Jim Shead Site ?????

[matty40s]

Me neither. Mine was steel blue.

 

Back on topic. Couldn't the information be hosted offshore?

I am currently anchored on the Soar, does this count.

[Grace and Favour]

I am currently anchored on the Soar, does this count.

 

Did Chesh -Rose mean off-soar?

[David Mack]

Well, this looks like a likely candidate....

 

www.riverusergroups.co.uk/file_download/413

 

Would he be Timothy R Mountain, Age Guide: 50-54, who lives at the same Oxfordshire address as Neil Richard Fox, Anabelle L Fox and Fiona Elaine Mountain? Info from www.192.com. Buying some search credits will give the full address.

 

Is he going to get them taken down?

[Grace and Favour]

Would he be Timothy R Mountain, Age Guide: 50-54, who lives at the same Oxfordshire address as Neil Richard Fox, Anabelle L Fox and Fiona Elaine Mountain? Info from www.192.com. Buying some search credits will give the full address.

 

Is he going to get them taken down?

 

Ooh - I do hope he tries....................

 

 

[Detling]

In the past I have found the information in the boat list to be very useful when researching a boat to look at with a view to buy. It tells me if it is licensed, length, age etc. which although stated on the vendors advert don't always match the boat list information, thus suggesting further investigation required or just forget it. As there is no way of checking if the boat you are buying is owned by the vendor, anything like no license or wrong particulars is a warning flag. The loss of this information increases the risk when buying what is frequently the second largest investment in most peoples lives.

[matty40s]

I have just joined the Thames Yachting and Boating website, and have posted my views.

I am very happy to see this public resource be hosted on my website......and if we all hosted it on all our sites.......it would soon be a universal resource.

[tillergirl]

I would hazard a guess that both C&RT and the EA and all the other water authorities in this country have to produce a public register of all licensed craft. Much the same as councils have to do for licensed premises and much the same as the DVLA do for all registered vehicles. So do we assume that all this information that is also freely available on the internet is also going to be a target for him? If not then why not. The information on Jim's site doesn't give personal information so whats his problem?

 

I appreciate that Jim Shead is just covering his back but I personally don't think he had anything to worry about.

 

 

 

[matty40s]

I would hazard a guess that both C&RT and the EA and all the other water authorities in this country have to produce a public register of all licensed craft. Much the same as councils have to do for licensed premises and much the same as the DVLA do for all registered vehicles. So do we assume that all this information that is also freely available on the internet is also going to be a target for him? If not then why not. The information on Jim's site doesn't give personal information so whats his problem?

 

I appreciate that Jim Shead is just covering his back but I personally don't think he had anything to worry about.

Jim stood up for his principles by not removing the Mountains boat details, the web company has Kowtowed and crapped themselves and removed his whole site.

[mayalld]

Would he be Timothy R Mountain, Age Guide: 50-54, who lives at the same Oxfordshire address as Neil Richard Fox, Anabelle L Fox and Fiona Elaine Mountain? Info from www.192.com. Buying some search credits will give the full address.

 

Is he going to get them taken down?

 

Difficult to say whether this is the same Timothy Mountain.

 

I do hope that in his quest to remain secure, he doesn't use his mothers maiden name for security purposes.

 

Quite an appropriate name for somebody who talks such [male gonads]

[Athy]

Is this chap really a ludicrous git, or just a good actor? He's making something out of a molehill but I can't remember the right word.

[by'eck]

Is this chap really a ludicrous git, or just a good actor? He's making something out of a molehill but I can't remember the right word.

 

mountain?

[Athy]

mountain?

Can't fool you eh, Mr. 'eck!

 

I am puzzled by Mr. Hill's stance. Many such lists are published, some of which give more details than Jim Shead's site which, if I recall, lists neither the owner of a boat nor its location. No doubt, for example, Mr. Hillock is in the Telephone Directory, probably in a Street Directory, a list of Voters....there are directories which list, for example, all extant Traction Engines, giving more detail of their location than Jim Shead's boat listing does.

 

Above all, I cannot fathom what could be Mr. Tor's objection to a brief description of his boat being listed alongside brief descriptions of everybody else's boat. It's not as if he has been in some way singled out. For the record, my boat is called Trojan, she was built in 2006, is 45 feet long, registered (in Jim's quaint phrase) as a powered, power of 28 h.p., last registered in August 2012. There, that didn't hurt a bit.

[MoominPapa]

Before it gets taken down Timothy puts his side here

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?348336-Jim-Shead-boat-listing

Just so you know I am Magnette on there

See, it's not just CWDF that generates ridiculous flame wars.

 

Mr Mountain seems to have a rather unconventional view of the rights arising from private property.

 

MP.

[Dave_P]

I feel like some people are missing the obvious in all this.

 

Tim Mountain asked for his details to be taken down. I don't understand his reasons and personally I can't see any problems with having my boat details on there. But hey-ho, to each their own.

 

Jim Shead refused to take the details down because he felt the complaint was spurious.

 

This all sounds fair enough to me.

 

Then THE HOSTING COMPANY TOOK DOWN THE SITE!! Not Tim or Jim. It was THE HOSTING COMPANY. So surely if we're cross with anyone, it should be them.

 

2 possibilities exist: Either it is a data protection / copyright issue in which case the list shouldn't be online, or, it is isn't and the list should stay up.

 

It seems to me that a webhosting company should be well versed in the law regarding this to make the correct decision. I suspect they haven't so if we are going to be angry with anyone, it should be the company that took down the site.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Dave_P

[grahoom]

It seems to me that a webhosting company should be well versed in the law regarding this to make the correct decision. I suspect they haven't so if we are going to be angry with anyone, it should be the company that took down the site.

