Colin, Colin - I take it all back!!

[chairman]

NOW LISTEN YOU LOT!!  

You must read the letter attached. Its from a very big firm of lawyers, and they say, and being big lawyers its must be absolutely, and incontrovertibly true  , that Colin is NOT a bad person for being part of a company that went bust owing Westminster Council (the Council he leads) more than £19k....... no! wait a minute, according to the liquidators, Colin's company owed £68k.

Now that's strange, because Colin's other concern, WCC, in a reply to a request made under the FOI Act, have categorically stated that Colin's company, Eiger Capital only owed the Council £19k.

Anyway.....so, so SORRY COLIN   - hope nobody here has got the wrong impression of you!!

Westminster Council leader Colin Barrow how to avoid paying business rates

[FuBaR]

well what kind of message is he trying to give to other businesses and citizens... that its ok to owe large somes of money to your council and if you have other businesses dont worry just liquidate them... does he think he is better than everyone else? What kind of leader is he? Not leading by example I presume... I think the money should be deducted from his Council Wage seeing as the other businesses and tax payers are footing his bill! The money he earns is ours anyway!

[gordon861]

OK so we must repeat "Colin is not a bad person", he is just a little fish among the other 4 Directors (who for the record are also not bad people) that owned a company that managed to go bust whilst owing either £20k or £68k to various other people/companies.

And the fact that their other company, that was trading from the same location, just happens to owe none of these funds to these people and that happens to still be trading and making money, is just a coincidence and also does not in anyway imply that he is a lying scumbag that deserves to be put against the wall with all the other hedge fund and investment bankers that have truely fucked our economy again.

BUT HE IS NOT A BAD PERSON.

[Bandit]

Oh, so it's all right for his buddy Chalkley to label us rogues (and bully-boys: even the women) but when we refer to one of the co-perpetrators (in a non-executive, minor shareholder kinda way) of what might be referred to as alleged 'sharp practice', he goes crying to his brief! 

Leaflets or not, we'll still be all over his ward on Saturday.
Just to say what a nice chap Colin is, and that his non-executive, minor shareholder involvement in a company that stiffed organisations for monies owed (including losses to the tax payers of Westminster) was not undertaken without qualms. Of course not.

And to say that none of this would have been of any interest to any of us if our attention hadn't been drawn to WCC by their imposition of the parking tax.

Hope he didn't claim his brief's letter on expenses.

Anyone got an emoticon that looks like it's masturbating? I need one for this post.

[bigdave]

do these rules apply to scrutiny meetings and making up fictitious French reports that are supposed to day that motorbikes even small ones are more polluting than hummers?

reports which even though sighted as evidence in a council meeting have never been able to be produced

[FuBaR]

what makes it even worse is that he can afford to pay a lawyer to write warren a letter but he cant afford to pay back any of the money he owes the council...

[gordon861]

do these rules apply to scrutiny meetings and making up fictitious French reports that are supposed to day that motorbikes even small ones are more polluting than hummers?

reports which even though sighted as evidence in a council meeting have never been able to be produced

I saw a link to these reports on another site, the info was based on small bikes (50cc etc) and a few 850-1150cc bikes.  Will try to find the links.

Found the links, from the Guardian site "The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150cc."  Which means very small scooters that are probably 2-stroke and limited to 30mph so always running at near 100% max power, and larger bikes which most people realise are not designed for use as commuters but as open road bikes.

Here's what was quoted to me

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/21/travelandtransport.transportintheuk

The paper's here:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0481023?cookieSet=1&journalCode=esthag
http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/MotorcyclePollution.html

And my response

OK taking a look at the Guardian story.
First it's 4.5 years old, the emmissions on bikes have improved a lot since then, most larger bikes going fuel injected. Also reading the story they tested 50cc and 800-1150cc motorcycles which are probably the worst range to test for a cummuting study.

