My Cheekiness thread?

[mr.ton]

I think there was more to it. The last few posts were beyond cheeky. You are not the lone voice, I have sent emails back and forth to admin about this.

 

Oh i agree..there was more to it.

Its known as "pressure from people in high places" type of more to it

We are in a severe economic collapse/recession & sites like this (and threads like that one) in specific, are in small part responsible for this crisis

[alanfromderby]

In order to clarify the position.

 

The thread was removed as a line had been crossed from "cheekiness" to abuse, and whatever the feelings of those who contributed to the thread may be, we have a legal obligation to ensure that posts are appropriate for a public and open consumer rights website, and within the law.

 

Whilst it is possible that the thread could (and most likely will) be tidied up and reinstated, you have to appreciate that it will take a while to trawl through 5000 posts. However, if those involved with the thread would care to identify parts that should be returned, then that will help with that process.

 

I have to say that this is always a danger with very long threads, and it is unfortunate that the main contributers did not express concern to the team when posts started to cross the line.

 

I hope this explains the position.

[sosumi]

'Service Temporarily Unavailable' - Independent.

All I can suggest is follow the link (to Independent) through the BBC article Alfwithair posted yesterday:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/179757-help-government-offering-people.html#post1938574

I've just found the article via Google - cache:

'Stealth tax' on recession victims - Home News, UK - The Independent

look for 'no1bob', about the 18th comment.

[ODC]

Debtor or Fraudster

no1bob wrote:

Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)

How many of these people lied in order to borrow beyond their means?

 

If they did not disclose in full their existing borrowings and commitments when applying for their loan then they should still be in court - but for fraud!

 

 

Wonder if this is the same No.1 Bob whose company allegedly ring people up about alleged debts that are totally unenforceable and threaten them with all sorts of action that they cannot actually carry out. The same company who have been featured recently in the media because of their alleged bullying behaviour against debtors.

[ODC]

Oh i agree..there was more to it.

Its known as "pressure from people in high places" type of more to it

We are in a severe economic collapse/recession & sites like this (and threads like that one) in specific, are in small part responsible for this crisis

 

Come on Mr T youve had your say and I think a reasonable explanation has been given by both the Mods and Admin Staff.

 

You have given a lot of help and amusement on here to lots of people. Start up a new thread and Im sure when your totally legal Cheekiness thread is reinstated the same Mods will merge the two.

 

We could call it the ''Not the Uncle Bob Thread''

[fuzzybobble]

And to quote from the article's comments to save peeps looking for it....

 

no1bob wrote:

 

Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)

How many of these people lied in order to borrow beyond their means?

 

If they did not disclose in full their existing borrowings and commitments when applying for their loan then they should still be in court - but for fraud!

 

My reply is this....

 

How many creditors bothered to check that the person they lend money to is financially stable and not up to their eyes in it already? The info is there through the CRA's how much debt people have already. Not hard to check. They used to have bank managers and you have to have a meeting with them before they would lend you anything.

 

Responsible lending. It's printed in black and white in their very own guidelines.

 

Yet they lent money to people they knew full well would have problems paying it back. Why? Because they thought they could use people's lack of knowledge of their rights to bully them into repaying even more, through unlawful fees/charges and interest rates. "Hey guys, lets print some application forms that double as agreements to save a few quid. Then tempt them in with offers of cash back, free sports bags, etc.

 

They should have consulted their legal departments, instead of the marketing departments. A classic example of putting profits before everything else.

 

A classic example of this is a friend of mine. Single mum, on income support, yet Barclaycard quite happily let her have a card with £1000 limit on it. As soon as she struggled to pay the monthly payments, they up the interest rate and bang on charges each time. Making a bad situation even worse. Her only crime was trying to give her daughter a happy christmas.

 

Creditors have been abusing the situation for years. When payback time comes, they're the first to squeal, "That's not fair."

