PMs back again - there... that's better

[Darth Surly]

Seems my account is being Orwell'd ... again.

 

Sorry, no PMs in the meantime, as they're being read before delivery, so am not prapred to accept them as PRIVATE(!)

[Guest Alison82]

Ahh why did you have to do that?! I have to say I did prefer your other logo.

I hope the old Surly still shines through though!!!

[Darth Surly]

Ahh why did you have to do that?! I have to say I did prefer your other logo.

I hope the old Surly still shines through though!!!

 

I know, but it was quite clear that my mailbox facility had been removed, and it's probably the better way to deal with questions as my posts seem to keep:

a) disappearing

b) being edited

c) being closed off

d) taken offence at by those with no understanding of sarcasm and humour

 

so what is a person supposed to do??

 

So, anyway, at least people can get some advice on the Muppet CRAs... oooops, old habits die hard... I mean those competely respectful and honourable bastions of lawfullness that we know so affectionately as the CRAs, and all those intelligent DPA-knowledgable employees of theirs who talk such respectable logic, reason and can present such a fine argument when answering the numerous questions put to them, in such a timely manner.

 

As to the avatar, I though it would fit my new bad-puppy image, assuming that I'm still in detention, that is...

 

We'll see how it goes, but I can see the vultures circling already...

[rdm2006]

Hi Surly

 

RDM2006 here (or should I say a circling vulture lol)

 

I too have been a naughty boy and had my post moderated, I was not happy with that at the time and fully understand how incensed you must feel, however, I have now realised that my sarcastic whit is not appreciated by all and have learned to curb it a little for the good of the site in order to help those who need it.

 

Sarcastic whit is fine with me (some say it is the height of intelligence)

 

But lets hope that we can both be big enough to admit that this site is in no position to allow itself to be used to vent vindictive attacks on those who are unfortunate enough to have to work at one of those hideous places in order to feed and clothe their families as I did.

 

You cant blame an individual for wanting to do that can you?

 

RDM2006

[SurlyBonds]

Hi Surley

 

RDM2006 here (or should I say a circling vulture lol)

 

I too have been a naughty boy and had my post moderated, I was not happy with that at the time and fully understand how incensed you must feel, however, I have now realised that my sarcastic whit is not appreciated by all and have learned to curb it a little for the good of the site in order to help those who need it.

 

Sarcastic whit is fine with me (some say it is the height of intelligence)

 

But lets hope that we can both be big enough to admit that this site is in no position to allow itself to be used to vent vindictive attacks on those who are unfortunate enough to have to work at one of those hideous places in order to feed and clothe their families as I did.

 

You cant blame an individual for wanting to do that can you?

 

RDM2006

 

I'm not quite sure WHAT is actually going on now... my PM facility seems to be back (although the limit is only 5 mails), however, I can't alter my signature, avatar or email address, or any profile information, which seems a bit daft if I change email address or need to update my signature with any latest success stories.

 

Either I'm banned or I'm not ...and all message to the Admin seem to be ignored/not read. Or is it the Mods doing this? I don't know what config rights they have in their user manual.

 

I would simply like SOMEONE to clarify if I am a member on this site or not.

 

As to the rest of your specific post.. we'll just have to agree to disagree... I don't agree that I've been 'naughty' at all.

[rdm2006]

I have no problem with that and I hope I can call you a friend although I will understand if that is not possible as I have said earlier I am not acting on behalf of cag the above is my own opinion being a helper does not include the power (Mhahahahaha lol) to edit or restrict posts or emails in any way and I am unaware of any placed upon you, other than what you yourself advise me of. Although I will be happy to try and help you by finding out all that I can.

I appologise if anything I have said has offended you it certainly was not meant to and although no you havent been naughty your posts could be a little freindlier without losing the sarcastic whit I for one enjoy immensely.

 

Thanks RDM2006

 

PS If you would like me to do this just let me know either on here or by PM

[rdm2006]

oh Sorry - assuming i can help which ID would you like to use old or new

[meagain]

As to the rest of your specific post.. we'll just have to agree to disagree... I don't agree that I've been 'naughty' at all.

 

Not really "naughty" - all you did was repeatedly harass and insult a forum member to the point where that person upped sticks and left ...

 

A lot of people are confused about freedom of speech, and what it means.

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to your opinions.

It DOES NOT mean you can force them upon others.

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to tell people about it.

It DOES NOT mean we have to provide the platform for you to do so.

 

It DOES mean you can go online and spout all you like.

It DOES NOT mean you can do so on someone else's forum.

 

You are on private property, here by the grace of Mods. They are entitled to take issue with anything you say (they have freedom of speech too, you know), ask you to tone things down. They are also entitled to remove you from their front room, head-first via the bay window if necessary.

 

In view of this, let's all just play nice and get along, okay?

[Glenn UK]

Ive read a few of the posts regarding the guy from the CRA and to be honest it was pretty shameful, im not sure of sacrcasm being the height of intelligence, i believe its the lowest form of wit!

 

Anyway I dont have any problems with anyone having views but it would be good if they could express them without alienating other forum members.

 

It wasnt only the guy from the CRA who was offended.

