|
Post by peterboat on Nov 3, 2016 16:08:07 GMT
A small start, but a welcome one Just for clarity, the awareness specifically extends to BOTH forums, which are assiduously scoured for relevant content which is copied to the legal department & Shoosmiths. An example re: CWDF - [Lucy Barry is a Shoosmiths solicitor; Stephen Holder is a CaRT solicitor] It would be interesting to know who the TB mole is, but the important thing is that there is one. In circumstances where flat refusal to meet and talk things over is the executive directive and consequent institutional ethos, then forums such as these form the one effective conduit of opinion to such people. Well Nigel do you know when they started collecting info from here? if so new members from that date is a starting point, also maybe move this into the members only section [lounge] and if it is a visitor they will have to join to see it and then we might have a clue who it is
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 3, 2016 16:12:45 GMT
It would be interesting to know who the TB mole is, but the important thing is that there is one. In circumstances where flat refusal to meet and talk things over is the executive directive and consequent institutional ethos, then forums such as these form the one effective conduit of opinion to such people. Well Nigel do you know when they started collecting info from here? if so new members from that date is a starting point, also maybe move this into the members only section [lounge] and if it is a visitor they will have to join to see it and then we might have a clue who it is The impression I get from Nigel is that he's quite happy for them to read what folk think of their illegal activities.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 3, 2016 22:28:29 GMT
I dont think I've ever seen NigelMoore get pissy about something. Glad I came here!
Where is it evident within this site, that I have been anything other than the same politely forthright self that I have been on CWDF?
Now if you really hanker for an ammoniac tang to correspondence, I can give you my exchanges with BW immediately prior to the final s.8 Appeal hearing in late 2012. I had been struggling with their refusal to be honest in their submissions to the local Council [and then to the Planning Inspectorate] wherein they were opposing my application for a “Certificate of lawful Use” for the mooring of my boats to my land. The task of kyboshing my Application [because it could have won the Appeal on the facts, even IF I lost on the fundamental argument] was entrusted to one Claire McLean of BW’s Planning Department. I ended up asking a series of direct questions, ending with a request that she do the right thing and give the Council the honest facts. I quoted my original questions in black; her reply was inserted in blue, while I inserted my responses to hers, in red. Upon her declining to respond substantively to this, my final reaction was as below – If they are going to delegate attempts to rob people of home, land and business to appropriate personnel, then they should avoid the employment of fragile little flowers such as this Claire. She reported my email to her superiors, which generated a flurry of activity ending in a sad but stern admonishment from her boss and Simon Salem [?I think it was?] as to unacceptably abusive correspondence. My reply – I heard nothing more . . . p.s. I won the Planning Inspectorate Appeal also, despite Ms McLean’s efforts –
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 3, 2016 22:31:58 GMT
p.p.s. - what is with the ineradicable emoticon substitution for simple question marks?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 3, 2016 22:49:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 3, 2016 23:12:09 GMT
p.p.s. - what is with the ineradicable emoticon substitution for simple question marks? Yes, I found that. Separated ones work:? ? ? But three together...
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 3, 2016 23:24:11 GMT
p.p.s. - what is with the ineradicable emoticon substitution for simple question marks? On many forums, an 8 followed by a ) makes one wearing sunglasses, so it's probably a combination of characters is what does it. Ah, so busy reading that Tony beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by Ssscrudddy on Nov 4, 2016 8:40:39 GMT
I dont think I've ever seen NigelMoore get pissy about something. Glad I came here!
Where is it evident within this site, that I have been anything other than the same politely forthright self that I have been on CWDF?