 

some hosting companies, when it comes to a take down notice, will do the quickest and easiest thing first - take down the site. They might then ask questions later.

[Dave_P]

some hosting companies, when it comes to a take down notice, will do the quickest and easiest thing first - take down the site. They might then ask questions later.

 

Quite. Still their fault in my opinion though.

 

Quite. Still their fault in my opinion though.

 

In the course of my work, I deal with complaints. If I simply upheld every complaint no matter how spurious, I'd be sacked before the end of the week.

[mayalld]

I feel like some people are missing the obvious in all this.

 

Tim Mountain asked for his details to be taken down. I don't understand his reasons and personally I can't see any problems with having my boat details on there. But hey-ho, to each their own.

 

Jim Shead refused to take the details down because he felt the complaint was spurious.

 

This all sounds fair enough to me.

 

Then THE HOSTING COMPANY TOOK DOWN THE SITE!! Not Tim or Jim. It was THE HOSTING COMPANY. So surely if we're cross with anyone, it should be them.

 

2 possibilities exist: Either it is a data protection / copyright issue in which case the list shouldn't be online, or, it is isn't and the list should stay up.

 

It seems to me that a webhosting company should be well versed in the law regarding this to make the correct decision. I suspect they haven't so if we are going to be angry with anyone, it should be the company that took down the site.

 

A reasonable enough view of the situation.

 

Basically, there is no shortage of companies that will host a website for a reasonable cost.

 

However, their business model doesn't include any budget for legal fees to argue the rights and wrongs of claims against them, so they will generally roll over at the first hint of trouble.

 

Bluntly, the money that Jim pays to host his site isn't enough to make them care.

[churchward]

I feel like some people are missing the obvious in all this.

 

Tim Mountain asked for his details to be taken down. I don't understand his reasons and personally I can't see any problems with having my boat details on there. But hey-ho, to each their own.

 

Jim Shead refused to take the details down because he felt the complaint was spurious.

 

This all sounds fair enough to me.

 

Then THE HOSTING COMPANY TOOK DOWN THE SITE!! Not Tim or Jim. It was THE HOSTING COMPANY. So surely if we're cross with anyone, it should be them.

 

2 possibilities exist: Either it is a data protection / copyright issue in which case the list shouldn't be online, or, it is isn't and the list should stay up.

 

It seems to me that a webhosting company should be well versed in the law regarding this to make the correct decision. I suspect they haven't so if we are going to be angry with anyone, it should be the company that took down the site.

I agree it was the hosting company that took the site down (twice!) but it was Mr Mountains actions that led to the the database being removed by Jim Shead after he decided that the DB was compromised by having an entry removed. Of course if the hosting company had told Mr Mountain to take a running jump in the first place it may be a different story. But if Mr Mountain had not complained then none of the sequence of events would have happened.

[mayalld]

I have just heard from Jim.

 

It seems that the hosting company has taken the site down again, and that this time they aren't willing to restore it.

 

Whilst Jim doesn't say so, I assume that this is because they are unhappy with Jim explaining why the boat listing was gone (whether they are unhappy because Mr Hillock complained about being outed as the complainant would be pure conjecture).

 

Jim is considering his options, but he does now have a contact at ORG, who have indicated that they may be able to help with some legal work and hosting.

[carlt]

It would be ironic if Mr Mountain's blatherings should have provided a safe haven for Jim Shead's valuable resource with a host that won't be afraid to say no to future attempts at sabotage.

[mayalld]

It would be ironic if Mr Mountain's blatherings should have provided a safe haven for Jim Shead's valuable resource with a host that won't be afraid to say no to future attempts at sabotage.

 

Wouldn't it just.

 

You should really join us at the YBW forum, wher Mr Hump posted his "justification". The moderators there are awfully twitchy about any kind of dissent, and we might need re-inforcements!

[Dave_P]

I agree it was the hosting company that took the site down (twice!) but it was Mr Mountains actions that led to the the database being removed by Jim Shead after he decided that the DB was compromised by having an entry removed. Of course if the hosting company had told Mr Mountain to take a running jump in the first place it may be a different story. But if Mr Mountain had not complained then none of the sequence of events would have happened.

Maybe I'm a bit soft but I can't help feel sorry for mr mound/ pike/ peak. After all he didn't intend this to happen. It's all a bit of a mess but slating mr sandcastle doesn't seem quite right to me.

[mayalld]

Maybe I'm a bit soft but I can't help feel sorry for mr mound/ pike/ peak. After all he didn't intend this to happen. It's all a bit of a mess but slating mr sandcastle doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

Your belief in Mr Lump does you credit, yet I fear that you are wrong.

 

So far as I can see, he has been attempting to get the data removed for a long time, and got nowhere. He was fully aware that Jim wouldn't delete part of the data.

 

He went after the host and told a lie to induce them to remove the site.

[churchward]

Maybe I'm a bit soft but I can't help feel sorry for mr mound/ pike/ peak. After all he didn't intend this to happen. It's all a bit of a mess but slating mr sandcastle doesn't seem quite right to me.

Well I would not want to see him nailed to anything and I am all for cutting a person a bit of slack. However, I do not think he is blameless in this scenario.

[Grace and Favour]

Maybe I'm a bit soft but I can't help feel sorry for mr mound/ pike/ peak. After all he didn't intend this to happen. It's all a bit of a mess but slating mr sandcastle doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

 

You bring a lump to my throat........