 

Nothing is fair in this world. You come into it with nothing. The world owes you no advance favours. You make the most of what you can. If that means screwing Uncle Bob and his cronies out of a few quid, then so be it. They'd happily do it to you if you didn't have the properly executed documents...

Edited January 25, 2009 by fuzzybobble

[mr.ton]

Well im sorry..im not gonna say im happy with something when im not

Unless it specifically showed a full name & address on there (and if it did i stand corrected), but if it didnt then there was no justification for doing anything to the thread quite frankly

[The GodMother]

I understand some posts may not have been suitable i know of onepost that said maybe we should get his, Bob Kindon, and start harrassing him like his company does the clients.. Yes i will admit from what i have read the company can harasse it clients and maybe some people and not others sore it as a joke to get his home address and harrasse him. It certainly would have made him think about the way his staff treat the customers.

[daarab]

I Think we need to wait and see what happens, we have had a lot of comments from the site team and have stated that he thread will in all probability be back.

I can see where your coming from Mr Ton, and if it was my thread I'd be doing exactly the same as you.

 

But

 

I can also see where admin is coming from and even if 1 post is slightly libelous then Cag could be finished, I for one have told many people about Cag, And Cag has helped me no end, and still does, so I for one would not like to see Cag shut down.

 

Admin maybe should of notified you Mr Ton about the "PULLING" of Cheekiness, but i really think we should just take a step back and let the mods clean up the thread a wee bit.

 

I Like many people Jumping up and down about the thread being pulled have lost the posts, spec my crudit today cover, for which I'm quite proud of considering it was the first time i ever used photoshop, but lets just see the reasoning behind their decision.

[tiglet]

To be honest, the only criticism I would have of pulling the thread at this time would be discourtesy in not informing the OP. Otherwise, mods are completely correct to check whether there are breaches of site-rules or potentially libellous comments.

 

Come on guys, we all had a laugh on the thread, but some posts were a bit too near to the bone and it would be a shame if the whole thing had to be deleted because mods WEREN'T vigilant.

 

Let's see what next week brings.

[ODC]

Well im sorry..im not gonna say im happy with something when im not

Unless it specifically showed a full name & address on there (and if it did i stand corrected), but if it didnt then there was no justification for doing anything to the thread quite frankly

 

Im not asking you to be happy just take a step back and see it from the Admins point of view.

 

I regard myself as being very outspoken and indeed do sail close to the wind at times. Quite a few of my OTT posts have been cagbotted. Most times I agree with that and some times I dont but hey we all signed up to the forum so we need to stick to the rules whether or not we agree with them all or the Admin interpretation of them. You have given hope to more than a few newbies on here and it would be a shame if you decided to give all that up.

[mr.ton]

I only knew about it this 1st thing morning when CAG-bot sent me a message saying the thread had been "unapproved"

[babybear39]

For my tuppence worth I had 2 posts cagbotted from the thread. Why? I honestly don't know.

 

But I'm for giving the site admin the opportunity to clean the thread up and put it back, as it's a useful thread to people who're scared of DCAs.

 

If that's not possible a full explanation should be given and a new thread started which should be highly moderated to prevent this happening again.

 

To anyone thinking of leaving over this, think again, others need you...

[fuzzybobble]

That's true. Posts and threads get pulled, yet it would be nice if there was an explaination as to why.

 

If it was properly explained, then people would be more careful in future. It would only take a minuite to do this, and probably save a lot of hassle and anger too.

 

Mr Ton, there were no person details or address of any DCA employee posted on the cheekiness thread. I've only ever seen links to the DCA's sites, and phone numbers of their call centres.

 

Now if mentioning the name of a DCA's manegement is suddenly grounds for libel, then hands up I'm guilty. But then they post their names and pics on websites, so why would they do that if they didn't want that info to be made public?