 

JMHO

 

GLenn

[tom3131]

Not really "naughty" - all you did was repeatedly harass and insult a forum member to the point where that person upped sticks and left ...

 

A lot of people are confused about freedom of speech, and what it means.

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to your opinions.

It DOES NOT mean you can force them upon others.

 

It DOES mean you are entitled to tell people about it.

It DOES NOT mean we have to provide the platform for you to do so.

 

It DOES mean you can go online and spout all you like.

It DOES NOT mean you can do so on someone else's forum.

 

You are on private property, here by the grace of Mods. They are entitled to take issue with anything you say (they have freedom of speech too, you know), ask you to tone things down. They are also entitled to remove you from their front room, head-first via the bay window if necessary.

 

In view of this, let's all just play nice and get along, okay?

 

*claps* Tell it how it is .

[dayglo]

what? lighten up folks... I like Darth Surly even more than the original!!

[Lizzy]

The thing is Mr JJ only came on here in his capacity as a

Experian consumer Affairs Manager and UK Spokesperson, thats his title.

That was the only thread he contributed to in the whole of the forum.

 

When other forum members had him in knots and realised that he had no idea what he was talking about he left. He left himself open to sarcastic comments, but as I have re read the thread. I read the comments from SB as more aimed at the CRAs than to JJ himself, but that may depend on how sensitive you are.

 

JJ on post 74 goes on to claim (quote)" I'm no expert in the intricacies of the data protection law, but the way I see it and the way I think the situation is best understood" this means he knew nothing about the questions needing answers to. The way HE SEES IT OR THINKS is irrelevant It's not the law.

 

I gather that most of you are claiming something from the banks etc. If their Spokesperson came online in his capacity as bank manager or the man who can give you your money back then I'm sure that you would want a few words with him. I'm also sure that you would not be too happy when you realised that he had no idea what he was talking about.

 

Each to his own form of wit..........perhaps funny to some, not to others.

 

 

Is that a doctrine you got Surly ?????? can you have a look at my ingrowing toenail please................see wit.

[jimfishybob]

Agreed, JJ was never a member as an individual, he was here to represent the CRA and to attempt to undermine the wave of complaints they are recieving.

 

Further to this:- Why would a data-control company employ a UK Spokesperson who, by his own admission is no expert in the intricacies of the data protection law? Why would his company allow him on here, (which let's face it, they must have done), without such knowledge and why would he agree to try and defend an untenable position without being armed with the neccessary facts?

 

My feeling is, Experian expected the furore (sp?), to be fairly low key and once they realised there were people here who knew more than their staff did, they backed off. I don't recall seeing any personal insults but that is relatively immaterial. JJ left due to well thought-out, structured and above all legal arguments that left him and his company wanting.

 

Above all. JJ was not here in a personal capacity. He was not here to contribute to the group in any meaningful way. He was unable to answer any questions directly. His advice was contrary to the values that CAG holds so dear and he only has Experian to blame for any ill-feeling as they should never had made him their patsy in the first place.

 

I'm off for a lie down..............

[jonni2bad]

With reference to the above two posts, the moderated post which went beyond a reference to an organisation will no longer be visible, that is why it might appear as though nothing was said which could cause offence.

 

It will not be made available for public viewing again, so I will not repeat any part of it here. Suffice to say that no user, even the ones who we might believe are responsible for instigating bank charges, should be referred to in a personal manner that is likely to cause offence.

 

Agreed, JJ was never a member as an individual, he was here to represent the CRA and to attempt to undermine the wave of complaints they are recieving.

 

And so this does not matter. The rules do not differentiate between users who might be on our side and those who might not be.

 

We do not moderate posts lightly, despite what I have seen mentioned on various posts since. The site owners have ultimately decided that moderated posts were done so correctly, and I'm sure that those affected can discuss the matter freely with the owners if they feel the need.

[jimfishybob]

And so this does not matter. The rules do not differentiate between users who might be on our side and those who might not be.

 

Nonsense!

 

After browsing for only 30 seconds I came across this thread, (and i'm sure there are more):-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/word-banks/5172-2-minds.html

 

"half a brain"

"stupid"

etc....

 

Why was this not 'moderated'?

[dayglo]

there are tonnes more - i suspect someone at a CRA or maybe JJ himself threatened some action against the board owners for allowing some 'abuse' or something. either way - this board is poorer for surly's absence.

 

just look at and read his posts in the 'default hell' thread. The benefit/post ratio is off the bloody chart.

[lickthewallfatboy]

there are tonnes more - i suspect someone at a CRA or maybe JJ himself threatened some action against the board owners for allowing some 'abuse' or something. either way - this board is poorer for surly's absence.

 

just look at and read his posts in the 'default hell' thread. The benefit/post ratio is off the bloody chart.

 

you read my mind dayglo.....I think that's exactly what has happened

 

would you be ok if I pm you my email addy in order to get hard copies of the letters please?

[dave]

I'm going to jump in here.

 

We've not been threatened by anyone - we don't want to be.

 

Let's remember who we're taking on here - lots and lots of organisations which virtually unlimited funds with access to huge legal departments.

 

We're a bunch of volunteers with a web site.