Most commuting is done on bikes of between 125 cc and 600cc. A 50cc motorcycle/moped will probably be restricted(and geared) to do 30mph so it will mean that most of the time it will be running at near 100% of it's power, this is not a clean way to run a bike. In the same way as if your do any distance at close to your own personal max speed on your pushbike you will fatigue much quicker than if you are taking it easy.

125cc is the limit before you do your test, these bikes can do 50mph fairly easily so will be a lot more happy at commuting speeds. The logical step up from a 125cc if you just want a little more power is a 250cc and these are also very economical.

The next 'band' of commuting bike is the 500/600cc bike, these are very happy at motorway speeds and above so are often used for commuting from further away. These bikes are also fairly light and manouverable in traffic so work well as commuters.

Once you get to the 850-1200cc band you are into heavy bikes often capable of speeds in excess of 130-150mph. These bikes are generally too heavy to commute with easily and the owners often use them for long distance riding as well.

Also modern bikes often burn fuel very efficiently. For a comparison, I ride a 600cc Honda and my car is a 999cc Toyota Aygo. Both do about the same mpg, the car is generally a little less, that might be my driving but my riding style hardly effects my bikes mpg. The bike produces 102bhp from 600cc but the car is only producing 68bhp from 999cc, that sounds pretty efficent use of fuel to me. But if the car has multiple people in it it is a much more efficent use of the fuel.

Picking those bikes to do the study with screws with the figures you will get out. It would be like me using a BMX and a low end mountain bike to work out how much energy is used when you cycle to work. Really I'd get a more truthful result if I used a regular road bike or a hybrid to calculate the figures.

This 'research' was used by an ex-Green Party activist on the Bike Radar (pushbikes) site in this thread http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12696257

[The Bald Eagle]

So let me get this straight.

He admits that he had an interest in the company.  He admits that the company went into voluntary liquidation. He admits that it went bust owing Wastemonster at least £20k in unpaid business rates. And he doesn't deny that he had an interest in another company that was set up in the same location.

What he objects to is the characterisation made by our chairman   describing him as a rogue etc. So why not make any leaflet state the facts which are admitted or not denied, and let his electorate draw their own conclusions? Surely there can be no law against publishing admitted or undenied facts

Oh and by the way I work for solicitors and deal with their costs, and I can tell you now that the letter put a nice big dent in Mr Barrow's multi millionairre pocket, as will any application for an injunction.  And if he does decide to sue Warren for defamation, I can't wait for his cross examination by our beloved leader.

Keep on digging Colin. Eventually you will be in so deep you won't be able to get out.

[Sharpy]

I hate to admit but Eiger were once a client of mine but not anymore, hate to think of the service I would have given them, sad to say but my working pride would have taken over and would have been as before.We had a few names for them all different company names as it goes never knew where we were going. Still hopefully he can enjoy a full time career making sure his other interests don't fail in the very near future.

[nutsville]

How odd that Warren should be sent such a solicitors letter but not us 

Either these are facts or they're not.

I have sent Warren further proof that Barrow was a founding partner of Eiger Capital Ltd.

If someone has the opinion that Barrow is a rogue, we know thanks to Batty Burbridge that you can call as many people you like that without any consequences, hell, you can even call them a tosser if your want, apparently.

[Quiet-Flight]

Was he involved in a "pre-pack"? Its legal, but not a nice way of doing business. Seen as the lowest of the low and a very sneaky way to walk away from your responsibilities and start up again the next day as the same outfit. Hardly the sort of background you would expect from a public servant and council leader. Not fit for purpose springs to mind? Shame on you Colin! 

[Bandit]

I hear that there's a little old lady in Rochdale suing for being called a bigot. 

I have sent Warren further proof that Barrow was a founding partner of Eiger Capital Ltd.

Nice to know that Colin is reading our forum, and how decent of his brief to reprint the quote so that it reaches a wider audience.
The brief's letter states "..unless he can show he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true".

