views | bennytheblue |
| Cardiff on 23:48 - Jan 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is just bluff and bluster. You just week after week say the same thing. " I have proven myself correct again folks", when you have not.
I am not convinced by your arguments at all and you most recent post is in the same vein. Many others have you on ignore for the same reason leading to the owner of this site re issuing your interesting vote so a decent number of readers might be able to see it.
I do accept being surprised that Cardiff city did not insure the player while signing his contract. I could not say if he was insured on not for sure. I see it as standard good practice. Your other points are fake.
I believe there a few years left in this case and explained why. You believe it is over. We will see how it turns out. |
But but but….he won poster of the year…..he’s a champion |  | | |
| Cardiff on 12:04 - Jan 18 with 748 views | STID2017 |
| Cardiff on 08:48 - Jan 18 by bennytheblue |
But but but….he won poster of the year…..he’s a champion |
I have stated before that the most salient point of this whole saga is that human beings have died.
It was a tragedy and should have been settled in a timely and humane manner to save any further pain of those involved.
Those on here who argue semantics regarding this case just to be proved right need a wake up call.
It sickens me to see individuals claiming " I am right. It is over"
It will never be over for the family and friends of those directly involved.
The human cost is far greater than the financial cost |  |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:34 - Jan 18 with 718 views | britferry |
Live on ITV4 tonight, if anyone interested | |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 18 with 716 views | Boundy |
| Cardiff on 17:34 - Jan 18 by britferry |
Live on ITV4 tonight, if anyone interested |
What is ? | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Cardiff on 17:36 - Jan 18 with 708 views | Whiterockin |
| Cardiff on 17:35 - Jan 18 by Boundy |
What is ? |
V Leeds? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
