Post by Madhatter on Jul 11, 2006 18:33:59 GMT
Consequences of internet abuse - to all members (currently 62 views)
dpickard Posted on: July 10th, 2006, 1:58pm
Supreme Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed the 3rd world - Eat Bono!
Posts: 590
I am posting the following, on advice, quite reluctantly. It is really not acceptable generally, nor legally for people to behave as if their nom de plume excludes them from decent behaviour in public internet correspondence.
Everybody needs to understand that published material is archived and is traceable. This is for the specific purpose of facilitating any criminal or civil action arising from it.
I have seen enough now to convince me and my advisors that what follows is my only reasonable course of action:-
“ Quoted from ohdear, posted July 9th, 2006, 5:47pm at here â€
Weird threads on this forum start out praising Aldi, then, suddenly, it's not teh bees knees, it's just ok.
So you backed it only as a private individual dpickard. You didn't back it as a councillor, you objected to it.
Put like a true councillor es.
I think that everybody here, specifically including the individual named below, should know that Madhatter, Ohdear via Firefox (known personally to me and other members of this board in Atherstone) is operating in a way that invites his reading public to conclude adversely on the motives or actions of myself as a public figure.
The result is that he faces a real risk of civil action brought by me on the nature and effects of his various utterances here and elsewhere with reference to my impeccable record in public service through any of the past 12 years.
If there is something illicit in me publicly specifying approval for any project, as a result of talking to the very people who placed their votes for me over the last 12 years at Atherstone Town Council, perhaps this person, however styled, might say what that is.
Since Atherstone Town Council, my parent authority, neither has power nor responsibility than to do anything but comment on, but not to block fruition of any planning or related request (that power belonging in public service law to NWBC) his remarks are quite improper. Utterances to the contrary, even if possibly based on an inadequate appreciation of either the system or my role within it are neither defensible in law nor courteous in common behaviour.
His comments although unwarranted in fact are potentially damaging to me in both my private and public lives.
If there is the slightest whiff of any behaviour that can be regarded as impropriety on the part of any elected Atherstone Town Council member, then I wish that he would introduce that matter to the NWBC senior Law officer (and designated local monitor of Standards in Public Service) Mr Peter Oliver. Mr Oliver will then be able to take all appropriate action. That is every citizen's right. However,if there is no such intention on the above-mentioned person's part, then he should desist from any further comment.
If, though this individual (aka Madhatter, Ohdear - Firefox) - or anybody connected with him continues unwanted intrusion into the Atherstone-Online webspace or elsewhere and persists in the way described above, I shall regard it as specific, mischievous, disruptive behaviour with vexatious malice as its only motive.
I will treat it all therefore, as a deliberate campaign to discredit or to slur me.
Derek Pickard
I will take it as a slur if you don't stop saying that I am firefox pickard, the ip addresses are different, not that you have access to them anyway, it's only in your head that that you think I'm am firefox. You've not offered any evidence to back up your slurs.
As for the Aldi plans. When a councillor views the plans he/she has an opportunity to comment. Comments can object completely, be in favour of completely or recommend changes.
The fact that those changes are viewed as comments by the planning department does not mean that those comments do not get took into consideration when the planning department passes the plans, recommends changes or refuses completely, Likewise, as they are only comments it does not mean that they will be took into consideration.
you approve of them as an individual on a public forum, this entitles me to comment on your comments on a public forum.
As a local councillor your comments, for, against , or for changes should NOT be hidden from the public. Therefore it should not be an issue if I ask what your comments were as a councillor. A local councillor should be accountable for his/her decisions, and as votes for the next elections are based partly on actions during this term, my comments are warranted.
There is no reason to ask for posts to be deleted. If you thought the post could be taken by people as saying that you personally have a power to pass or refuse an application then you should point out that you think thats how it could be taken, and point out that you can't. Not ask for posts to be deleted like I'm making wrong accusations.
I never intended any post to imply that though. I know that town council does not pass or refuse planning applications, and as far as I know have never said that they do.
What I have said is that town council can approve of, or disapprove of or recommend change to, or,in whatever words I used at the time, planning applications put before the planning committee of the town council. Therefore you had a chance to comment on the plans, and list anything that you thought should be changed.
I don't know specifically if you objected as a councillor, but you certainly don't as a member of the public, or haven't said that you do. Infact you've openly said that as a member of the public you think the plans are great.
Up until I read your comments on Atherstone online I never considered that a councillor would have a different opinion of something as a member of the public, because that to me is wrong.
ALSO me suggesting that you've got double standards, that is you approve as a member of the public, but not as a councillor, if thats what you did, does not mean I'm saying your involved in illicit activities . I've never to the best of my knowledge said that your involved in any illicitness, or corruption. Show me where I have either said you have taken part in illicitness, or corruption with regards to the Aldi plans and will post to withdraw those allegations.
So therefore the above statement suggesting that is in fact a slur on me and you should therefore delete it.
I think the above statement and asking for posts to be deleted is doing you far more harm than anything I've written.
The above question still stands, did you have any objectionable opinions of the Aldi plans, specifically the design of the building and the alley entrance to long street, as an elected town councillor.