Well I believe that anyone who winds up a company of any sort owing creditors money is a rogue. Oh dear. I appear to have said that before an election. Do I have to write a letter too?

And I wonder if the publicity surrounding a potential legal action by a WCC Concillor over the heinous epithet 'rogue' will be counterproductive to poor Colin's credibility?

Headline:
'Man sued for being called a rogue'
Why: Because he bankrupted* a company owing creditors thousands'

Yeah, way to make it go away Colin.

*in a non-executive, minority shareholder kind way, not founding partner inda way, obviously.

[Martin]

I'm confused by this minority shareholder bit, as Colin Barrow was listed as having a LOT of Preference Shares!?
How strange that the solicitor's letter only mentions Ordinary Shares!!

[bike78]

I'm confused by this minority shareholder bit, as Colin Barrow was listed as having a LOT of Preference Shares!?
How strange that the solicitor's letter only mentions Ordinary Shares!!

  Yep that's the fun part, you spotted the flaw in Dr Evils master plan, the solicitor says he was only a minority shareholder.

Now who's the rogue?

[matt]

Now that is interesting.  On the 6th WMBC a large black range rover sport deliberately drove over my foot at which point I caused damage to his bonnet in self-defence.  The police officer said the driver had asked me to move so he knew very well that I was there and clearly used his vehicle as a weapon.  Why is this relevant?

Because the driver of the black Range Rover Sport HSE with registration number S2 AMP was none other than David Jeremy Courtenay-Stamp.  He lives at 89 Elizabeth Street, SW1W 9PG and works for Macfarlanes Nominees Limited (10 Norwich Street, London, EC4A 1BD).  He drives 3.3 miles to work every day and probably gets caught up in our little demonstration every morning.

He's lucky that I don't think it's worth the effort of pursuing assault charges.

Anyone smell a conspiracy?

[Bennage]

Now that is interesting.  On the 6th WMBC a large black range rover sport deliberately drove over my foot at which point I caused damage to his bonnet in self-defence.  The police officer said the driver had asked me to move so he knew very well that I was there and clearly used his vehicle as a weapon.  Why is this relevant?

Because the driver of the black Range Rover Sport HSE with registration number S2 AMP was none other than David Jeremy Courtenay-Stamp.  He lives at 89 Elizabeth Street, SW1W 9PG and works for Macfarlanes Nominees Limited (10 Norwich Street, London, EC4A 1BD).  He drives 3.3 miles to work every day and probably gets caught up in our little demonstration every morning.

He's lucky that I don't think it's worth the effort of pursuing assault charges.

Anyone smell a conspiracy?

Wow.   Just wow.

[chairman]

Guys,

May I suggest that this campaign employ an old tactic that has worked so wonderfully well for us in the past.  

Based on my current experience with the campaign's own lawyers, once instructed, if they so much as breathe near your file, they charge you for it.

So this is what I suggest:-

I will pen & send an official response tomorrow which I will post here.

Thereafter, I think it would be quite appropriate for you ALL to write to these solicitors expressing your own sentiments about theirs' and their client's behaviour, and ensure you write it in a way that demands a response.

Every time they respond -kerching goes the till, and up goes Colin's bill.

Note to self: Must put in FOI to WCC asking for copies of bill from these solicitors - got to make sure Colin hasn't used tax-payers' funds to pay them!!

[templar]

Colin don't look bothered - I'm in the council meeting, using their wireless!

I suggest we respond with that Private Eye quote that translates to "fuck off" before allowing him to pay - a lot - for an injunction. It won't stop us posting those leaflets - bald eagle and I came up with a way around it...

[ldn1702]

Poor Colin, he's in so much trouble!

Does he really still want to carry on stealth taxing us now? It's becoming a very expensive tax, this bike parking charge, when it was originally introduced to make millions of pounds per annum!

[bigdave]

Colin don't look bothered - I'm in the council meeting, using their wireless!

they don't have us blocked anymore then...