User talk:Con Cluskey

The Bachelors
I keep amending "the split and beyond" because I know the truth, as I was there. I also hold a document which John Stokes signed which firbids him to use the name The Bachelors. This is for your information only.

We did not lose a court case, as there was none! We applied to have a court case against John Stokes, but as Dec had not filled in the forms properly as he was out of the country on holiday, the Judge did not allow the hearing to go forward. These are the facts!

Con Cluskey


 * In which case you can verify what you say in accordance with WP:V and I would certainly leave the article alone. In the meanwhile, because even your own website contradicts what you say so I reverted the article to the previous edit again. --Richhoncho 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to your subequent edit, I have asked for comments from other WP editors. You may read my comments at Requests for comment/Biographies --Richhoncho 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep amending "the split and beyond". Your latest version reads "In 1984 there was a falling out between the members of The Bachelors, and John Stokes was asked to leave the band at a meeting held in The Eccentric Club in London. After a court case, John Stokes was not allowed to use the name The Bachelors, due to a legal aggreement which he signed with Con & Dec Cluskey, while Con & Dec recruited a new member, Peter Phipps, and continued until 1993 as The New Bachelors.

In 1993 John Stokes reappeared with a new group also calling himself 'The New Bachelors' so the Cluskey Brothers changed their name to Con and Dec, The Bachelors so as not to confuse the public.

The acrimonious split continues until today."

As you can see, there are discrepancies within the text. Even your own site reads "This is a historical site" And you recently lost a court case in Altrincham based on the High Court case. Please independently verify any claims you make. To familiarise yourself with Wikipedia I suggest you read WP:AUTO. In the meantime I have reverted again to the previous version. --Richhoncho 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)