If you didn't just say so, if you did just say so
advisors should be advisor's derek, basic punctuation!
dpickard Posted on: July 10th, 2006, 1:58pm
Supreme Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed the 3rd world - Eat Bono!
Posts: 590
I am posting the following, on advice, quite reluctantly. It is really not acceptable generally, nor legally for people to behave as if their nom de plume excludes them from decent behaviour in public internet correspondence.
Everybody needs to understand that published material is archived and is traceable. This is for the specific purpose of facilitating any criminal or civil action arising from it.
I have seen enough now to convince me and my advisors that what follows is my only reasonable course of action:-
“ Quoted from ohdear, posted July 9th, 2006, 5:47pm at here â€
Weird threads on this forum start out praising Aldi, then, suddenly, it's not teh bees knees, it's just ok.
So you backed it only as a private individual dpickard. You didn't back it as a councillor, you objected to it.
Put like a true councillor es.
I think that everybody here, specifically including the individual named below, should know that Madhatter, Ohdear via Firefox (known personally to me and other members of this board in Atherstone) is operating in a way that invites his reading public to conclude adversely on the motives or actions of myself as a public figure.
The result is that he faces a real risk of civil action brought by me on the nature and effects of his various utterances here and elsewhere with reference to my impeccable record in public service through any of the past 12 years.
If there is something illicit in me publicly specifying approval for any project, as a result of talking to the very people who placed their votes for me over the last 12 years at Atherstone Town Council, perhaps this person, however styled, might say what that is.
Since Atherstone Town Council, my parent authority, neither has power nor responsibility than to do anything but comment on, but not to block fruition of any planning or related request (that power belonging in public service law to NWBC) his remarks are quite improper. Utterances to the contrary, even if possibly based on an inadequate appreciation of either the system or my role within it are neither defensible in law nor courteous in common behaviour.
His comments although unwarranted in fact are potentially damaging to me in both my private and public lives.
If there is the slightest whiff of any behaviour that can be regarded as impropriety on the part of any elected Atherstone Town Council member, then I wish that he would introduce that matter to the NWBC senior Law officer (and designated local monitor of Standards in Public Service) Mr Peter Oliver. Mr Oliver will then be able to take all appropriate action. That is every citizen's right. However,if there is no such intention on the above-mentioned person's part, then he should desist from any further comment.
If, though this individual (aka Madhatter, Ohdear - Firefox) - or anybody connected with him continues unwanted intrusion into the Atherstone-Online webspace or elsewhere and persists in the way described above, I shall regard it as specific, mischievous, disruptive behaviour with vexatious malice as its only motive.
I will treat it all therefore, as a deliberate campaign to discredit or to slur me.
Derek Pickard
I will take it as a slur if you don't stop saying that I am firefox pickard, the ip addresses are different, not that you have access to them anyway, it's only in your head that that you think I'm am firefox. You've not offered any evidence to back up your slurs.
As for the Aldi plans. When a councillor views the plans he/she has an opportunity to comment. Comments can object completely, be in favour of completely or recommend changes.
The fact that those changes are viewed as comments by the planning department does not mean that those comments do not get took into consideration when the planning department passes the plans, recommends changes or refuses completely, Likewise, as they are only comments it does not mean that they will be took into consideration.
you approve of them as an individual on a public forum, this entitles me to comment on your comments on a public forum.
As a local councillor your comments, for, against , or for changes should NOT be hidden from the public. Therefore it should not be an issue if I ask what your comments were as a councillor. A local councillor should be accountable for his/her decisions, and as votes for the next elections are based partly on actions during this term, my comments are warranted.
There is no reason to ask for posts to be deleted. If you thought the post could be taken by people as saying that you personally have a power to pass or refuse an application then you should point out that you think thats how it could be taken, and point out that you can't. Not ask for posts to be deleted like I'm making wrong accusations.
I never intended any post to imply that though. I know that town council does not pass or refuse planning applications, and as far as I know have never said that they do.
What I have said is that town council can approve of, or disapprove of or recommend change to, or,in whatever words I used at the time, planning applications put before the planning committee of the town council. Therefore you had a chance to comment on the plans, and list anything that you thought should be changed.
I don't know specifically if you objected as a councillor, but you certainly don't as a member of the public, or haven't said that you do. Infact you've openly said that as a member of the public you think the plans are great.
Up until I read your comments on Atherstone online I never considered that a councillor would have a different opinion of something as a member of the public, because that to me is wrong.
ALSO me suggesting that you've got double standards, that is you approve as a member of the public, but not as a councillor, if thats what you did, does not mean I'm saying your involved in illicit activities . I've never to the best of my knowledge said that your involved in any illicitness, or corruption. Show me where I have either said you have taken part in illicitness, or corruption with regards to the Aldi plans and will post to withdraw those allegations.
So therefore the above statement suggesting that is in fact a slur on me and you should therefore delete it.
I think the above statement and asking for posts to be deleted is doing you far more harm than anything I've written.
The above question still stands, did you have any objectionable opinions of the Aldi plans, specifically the design of the building and the alley entrance to long street, as an elected town councillor.
If you didn't just say so, if you did just say so
advisors should be advisor's derek, basic punctuation!