 

Since when has saying, "Bryan Carter is the acting solicitor for Frederickson International. He is know for going for split claims, which is a breach of process. Or mentioning that Bob Kingdon and Charles Holland are a manager and director of 1st Credit." being a statement that could be liable? Yet one post of mine was Cagbotted just for mentioning Uncle Bob's name.

 

There needs to be a level playing field when it comes to what can be deleted, and what can't. I guess different mods have different ideas.

 

Whatever happens, lets have the Cheekiness thread back. Also maybe appoint someone to keep an eye on what is a positively contraversial, but very useful thread.

 

[mr.ton]

I understand what most are saying...but from what i can recall of the thread, there was nothing in it to be "cleaned up" about?

We were told earlier that the thread was pulled coz personal info "might" be mentioned & libel action "might" then be taken.

I "might" rob a bank tomorrow & i "might" get arrested for it...but unless i actually do it, then there would be no justification for my arrest.

Same principle

[alanfromderby]

Well im sorry..im not gonna say im happy with something when im not

Unless it specifically showed a full name & address on there (and if it did i stand corrected), but if it didnt then there was no justification for doing anything to the thread quite frankly

 

 

You have to understand that we are dealing with issues of potential defamation on a regular basis, and we have also sought guidance from the Information Commissioner on what they consider to be acceptable.

 

There is certainly no requirement that a persons name and address has to be included for a person to be identified. Section 1(1) of the DPA is clear that an individual need only to be identifiable by the content of the information posted, or indeed information that is posted elsewhere on the site.

 

Of course, once a person has been identified as the data subject, we are then subject to the requirements of the DPA, as well as the other potentially more serious legal implications.

 

Whilst it is possible to allow a certain amount of "knock-about" and satire over companies, and even individuals, under the right to free expression, the moment the line is crossed into abuse and/or potentially libellous comments, the site (and the poster) become exposed to a potential legal claim for damages.

 

To state that we are against free speech is laughable, if not insulting. The very fact that the thread has been allowed to continue for as long as it has should, in itself, show that this is not true.

[jaxads]

Well any DCA staff reading this are going to love this aren't they??

 

Here we have CAG members bickering instead of doing what we do best.

 

Let the mods/site team (who do a fantastic job) have some time to sort this out so that CAG continues to run successfully to the benefit of ALL.

 

Come on guys, we're all on the same side xxx

[daarab]

Not wanting to accuse or pick on anyone here but PT's 1st post could of been a bit more helpful in explaining why the thread was pulled.

 

To state that we are against free speech is laughable, if not insulting. The very fact that the thread has been allowed to continue for as long as it has should, in itself, show that this is not true.

PT's post was the reason i posted the free speech pic, because that is the way i read it.

 

I am sorry if posting that pic has offended or insulted anyone, that was not my intention.

[pt2537]

Not wanting to accuse or pick on anyone here but PT's 1st post could of been a bit more helpful in explaining why the thread was pulled.

 

PT's post was the reason i posted the free speech pic, because that is the way i read it.

 

I am sorry if posting that pic has offended or insulted anyone, that was not my intention.

Im sorry if my post wasnt as informative as you would have liked, however, at least i took the time to make the post but alas no credit is given for that, instead we are criticised for doing what we feel is best, protecting this site and ensuring that it is able to continue

 

by the way, im not aware that the rules require for us to give an explaination as to why a post or thread is removed, however as a matter of courtesy a full explaination has been given plus this has been confirmed by a number of the site team. i do not see what more we could have done, lets not forget we all have a personal life outside of the CAG and we( the site team) do not get paid for the work we put in;)

[clemma]

 

Can we just end it now. The constant bickering is become a tad lame. The site team have explained what has happened, and have said the thread may be back. Let them do their fantastic (unpaid) job, and we can thank them if/when the thread re-appears. I was annoyed last night, but I understand the reasons now, and I have accepted them.

 

If the thread does not re-appear, there should be no problem re-starting it, as long as people stick to the forum rules and guidelines.