Now if you really hanker for an ammoniac tang to correspondence, I can give you my exchanges with BW <snip> I wasnt having a go, I just thought it somewhat amusing when you said 'it's your fault' about the evidence being removed from CaRTs website. I have only ever seen you (successfully) go to great lengths to be the perfect gentleman even in the face of extreme provocation. It's like you let just the teeniest weeniest extremely subtle hint of very minor irritation slip through for once (so by anyone elses standards a complete non event), kinda reminds me of the time Lewis Hamilton (F1 driver) was clearly fuming yet he still managed enough self restraint to give a perfectly well behaved interview where most others wouldnt, & then he got in trouble for ending it with 'Is it cuz I black' which I believe he got into trouble for. Or maybe it was simply humour which went over my head. When the image hosting stuff is working again I'll read that. It would be interesting to know who the TB mole is, but the important thing is that there is one. In circumstances where flat refusal to meet and talk things over is the executive directive and consequent institutional ethos, then forums such as these form the one effective conduit of opinion to such people. I dont think they need a mole. It's a public forum, you dont need an account to see what is written here
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 4, 2016 10:18:45 GMT
I wasnt having a go, I just thought it somewhat amusing when you said 'it's your fault' about the evidence being removed from CaRTs website. I did wonder what triggered the comment. Mea culpa. Anyway, I was sensible of what I understood to be the compliment; it just seemed a convenient peg on which to hang the material I had only that day uncovered, while searching for something else. I had almost forgotten it. Hopefully photobucket will not be too long down for maintenance. Meanwhile – this was possibly the most acidulous of my missives to BW staff; you "really had to be there” to understand the depths of accumulated outrage I was legitimately feeling at that point – and I DID exhibit the correspondence in both the Appeal Court submissions and in the Planning Inspectorate submissions. The former in particular [as I had warned her], to illustrate exactly why I was going to decline the Court’s suggestion of last-minute ADR. I could point out also - as a cautionary and illuminating measure - that a good part of the ammunition Ms McLean was using came from a neighbouring boater; one who for years had been feeding BW/CaRT whatever she thought they needed, in order to curry favour with them. They were outright lies [and the Planning Inspector realised that after visiting the site], but the damage was done regardless by then. If I had not won at the Appeal Court on the basis of legal argument, the Certificate - for which the Council had gouged over £1,000 from me - would have provided the last hope of retaining home, land and business. It is astonishing how readily fellow boaters are, whose support ought to be counted on, to slip the knife into your back. The bitter irony is that this particular person eventually gained about £10,000 from CaRT, as a direct result of her failure to help them get rid of me. Some of this, I think, I had also either exhibited or referred to, in the exhibits to Leigh’s original ‘Statement of Case’. I have been thinking about publishing those exhibits on ‘scribd’, even if only for completeness and future reference. It is important, I believe, that at least some of the history of BW/CaRT’s openly criminal behaviour should be on record. The simple truth is, that for so long as their response to challenge over this is to keep trying to sweep the history under the carpet, and to deny that it matters, when they are backed into a corner where they cannot deny the facts - then for so long will they continue in the same vein, and instead of an improving organisation, we will have one descending into ever deeper pits of corruptions and abuse.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 5, 2016 11:10:00 GMT
Photobucket now back online.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 8, 2016 11:04:20 GMT
How many people have looked back at page 1 of this thread? I did just now, and was shocked to see that the copied webpage in question is now marked “photo not found”. I quickly double-checked that the latest images were still up on the last page, in case photobucket was down again, but no, they are still there.
So I clicked on the “Click for Photos” image and was told that I had removed the image from my account! That is, of course, entirely false. I went to my Photobucket account just now, and found - between the other recent uploads – black squares [they have revamped the whole layout in a more confusing way]. There are about 3 of these items on the first page of photos, with nothing to suggest what they were.
Querying the properties of the black square brings up a mess of stuff I have no understanding of, but the word ‘block’ keeps appearing throughout the text. Now I have done nothing to block these pictures, so how do they get deleted? Accident during the re-vamp; removal by the site, or some external attack? It is curious that the black indications remain that something had been uploaded.
It seems far too silly to be the result of a CaRT demand, when the web-page links to the original versions from 2012 onwards are still unaffected?
|
|
|
Post by markhez on Nov 8, 2016 11:28:48 GMT
How many people have looked back at page 1 of this thread? I did just now, and was shocked to see that the copied webpage in question is now marked “photo not found”. I quickly double-checked that the latest images were still up on the last page, in case photobucket was down again, but no, they are still there. So I clicked on the “Click for Photos” image and was told that I had removed the image from my account! That is, of course, entirely false. I went to my Photobucket account just now, and found - between the other recent uploads – black squares [they have revamped the whole layout in a more confusing way]. There are about 3 of these items on the first page of photos, with nothing to suggest what they were. Querying the properties of the black square brings up a mess of stuff I have no understanding of, but the word ‘block’ keeps appearing throughout the text. Now I have done nothing to block these pictures, so how do they get deleted? Accident during the re-vamp; removal by the site, or some external attack? It is curious that the black indications remain that something had been uploaded. It seems far too silly to be the result of a CaRT demand, when the web-page links to the original versions from 2012 onwards are still unaffected? "Someone" reporting the image for copyright infringement? Seems the only way they could have got photobucket to remove it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 8, 2016 11:38:42 GMT
Would I not have been informed? Plus - how can material published online for all to see [as it is already via the archive sites] be unacceptable infringement if copied on other sites?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 13:01:40 GMT
I stopped using photobucket, it was being hacked daily. I had loads of pics blacking out, returning, then blacking out again. The site is a bloody nightmare, and seemingly a practice ground for hackers.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 8, 2016 13:26:05 GMT
I stopped using photobucket, it was being hacked daily. I had loads of pics blacking out, returning, then blacking out again. The site is a bloody nightmare, and seemingly a practice ground for hackers. So I am not alone? This is the first time it has happened to me - that I know of, anyway. I have sent an enquiry to the site about this, but meanwhile do you have any suggestions as to good alternatives? It still seems odd that this particular picture should have been the one blacked out [do CaRT have a black-arts department?]
|
|