 

I think it's prudent not to underestimate ones 'enemy' - if the banks cannot close us down through 'over hand' methods, then I, for one, have no doubt that if we became more than just a nuicence to them, they would use 'under-hand' methods to shut us down.

 

If that includes bringing potentially defamatory remarks to the second party's attention in order to bring action against us, then yes, I think they would do that.

 

Remember, even if it is you that has said it, does not make you liable.

 

We (i.e. BF and I) are liable as the publishers.

 

There are many instances of this happening. Demon Internet fell foul of this when they believed that they WERE NOT the publishers of a defamatory remark and were fined about 5 million quid!

[ecobabe]

I tend to read rather than post and yes I'm sure Surly did upset a few folks. I realise that for the credibility of this site standards have to be set, but perhaps we should look at what's been achieved here? there is a great deal of expertise on this site in many areas that has allowed us to begin, some successfully others still ongoing, to reclaim these unlawful charges...all thanks to this site! The next part for many is to get their credit records corrected (not changed!) and without doubt the person that excelled in that area was Surly. Without him I doubt that there would have been much progress and i believe that we've a way to go before this is hailed a success. Unfortunately the only people that have gained anything from this debacle is the CRA's themselves. The CRA's whether deliberately or by default have succeeded in silencing Surly...who is their biggest enemy and therefor our ally in our campaign against these bullies. Bear in mind the huge impact that CRA's currently have on all our lives and finances. we should all thank Surly cos i'm sure there's not many here that haven't used his letters. There must be some kind of middle ground here surely(not Surly!!)?come back Surly for all our sakes, just don't mention you know who's name! with regard to JJ, I agree that he should be entitled to his say but this is not an equal relationship between us and CRA's and Mr J posted here knowing that. Given that he holds a position of power over all of us then it is outrageous that he is not an expert on the Data Protection Act and I believe an indication of how his agency views us, the consumers ie treat us like mushrooms...keep us in the dark and feed us bulls..t! this was posted before Dave's post above, and I agree that for everyone's benefit the last thing needed is for site to be closed down, but again, there must be a middle ground.

[dayglo]

I understand. I just think the goings on of the last few days have been a bit embarrasing and the net result is someone who, for all his 'anger' genuinely helped people - in particularly me, is no longer here.

 

The reclaiming bank charges is brilliant work and it goes without saying that the founders of this board have done a sterling job. It's just that from my own personal point of view, removing settled and unlawful defamatory defaults from my credit file had the potential to REALLY GET MY LIFE BACK (see seperate thread!)

I had real anxiety about taking default removals to court as there were fewer cases of this sort being discussed that I could take encouragement from.

Surly rang me up in his own time and gave me hours of support, encouragement and advice that I could not have afforded. As a result I'm half way through my plan of action.

I maintain that this board, in terms of helping ordinary consumers is slightly pooer as a result of his absence.

Just my thoughts.

[Glenn UK]

FWIW

 

I dont think SB was the only one guilty of over enthusiasm when 'debating' with james.

 

Im not sure if he jumped or was pushed but his response to the moderation in my views was unecessary.

 

Yes he provided some very valuable information but that doesnt give him the right, or indeed anyone else, the right to trounce all over someone because they can.

 

THe thread where james was posting was pretty hostile from the start and in my view this was uneccessary.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions, but when all is said and done the forum has rules and moderators are there to enforce them.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[dayglo]

no argument from me there.

my point is just to consider the end result. Last week we had a bit of a 'troublemaker' that was providing the highest 'help per post ratio ' I have seen and this week we don't.

[ecobabe]

yep I agree as well. Surly was a bit of a renegade but my God he certainly helped a wheen of people, when they needed it and put the wind up the CRA's. Yes JJ has a right to post and not be abused and for the site's sake you have to protect that right. But IMO JJ posted here as someone in a position of power over us, otherwise like most folk he would have posted as "anon who has experience in the CRA's" he didn't answer any question only quoted his companies policies. What did he expect? many people on this site have suffered real hardship because of CRA's and we shouldn't forget that. the site is poorer for Surly's absence and the CRA's will be celebrating

[Glenn UK]

Dayglo

 

You have a point of course, I wouldnt deny the information he posted was helpful.

 

I think its a shame that this kind of thing happens, as far as i can tell it is not an unusual occurence on forums.

 

I didnt like his style, but i did think the information was useful, whether it would have been arrived at by other routes its difficult to say, the main thrust of the site is bank/cc charges and other issues are being raised daily and who knows what would have happened.

 

Anyway irrespective of my personal thoughts i think the place is poorer for is leaving but i suspect he jumped rather than was pushed.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[dayglo]

I admin a few other boards and in my experience - you are right this sort of thing happens quite a bit. More common are 'trolls' annoying troublemakers without any sense of goodwill or help. SB was not a troll.

However, every so often a 'character' arrives on the board and the mods feel obliged to 'act' to keep the tone of the board the same as it was before and then they go. Jump/push doesn't matter - one will say, "they made it so that i wasn't welcome" and the other will say "he left of his choice" and they are both right.

I doubt we would have got as far with CRAs as quickly as you suggest we may have done.