Prime Minister's Website

[Castlebest]

another interesting day

[ginan]

[/font]

Hope that helps others get a small picture of what is going on out there...

Penfold

 

 

Yes. Manipulating the LB site name and link being a perfect example.

[jowalshy]

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks' 'self-serving propaganda'

[JOSH_IOU]

Another point to consider when posting Commercial sites.

 

Individuals may not correctly distribute the advertisement from the commercial firm and there may be a loss in there profit's.

 

That is what Forums such as these have to be careful about. This is a very good rule.

[Penfold92]

Just to clarify what Dave said is correct. I was asked by the author to remove the notes. NOT by CAG...My reference was to the fact that the case effects all of us and I do not see any financial gain for anyone by my posting it...Never mind it has been removed yet we will all be aware of what is going on anyway...

 

Penfold

[dave]

It seems to be in retaliation for us stopping their spamming.

 

There were so many spam posts from that particular site that our mods were constantly going round cleaning up people's threads to make them readable again. In the end I made the decision to filter the name instead, to free up our mods to do what they are best at once again.

 

At least they have stopped vandalising our wikipedia page of late, and we haven't received any legal threats from them for a while either.

[Bookworm]

And as MichaelBrowne pointed out, the information is posted on PenaltyCharges as well, should anyone wish it. I know MSE also sent MSE Wendy 1 day last I had checked, I don't know if she went for more than one though.

[JOSH_IOU]

It seems to be in retaliation for us stopping their spamming.

 

There were so many spam posts from that particular site that our mods were constantly going round cleaning up people's threads to make them readable again. In the end I made the decision to filter the name instead, to free up our mods to do what they are best at once again.

 

At least they have stopped vandalising our wikipedia page of late, and we haven't received any legal threats from them for a while either.

 

I think SOCA are wanting to make this a harassment offence. (ie spamming an "online" forum)

I seem to remember a relation to that on my desk somewhere.

I must of put it in my out box. Or my Dedicate box as i call it.

[dave]

We did consult a solicitor about the variety of harassment we were receiving. He said we have a very good case for malicious libel, but it would cost money to bring the case. We decided not to do so, as the money donated to us was not for that, it was to keep the site going and to help as many people as possible whilst bringing the regime of bank charges down.

[johnnymitch]

I'm a bit at a loss here........... if PenaltyCharges and MSE can publish the information - (which IMHO was really informative) , then why not CAG .

[JOSH_IOU]

He or she is correct it will cost a lot of money going through a solicitor.

If malicious libel is the spoken word then there maybe some connection between defamation and libel when referring to a forum. The intention is to prepare a verbal form of speech rather than A written record.

[dave]

I'm a bit at a loss here........... if PenaltyCharges and MSE can publish the information - (which IMHO was really informative) , then why not CAG .

 

Because the author of the post on the other site has asked for it to be removed from here as it is their copyright.

 

We will abide by their wishes, sad as they are.

[johnnymitch]

Thanks for that Dave - all clear now..............

 

Aye - Conveniently short memories though ....... ....

[dave]

I know that the one site in particular has a small number of users, but I wonder how many would actually still be there if they knew the truth about what went on, and would still want to associate themselves with it.

[JOSH_IOU]

Thats why I wanted to take up one of the offers on this site Dave.

[JOSH_IOU]

It may be worth Copy writing our material and saying this is not for commercial use.

[Castlebest]

Well I think it's totally silly, I know its not difficult to recover your own charges but it can be a little daunting, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to pay someone to do it for them.

 

If people are willing to take on the responsibility and have the necessary professional indemnity insurance in case something goes wrong then good luck to them.

 

I'm sure if it had been discussed properly before it started with maybe a third party (inter site) donation to this site and no liability then the materials could have been freely available to them with no silly squabbling.

 

pete

[dave]

Indeed. At the time, we said nothing about the materials. The more people that had access to them the better was our opinion.

 

Since then, we've been trolled, threatened, had those particular users 'leave forever' then come back under an assumed name (and through proxy servers to 'avoid detection'). Indeed some are on this thread and the OFT thread. Have we banned them? No. Have we moderated them? Yes, when they have broken the rules as we would anyone who breaks the rules. Have we even let them know that we know who they are and said "I thought you left for good"? No. We've even been passed posts in their 'secret' forums where they actively discuss ways to disrupt and troll this site. They even have Facebook groups set up discredit this site that use our logo etc...

 

Yet, someone posts their account of the OFT here and they get asked to remove it.

 

Sad & childish.

[JOSH_IOU]

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle

 

(1) If the court decides under section 6 that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle it must make the following four assumptions for the purpose of—

 

 

(a) deciding whether he has benefited from his general criminal conduct, and

 

 

(b) deciding his benefit from the conduct.

[JOSH_IOU]

I thought this was worth a mention on this thread.

[ginan]

I have been forced to remove the contents...sorry, but that is how sad things are when information cannot be shared by people on the same side...

Penfold

 

 

You’ve got it entirely wrong.

 

LB made a concerted effort to post the diary on this site and posted 5 or 6 days of it before the op was ‘miserable usered’ - Dave’s get out clause for ‘’we didn’t ban them ‘’- making it impossible for any more to go up. So if you want to complain about other sites not sharing info just pm CAG administration.

 

And just for the sake of clarity, again, all that was asked was for the post to attributed to the source - not an unresonable request. As the source could not be named due to the ‘filter’ it was just not possible and I ASKED you to remove it and you agreed. Remember?

 

Quite why our Dave subsequently felt the need to unleash a tirade of rabid rantings god only knows.

[Castlebest]

I dont think I will bother posting on this thread again Prabs... nice while it lasted

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

I'm with you Pete...... too much childish in-fighting - we're all on the same side for goodness sake....the object of the exercise is to stuff the banks not each other!!!!!!!!

 

PS That's not aimed at you penfold.............

[freakyleaky]

I hope people won't stop posting on this thread because of the childish actions of one user from another site. This is a CAG thread created by CAG members. We don't usually give up on something just because someone causes a problem.

Keep up the good work prabs!

[Penfold92]

Well given that the PM's office are not doing the petition anyway I might as well give out on this one. I still help 0 reply threads and will contribute on my threads as well as others...So this thread is dead now...

 

Prabs (Penfold)