Are we all sheep?

[Alan de Enfield]

No but I bet people are thinking which banned members are being investigated by the police for cyber stalking.It obviously would be a banned member as they wouldnt be allowed to post on here if they stalked or made threats to a mod.

 

I am not understanding how, if Dan & the Admin/Tech team have opened up all of the records, IP addresses etc etc, that after 7 months (assuming this happened around the time of the 'mass-cull') that the Police have not yet identified the culprit.

[nicknorman]

I am not understanding how, if Dan & the Admin/Tech team have opened up all of the records, IP addresses etc etc, that after 7 months (assuming this happened around the time of the 'mass-cull') that the Police have not yet identified the culprit.

At least some of it is via phone calls.

[Athy]

At least some of it is via phone calls.

As I have never known a moderator to reveal their phone number on the forum. how is this achieved? If, for example, I wish to phone Bloggs The Moderator, firstly I don't know where they live, secondly I don't know their real surname, so I have no way of discovering their number and thus cannot ring them. They must be friends if they know their phone numbers. With friends like that, etc...

[carlt]

As I have never known a moderator to reveal their phone number on the forum. how is this achieved? If, for example, I wish to phone Bloggs The Moderator, firstly I don't know where they live, secondly I don't know their real surname, so I have no way of discovering their number and thus cannot ring them. They must be friends if they know their phone numbers. With friends like that, etc...

It's not that difficult though...

 

It took me less than a minute to find your name, address and phone number,

[nicknorman]

As I have never known a moderator to reveal their phone number on the forum. how is this achieved? If, for example, I wish to phone Bloggs The Moderator, firstly I don't know where they live, secondly I don't know their real surname, so I have no way of discovering their number and thus cannot ring them. They must be friends if they know their phone numbers. With friends like that, etc...

It's typically very easy to find such things as phone numbers with a modicum of internet searching and just a bit of knowledge of the person. I've a feeling that one of the mods in question used to have enough info on their profile to allow indentification. Not any more of course. I got a phone call from someone I didn't particularly want to hear from not so long ago, turns out they'd found my phone number on the gliding club's website which I had up because I am the treasurer. I've removed it!

 

I know the surname of 2 of the mods. But no, it isn't me! Anyway there is no point in trying to say it can't happen because it is.

[dogless]

The police have been investigating for some time. They are taking it seriously. I suggest that some people need to get off their high horses and read up on cyberstalking and hate crimes.

It is of course appalling for anyone to do such things.

 

However your response does not answer the question posed.

 

Rog

[nicknorman]

It's not that difficult though...It took me less than a minute to find your name, address and phone number,

... wife's name, career summary, property abroad and a photo. Although I've met him before so I know what he looks like!

[Lady Muck]

For privacy reasons I'm not going into much detail. All banning from cwdf is always because of conduct on here. When one goes through the warn/ban process we have to fill in a form and a reason is always given. So I dispute when members say they were given no reason. The stalking, harrassement etc is a separate issue. It makes more sense to deal with it where it happens or we report it to the relevant authorities or the IP. The *only* time it has come into play on here is when we have banned some accounts from here for sending creepy messages to female admin. I've been sent some. It's 2016 and I can't believe that women still have to deal with this rubbish, but there you go.

[nicknorman]

All banning from cwdf is always because of conduct on here. When one goes through the warn/ban process we have to fill in a form and a reason is always given. So I dispute when members say they were given no reason.

Of course they were given no reason. Well they were probably given a reason by PM which they were unable to retrieve since they had been banned. Doh! Well that is certainly what they've told us and I see no reason to disbelieve as it was a recurrent story.

 

You say all banning is always because of conduct on here and I don't particularly dispute that, however in many cases it was for conduct many months earlier. If there is going to be disciplinary action it should be within a reasonable time frame of the offence. And conduct that caused some mods to be generally pissed off with them as opposed to specific things. For example, being "slime on a stick". Do you really think that is a good way to carry on? If so, IMO you are unfit to be a mod on here.

Edited October 19, 2016 by nicknorman

[Rob-M]

... wife's name, career summary, property abroad and a photo. Although I've met him before so I know what he looks like!

