I think I have a possible solution to something that's always bothered me. Why in the meeting was the signature copy of the document switched at the last minute?
It was never going to work as a plan to con RISCOS Ltd. After all we had (and still have) all the agreed drafts and we had an independant witness in the room. So why do it?
Now I have a possible answer. Peter was the only person not present. So he wouldn't know that the "signature copy" given to him wasn't true or accurate. So when, unsuprisingly RISCOS Ltd invoked the dispute clause to get the errors corrected he thought that RISCOS Ltd was being awkward. Of course the signed document was worthless, but Peter didn't know that. Thus Jack got Peter off his back over the money and it looked like it was all RISCOS Ltd's fault.
The agreed document (cam_lb\302646) and the fake signature document (cam_lb\302647) have 25 significant differences (according to the notes I made in the few days afterwards when it became clear that something had happened). These changed the meaning of the document so much that it was a nonsense.
There is one other thing that's slowly dawning on me. I had assumed until yesterday that Peter was somehow involved in this. I'm increasingly starting to think that he might have been conned as well. I am fairly sure that when I asked him in 2004 he said that he hadn't read the ROL/E14 agreement and that neither had he read the Castle/Pace "sale of the RISC OS technology" agreement and that he was replying on an interpretation that he had been given. If this is the case then I owe Peter an apology. In addition I suggest that he contacts me privately because there are a number of items which he really needs to see.
Finally in reply to David Ruck. I think that his suggestion of publishing the paperwork may be the only sensible way to resolve the issue for good.