Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

bob92101

Banned
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bob92101

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. What of those of us who did not fall for Crossley's tricks? How do we ensure that Crossley, Bowden and their cronies are punished in sufficiently public and humiliating a way as to ensure that no one else attempts the same tricks in the future? It seems clear that the SRA & ICO will now do Sweet FA and will allow the dust to settle before retreating into their apathetic slumbers. I doubt that the courts are going to limit the scope of Norwich Pharmacal Orders and ISPs will doubtless continue to feel compelled unquestioningly to comply with them. It seems that the only good guys in this case are Judge Birss & the people at Ralli, CAG, Slyck and Which - all credit to them
  2. Yes, I believe so. I can't remember what solicitors are behind it. As I recall, it is being fought on a 'No win - No fee' basis. The relevant One Show is available on iPlayer for a week HERE.
  3. There was an item about ACS:Law on the BBC 1 TV 'The One Show' on Thursday March 10th, 2011. It should be available on iPlayer for a week from tomorrow and may well then find its way onto YouTube. I only saw part of it and I believe that there were some factual errors in it but it wasn't very complimentary about Crossley. It did mention that he was being investigated by the SRA but didn't point out that that is being done incredibly slowly or seem to make any mention of his huge data leak, the Information Commissioner's Office or GCB Ltd.
  4. I believe that from day one, Talk-Talk refused to go along with ACS:Law's demand for details of people associated with specific IP addresses. O2, BT and Virgin Media are no better than Spy so should be avoided as well.
  5. Hasn't Lee Bowden already registered some other company? Something like 100 Mile Media? I suspect that he will just take the lessons learned from this case and with the list of people he and others already have, will just start again. Hopefully Judge Birss will see to it that this ploy will not work ever again.
  6. To be honest, I am not that concerned about the probably fairly pointless idea of pursuing the odious Andrew Crossley or ACS:Law for harassment. I hope that Andrew Crossley crawls away into some deep, dark hole and if he has a wife, children, surviving parents, colleagues or friends they all get to find out about the disgraceful practice he has been engaged in and react accordingly. I am very concerned about the precedent and the release into the public domain of the names and addresses and perhaps even the phone numbers and credit card details of tens of thousands of people. Let us not forget that this was an exploitative attempt to obtain money through intimidation, the threat of significant financial loss or by means of exposure, the loss of employment and breakdown of relationships. I would be far more interested if Ralli or others were to pursue the legitimacy of this sort of extortion and blackmail and if the ICO and SRA were to come down very heavily on Andrew Crossley. Incidentally, I can't believe the sympathetic stance being adopted by the media who still seem to portray Crossley as some sort of victim of a gross injustice - a least the Telegraph appears to have chased up on his claims of bomb threats. What about the claimed accident that prevented his appearance at the first hearing, what is te truth behind that? The little known Computeract!ve also deserves a round of applause
  7. If Andrew Crossley had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS: Law, who on earth wrote the letter some time in December allegedly from ACS:Law and included in GCB's pack of documents, saying that the unresolved cases were being taken over by GCB? Wouldn't Crossley as the principal of ACS:Law be responsible for any correspondence on their headed notepaper? Surely he couldn't have forgotten that detail when he told Judge Birss QC that there was no connection between the two companies?
  8. From the BBC website on Tuesday January 25th at 03:43 ACS:Law is described as the 'Victim'? What about the people whose names and addresses have now been released into the public domain? According to the BBC Andrew Crossley also said that he had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS:Law. So in that case, did the founders of GCB Ltd steal the details of the people that they subsequently chased? Did they fraudulently include a letter apparently from ACS:Law saying that ACS:Law had abandoned further action?
  9. Not sure what to make of this other than that Andrew Crossley may have decided to pull out of this sot of case and that the Judge isn't ready to announce a decision yet. I wonder when the ICO & SRA will wake up and do soemthing about all this? Well done to the various guys who didn't accept Crossley's 30 pieces of silver