And fathers name plus the school he taught at. It doesn't take much especially when people post on other forums with the same details in their profile.

[GoodGurl]

For privacy reasons I'm not going into much detail. All banning from cwdf is always because of conduct on here. When one goes through the warn/ban process we have to fill in a form and a reason is always given. So I dispute when members say they were given no reason. The stalking, harrassement etc is a separate issue. It makes more sense to deal with it where it happens or we report it to the relevant authorities or the IP. The *only* time it has come into play on here is when we have banned some accounts from here for sending creepy messages to female admin. I've been sent some. It's 2016 and I can't believe that women still have to deal with this rubbish, but there you go.

so can you please tell us where we are with the 2 locked threads?

[Alan de Enfield]

A question - have the 'legal threads' that have been locked 'pending discussion' been locked as a result of a request from C&RT, Shoosmiths or any person with involvement in either of the cases ?

 

I would be very surprised if C&RT have requested 'closure' of the threads as much of their 'witness statements' (now posted on Scribd by Nigel) seems to rely on 'Screen Shots' from this forum.

 

Closing the threads has now resulted in C&RT struggling for evidence, anyone on C&RTs 'support team' should be calling for them to be re-opened. .

 

WS2 & WS3 should make an interesting history of the forum.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Rob-M]

From just a user name on CWDF I now have Athy's name, address, phone number and an email address. All readily available on the internet and took only moments to find.

[nicknorman]

From just a user name on CWDF I now have Athy's name, address, phone number and an email address. All readily available on the internet and took only moments to find.

So Athy's now going to get some heavy breathing silent phone calls. Mind you, he might quite enjoy them!

[Geo]

 

I am not understanding how, if Dan & the Admin/Tech team have opened up all of the records, IP addresses etc etc, that after 7 months (assuming this happened around the time of the 'mass-cull') that the Police have not yet identified the culprit.

 

It takes time for the police to obtain the necessary court orders. Not sure if they don't have to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Most ISPs require a court order to release the data. However if the person was using a wifi hotspot of some sort, it is possible that the data would lead to the hotspot and end there, In terms of being to identify a person let alone a particular computer with its MAC code. I think there are similar problems with a smart phone and on the move, unless an area can be tied down. If a VPN is being used

[Lady Muck]

Ok, I've been asked several times now, I've posted about it before. I've been asked in private and said the same. I've said before we're not prepared to say much. We sought independent legal advice. Nothing to do with CRT because never had any contact from them as regards this. Not for pro CRT reasons, that's rubbish too. Not prepared to say anything more right now as we will just end up having the same convo that leads the threads to be locked.

[Ex-Member]

Wow this is political not to metion personal, so I will tread carefully.

 

I first joined this forum over a year a go and found a couple of people a bit 'spikey' which deterred me from using the forum directly however the archeived material has been invaluable. I apprecaite tone cannot be conveyed 't,over tint,ternet' but at the time members privately messaged me to offer support, thank you guys.

 

Being in the process of buying our first boat I started using the forums activley again over the last month or two and found the atmsosphere more inviting. I accept that people just give opinions which can be subjective based on experience or just say so which is fine, all in all I found it to be an healthy place to bounce ideas around; I would like to contiue to be a member and hopefully contribute something myself.

 

I have been members of other specialist forums in which certain members rule the roost with no moderation, which is not good as it is basically dominated by a few for the few.

 

I have not got a clue who runs this site but it is free and whoever it is must put some time & money into it so I thank you.

 

I am going to brain dump a few things: transparency,,,,,,a framework for members to refer to,,,,,a membership fee,,,,code of conduct.

[nicknorman]

Ok, I've been asked several times now, I've posted about it before. I've been asked in private and said the same. I've said before we're not prepared to say much. We sought independent legal advice. Nothing to do with CRT because never had any contact from them as regards this. Not for pro CRT reasons, that's rubbish too. Not prepared to say anything more right now as we will just end up having the same convo that leads the threads to be locked.

