Comments on: ‘Dumped’ Youghal Art Work Withdrawn By Sotheby’s

By: mike

mike — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:24:30 +0000

simon is a greedy pig. . The girl should get 50% at least. What a selfish creep he is.

By: Haig

Haig — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:23:45 +0000

Simon is a just a greedy, desperate, little man with low self-esteem.
Surely there art collection was catalogued and they never new they had a painting By Homer until now because as he said no other painting in their collection was worth nearly that much! And he was happy to sell it to do up Myrtle Grove to sell that too – so sentimental, i think not!
Dont think it was a coincidence that he was in New York either, but regardless of that which Lawyer was lying the most!

By: JULIE SIMON

JULIE SIMON — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:30:01 +0000

OH MY GOD,JUST WATCHED FAKE OR FORTUNE…WHAT A POMPOUS GIT SIMON MURRAY IS.FUNNY HOW THE FAMILY SUDDENLY WANTED THE PAINTING AFTER 20 YEARS WHEN THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY HAD EVER OWNED IT.JUST SHOWS THE SO CALLED UPPER CLASS IN THEIR TRUE LIGHT.KEEP FIGHTING SELINA IT IS TIME SOMEONE PUT THIS PRIG IN HIS PLACE

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:50:37 +0000

I would say Simon Murray the great grandson of this fairytale is nothing more than a pompous…. He showed no sympathy for the family that found the picture and worse he made fun of them by suggesting they would have spent the money on cars or a swimming pool.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 06:23:36 +0000

Micky,

I wholeheartedly agree with you………… It may eventually be the case that the law comes down on their side but ethics and moral behaviour will never be on their side.

One thing that breeding brings out in such folks is bad manners and loss of moral fibre.

Do the right thing Simon, give the girl the painting that is morally hers.

Regards,
Niccolo

By: olBobQC

olBobQC — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:19:45 +0000

Watched Slimy Simon on Fake or Fortune last night. Oh how I would love to cross-examine him in the witness box.
Would also be fascinating to hear Slimy Simon’s sister’s version of events, (the one that DID actually speak to Southebys’ General Counsel during their due diligence inquiries).

By the by: the statement by Art Loss Register chairman Julian Radcliffe that “Removing something from a skip or a rubbish dump is theft…..” is NOT necessarily true at Law. (Although a myth routinely peddled by the self serving self righteous and by sloppy semi-educated bureaucrats -police officers/council by-laws inspectors included).
The nature of the “tip” and various other circumstances surrounding any particular situation may make a pivotal difference.
ie: a “tip” where public access is freely available to the site and public foraging and removal of materials was commonplace and publicly known to be so, in the absence of clear and deliberate efforts to prevent such activity (signage and/or fencing etc), could be considered at Law to have given permission for the removal of said materials and therefore the removal from said tip could not of itself constitute the basis of theft.

By: Albert

Albert — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:33:20 +0000

It looks like the lawyers will split the proceeds 50/50
It’s like a lengthy divorce, only the lawyers win.

By: Harold King

Harold King — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:37:25 +0000

The Murray ponse looks like a middle aged Harry Potter. I think a 50/50 offer would be a fair solution if Murray retracts his slur that the finders would waste the money on a swimming pool!

By: Antique Lover

Antique Lover — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:10:02 +0000

Doesn’t show the Blakes/Murray in a good light does it!

Previous posts just about sum it up for me.

I presume Mr Murray can do his own Litigation (he is a Barrister – see http://www.1chancerylane.com/?action=barrister&asset_id=2550) so even now the finder is on a hiding to nothing . If Mr Murray wins and is awarded costs I presume it will be a nice personal payout of fees at £hundreds per hour plus he gets the painting. A real win/win situation and if they lose hey-ho. The finder is really between a rock and hard place/ Presumably whatever value they are deemed to have in the painting will be eroded by their legal costs – The Blakes/Murray’s could have shown themselves in a much better light by offering a 50/50 split, this would still have given the finder a handsome payout and would seem to be fair and equitable offer.

I find it difficult to garner any sympathy for the Blake clan whatsoever.

“To me avarice seems not so much a vice, as a deplorable piece of madness.
– Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici”

By: Hommer

Hommer — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:23:28 +0000

Shows what a horrible toff he is they haven’t asked for the old birds painting of the beach, I guess they had a clear out chucked the old girls paintings because they thought her paintings are rubbish, and fly tipped them them selfs at the tip.
I think the painting should be sold and they get 50 / 50 each without the painting being found it would have got wet and be gone.