  10. I agree entirely. I can quite see why the defendants would want to stop all this horrible stuff and I would probably feel exactly the same. Having said that, I sincerely hope that the 20+ brave souls will take the risk, stick to their guns and hopefully win massive damages that will bankrupt Andrew Jonathan Crossley and Lee Bowden, establish a precedent and hopefully stop this particular scheme being pursued in the future. I hope that Crossley, Lee Bowden, Terence Tsang, Simon Gallant, Brian Miller, David Gore, Jonathan Miller and the various others involved in this evil scheme are universally recognised as the **** they are and never get to work again. I am more than happy to pay taxes to support them on the breadline on Social Security.
  11. I am really sceptical that anyone could PROVE that they did not make copyrighted material available via P2P unless they could independently prove that their broadband connection was unavailable on the date involved by means of e.g. a BT fault report or their house having burned down!. This is the cunning part of the ploy being exploited by ACS:Law MediaCAT, GCB, Davenport Lyons and Gallant Macmillan. Andew Jonathan Crossley, Lee Bowden and Terence Tsang are not the first and will probably not be the last until either the law is changed or the SRA get their act together - neither of which I anticipate happening. As to Mishcon De Reya, that seems very expensive and perhaps it would be difficult to demonstrate defamation. Contacting Ralli Solicitors LLP or Lawdit Solicitors (Google them, I can't post links) and offering to help in some sort of class action would make more sense. Incidentally, it is good to see that PC Pro & ComputerActive are taking an interest in this story - particularly Dinah Greek & Nicole Kobie. It's a pity that the mainstream media are so disinterested.
  12. Broadly speking, I agree with your comments on relation to the Accountancy firm although I would like to think that Allan Reid would warn his students about due diligence by referring to this 'activity'. I entirely agree that the target must be the ISPs (Sky, BT, O2 & Be), Andrew Jonathan Crossley, Terence Tsang, Lee Bowden, Simon Gallant, Nicola Beale, Jonathan Miller, David Fisher, Adam Glenn, Clem Vogler, Brian Miller, David Gore and doubtless various other individuals. If these people aren't hit hard, the various supine regulatory regulatory bodies (ICO & SRA) don't rouse themselves from their slumbers and the law isn't changed, the same sort of extortion will simply reappear in the future. Andrew Jonathan Crossley, Terence Tsang and Lee Bowden in particular should be made an example of. The ISPs should be much more conscientious in safeguarding the details of their paying customers although you can always vote against them with your wallet - I believe that TalkTalk are the only ISP to come out of this with any credit?
  13. I would imagine that the ICO would be interested to hear about an organisation that passed on your details to an apparently unregistered third party, particularly when such organisation was already under investigation. Sadly, I suspect that the ICO is completely toothless and is only able to tell Andrew Jonathan Crossley that he has been a very, very naughty person - but he knew that already - and couldn't care less. You can call the ICO on 0303 123 1113 for advice Do it! Do it now! I believe that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) would probably also like to be kept abreast of Andrew Jonathan Crossley's continuing questionable activities.
  14. @ elzerbeth & oddball2514 I suspect that you don't actually need to reply since it appears that there is something VERY fishy going on with GCB Ltd. and ACS:Law. More will doubtless become clear as the sleuths here and elsewhere doggedly pursue their investigations. However, if you are concerned, I would suggest that you postpone any reply until 10 days after the date of GCB's letter and then simply refer them back to your earlier replies to ACS:Law - they claim to have copies of all the relevant correspondence. Bear in mind they are hoping you will at some stage inadvertently say something acknowledging responsibility. On another front, I would urge you to visit your local MP's surgery to complain about the behavior of these people and demand clarification of the law on this sort of activity (along with wheel-clamping, etc.) - I know that this is a pretty tough ask. I would also urge you to phone (0303 123 1113) write to or email the Information Commissioner (Data Protection Registrar as was) - you can find full details of how to do this by Googling ico.gov.uk complaints data protection (sorry - not able to post links) In the famous words of Douglas Adams- DON'T PANIC!
×
×
  • Create New...