 

Sorry if this sounds a bit defeatist - but there is nothing that can be done, no matter how many angry posts are put on here. Mr Ton - I know the cheeky thread is your pride and joy so just keep a look out for its return.

 

[hillards]

As a contributor to the original thread I would like to make personal comment myself. This follows reading the responses so far, and direct email from admin.

 

I feel it only fair to defend the site team and admin as they are suffering 'attack' from quite a few site members over this and it appears that they were simply alerted to a possible problem, which will take time to sort out. You cannot expect volunteer staff to drop everything to read through 5000+ posts - how many people have done that, and how long did it take? at least 4-5 hours without a break?

 

alanfromderby is a site admin, we are but guests of the board, he has stated the case for CAG, we should at least listen. This is the way a lot of these type of forum based sites work. Admin say they have removed the thread, but not deleted it. I can verify this from my own moderator work on another board, as I've had to do similar things when something kicks off.

 

In this case it seems someone feels a line was crossed, and reported it. In the main, from my experience here, I would say that the thread was self-moderated and anything 'naughty' was quickly stopped. The suggestion of finding a person's home address was not helpful to the 'cause' of the thread itself. That would have gone well over the line, in my opinion, and comment was made to the poster who made that suggestion at the time.

 

Maybe the very fact that an individual's name appeared was too much in itself, and for that I would offer my apologies to the site team for endangering the site if anything I put up was deemed to break the law. But, it was in the spirit of the thread by it's very title. Now we've been told that it's not allowed, we know not to do it again. CagBotting of those posts is therefore acceptable to me.

 

I would urge the people who have made the comments against the site team to consider going back and editing those, now you've calmed down a bit? For the benefit of the site as a whole I would even suggest that consideration be given to removing THIS thread? Seems a bit silly giving the DCA's something to laugh at us for?

 

I made a suggestion to admin, which I'll repeat here, that 'someone' may wish to look at a transcript of the entire thread and indicate to Admin just which posts could be removed, in order that the remainder can be reinstated. If nobody else wants to volunteer then I would put myself forward, but then it will take time until I was able to devote the same 4+ hours to sift through it all and the thread may not return until there was time to have checked it all, as this is the procedure when a 'alert' is given.

 

I hope that helps to highlight what is involved in even trying to have the thread put back, in a slightly pruned state. I have to support the admin and site helpers in their plea for this matter to be treated in the manner in which it happened, and not that they've sold out or don't care. Without them this board would not exist.

 

Please guys, we like a bit of fun, but lets accept that 'someone' feels we went a bit too far and we now have to let the admin/site team decide if there was even a case to be answered (oooh, that sounds oh so familiar!) that would have stood its ground in a court - yes, that serious...

 

OK? Lets move on...

[Fred Bassett]

How many of these people lied in order to borrow beyond their means?

 

I seem to remember a certain Lord Mandelson having problems of this sort .... (hope that's not libellous).

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[daarab]

Im sorry if my post wasnt as informative as you would have liked, however, at least i took the time to make the post but alas no credit is given for that, instead we are criticised for doing what we feel is best, protecting this site and ensuring that it is able to continue

 

by the way, im not aware that the rules require for us to give an explaination as to why a post or thread is removed, however as a matter of courtesy a full explaination has been given plus this has been confirmed by a number of the site team. i do not see what more we could have done, lets not forget we all have a personal life outside of the CAG and we( the site team) do not get paid for the work we put in;)

 

I now understand why the thread was pulled, Pt I do not wish to fall out with you here, but maybe if you had given a little info if you had any that would of gone a long way in calming the situation before it had exploded.

 

I and many of the members appreciate what you and the site team do and all comments you have posted have been very helpful, and i hope that continues.

[daarab]

For the benefit of the site as a whole I would even suggest that consideration be given to removing THIS thread?

 

I agree with you there Hillards

[vengeancedemon]

Subscribing