This is just silly. You are withholding the reasons why the threads are locked either because they are embarrassingly stupid, or just because you like the "knowledge is power" thing. This is exactly what is so wrong with the way this forum is being run at the moment.

 

If the independent legal advice advised you to lock the threads they will have given a reason. Why keep it a silly secret?

[Geo]

Ok, I've been asked several times now, I've posted about it before. I've been asked in private and said the same. I've said before we're not prepared to say much. We sought independent legal advice. Nothing to do with CRT because never had any contact from them as regards this. Not for pro CRT reasons, that's rubbish too. Not prepared to say anything more right now as we will just end up having the same convo that leads the threads to be locked.

 

I would love to see that legal advice, I assume it was paid for and will be in writing. I am trying to think of any reasons that could lead to an legal advice recommending the closure of those thread. I can't think of any. You are welcome to email a copy to me.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Geo

[Alan de Enfield]

Ok, I've been asked several times now, I've posted about it before. I've been asked in private and said the same. I've said before we're not prepared to say much. We sought independent legal advice. Nothing to do with CRT because never had any contact from them as regards this. Not for pro CRT reasons, that's rubbish too. Not prepared to say anything more right now as we will just end up having the same convo that leads the threads to be locked.

 

If there has been 'independent legal advice' is there any reason why that advice cannot be published - what problems could it cause ?

 

It either says 'you are at risk - close the thread', or ' it is breaking no laws, it can continue'.

 

Surely after 'weeks of consideration' there is a conclusion.

[GoodGurl]

Ok, I've been asked several times now, I've posted about it before. I've been asked in private and said the same. I've said before we're not prepared to say much. We sought independent legal advice. Nothing to do with CRT because never had any contact from them as regards this. Not for pro CRT reasons, that's rubbish too. Not prepared to say anything more right now as we will just end up having the same convo that leads the threads to be locked.

This says nothing at all, all you are doing is digging a deeper hole, i can understand that you won't give information out on a banned member but surely you can say why a thread was locked.

[Arthur Marshall]

This is just proving my original point. Anything any of the mods, or Dan, say is not going to be accepted by those who are determined there is a vast conspiracy going on. They will be accused of not giving any information, then if they do, it will not be enough or it will be simply untrue. It's pointless. Do you really think that if the "independant legal advice" is published someone on here won't say either it's rubbish, or you used they wrong lawyer, or they know better? Or that it's just made up?

There was information floating about in those other threads (such as medical details) which really shouldn't have been put on the net in the first place, whether or not the threads just got to vituperative to carry on.

Myself, I'd like to see new threads on the same topics open for discussion, maybe with the guidelines of what is and is not legally acceptable carefully spelled out, as they are important subjects and they matter. But just playground yelling at the mods and the owner is, in the words of someone above, just silly.

[Victor Vectis]

And let's remember that whilst Daniel likes to call himself "site owner" it has, at least until recently, been paid for by the members and run by volunteers.

And that gives you the right togo on and on and on and on and on making the same point over and over again.

 

Does it?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Myself, I'd like to see new threads on the same topics open for discussion, maybe with the guidelines of what is and is not legally acceptable carefully spelled out, as they are important subjects and they matter. But just playground yelling at the mods and the owner is, in the words of someone above, just silly.

 

That would be nice !!!

[nicknorman]

And that gives you the right togo on and on and on and on and on making the same point over and over again.

 

Does it?

You mean like you do. Presumably you have nothing to actually say, you just like following me around the forum sniping at me. Is that stalking?

 

 

This is just proving my original point. Anything any of the mods, or Dan, say is not going to be accepted by those who are determined there is a vast conspiracy going on. They will be accused of not giving any information, then if they do, it will not be enough or it will be simply untrue. It's pointless. Do you really think that if the "independant legal advice" is published someone on here won't say either it's rubbish, or you used they wrong lawyer, or they know better? Or that it's just made up?

 

But they haven't said anything of substance, just waffle and bluster. Perhaps you are right about what might happen if they do say anything concrete but in the mean time your guess is ... a guess. I guess we'll never know because they seem firmly entrenched in their fiefdom. Edited October 19, 2016 by nicknorman