jcza Posted June 30, 2017 Share International Best Standards for non-profit organisations......they're having a laugh? Auditors unable to conclude that all income was accounted for. Patchelicious and nathrix 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Check what you say on this topic. People are edgy I find paragraph 3.2 very entertaining. Did this thread not start about insurances not getting paid? Hairy and Gen 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 30, 2017 Share I'm no lawyer, but looks to me he is asking questions rather than allegations. @Cycling_SA And while we're busy check if someone at CSA gets a kickback on a membership app that i [sic] cannot find the approval of in minutes of meetings @Cycling_SA I would like that authories [sic] investigate the link between KZN/Pietermaritzburg money for events and csa and their organisers Better get all those licences asap as there won't be staff in the @Cycling_SA office by the time our 4 riders finish in Paris Gen and Patchelicious 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikebloke Posted June 30, 2017 Share stupid people steal with a gunsmart people steal with a lawyer note: I didn't actually say this im just repeating a statement from an anonymous source Vetplant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted June 30, 2017 Share @Grootlem is up 5 more followers already! Hairy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted June 30, 2017 Share but no complaints about this tweet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted June 30, 2017 Share How long has Bradley been in charge of CSA? Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Posted June 30, 2017 Share stupid people steal with a gunsmart people steal with a lawyer note: I didn't actually say this im just repeating a statement from an anonymous sourceanonymous source .... must be false news then @Grootlem is up 5 more followers already!+ 1 more! Gen and bikebloke 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted June 30, 2017 Share anonymous source .... must be false news then Create a fake twitter account then it is not anonymous anymore Hairy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted June 30, 2017 Share I can't help to wonder about Grootlems little love letter. Who paid for it? Did Bradley pay from his pocket or did this also come out of the CSA budget? RossW and bikebloke 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted June 30, 2017 Share I can't help to wonder about Grootlems little love letter. Who paid for it? Did Bradley pay from his pocket or did this also come out of the CSA budget?Well he gets a salary from CSA..so either way membership fees have funded it. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk Patchelicious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted June 30, 2017 Share Found this little article. . Dated 16/12/2013 https://cyclingdirect.co.za/cycling-south-africa-credit-due there is a link to the report in that article.. Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted June 30, 2017 Share How long has Bradley been in charge of CSA? Sent from my SM-N9005 using TapatalkToo long it seems Gen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Posted June 30, 2017 Share I can't help to wonder about Grootlems little love letter. Who paid for it? Did Bradley pay from his pocket or did this also come out of the CSA budget?Copy and paste from the letter: 1. We act as legal consultants to Mike Bradley ("our client").So then I would assume he is the person paying for it, being the Client 4. The offending content is defamatory and was published with the intention of defaming our client and causing harm to our client’s reputation. We are instructed that you have published the offending content negligently and/or recklessly and/or maliciously and with knowledge that the offending content is defamatory. Our client has suffered and continues to suffer material harm to his constitutional rights to reputation and dignity as a result of the publication of the offending content. 5. Moreover, the offending content amounts to harassment of our client in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, in that it amounts to unreasonable engagement in electronic communications aimed at our client that you know or ought to know, cause harm or that inspire the reasonable belief that harm may be caused. 6. In an addition to a claim for general damages, if our client suffers any financial loss or loss of profits as a result of the offending content, our client will have a claim for special damages (i.e. any financial loss he may suffer as a result of the allegations made in the offending content). From this is seems that if their Client (Mr Bradley) suffer financially they will come after Die Grootste Lem in Die Land to get some cash back....and that their Client is getting bad street cred. So all this focuses on the impact of the tweets on their Client only, so I would assume the legal fee is being picked up by their Client and not CSA? They have never stated CSA as being their Client....or did I miss something? Bateleur1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pulse Posted June 30, 2017 Share Old, but interesting in retrospect. Even though the answers given is a bit ... http://www.treadmtb.co.za/beer-with-mike-bradley-general-manager-csa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Copy and paste from the letter: 1. We act as legal consultants to Mike Bradley ("our client").So then I would assume he is the person paying for it, being the Client 4. The offending content is defamatory and was published with the intention of defaming our client and causing harm to our client’s reputation. We are instructed that you have published the offending content negligently and/or recklessly and/or maliciously and with knowledge that the offending content is defamatory. Our client has suffered and continues to suffer material harm to his constitutional rights to reputation and dignity as a result of the publication of the offending content. 5. Moreover, the offending content amounts to harassment of our client in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, in that it amounts to unreasonable engagement in electronic communications aimed at our client that you know or ought to know, cause harm or that inspire the reasonable belief that harm may be caused. 6. In an addition to a claim for general damages, if our client suffers any financial loss or loss of profits as a result of the offending content, our client will have a claim for special damages (i.e. any financial loss he may suffer as a result of the allegations made in the offending content). From this is seems that if their Client (Mr Bradley) suffer financially they will come after Die Grootste Lem in Die Land to get some cash back....and that their Client is getting bad street cred. So all this focuses on the impact of the tweets on their Client only, so I would assume the legal fee is being picked up by their Client and not CSA? They have never stated CSA as being their Client....or did I miss something? Wonder how they will prove that GrootLems comments has caused their client financial losses. Yes their client is Mr Bradley, but as Numba 1 of CSA it would not surprise me if CSA migth get the bill for this. Hairy and Gen 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now