The Newell Files- Nools tools

marino wrote:

Just noticed this,

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=66338&sid=75ed2ffdfde4f4000e1fbf983d700aae

Is this an official Pasoti Statement? It seems a bit weird to put it in the contact the admins forum if it is??

It is also completely out of character compared to anything that I remember that Florrie has posted before. I also note that Mat's name is no longer in mod bold.

I posted this on the data protection thread-

I see Pasoti are trying to play the Data Protection exemption card. I don't think it will wash in a court of law as they are saying they only hold information on members for the membership of the site (user name and email).

So where do the sponsorships, donations, auctions etc come into it where people are giving bank details and home addresses to a Pasoti Moderator operating under the Pasoti forum? Tickets and memorabilia are also sold on the site and details passed by Private Message. Recent events have shown that the Pasoti Private message system is full of holes, and as mentioned on the newellfiles, even PL2 3DQ has accused fellow Mods of hacking pasoti users accounts and reading their PM's. The publishing of PM's is a banning offence, but Newell published (at a guess) 30 Pasoti PM's and has received no ban- so even their own rules are not adhered to.

The final piece on banned users is also false, as several people have been banned from pasoti (including several on here) without any official reason. When enquiries have been made to the pasotimods email no response is given, thus how can the 'banned' user know whether information is held on them or not, especially when they don't feature on pasoti's banned user list or are even given the dignity of a response to their enquiry.

Exempt from data protection my ass!

I hope Tony Chowell looks into this!

Can't see it there now Ali if its the thread. I saw earlier by Florrie Lindley.

Maybe its been deleted

The excuse that Newell provided for putting those files onto his Flickr rings true to me. The only reason to do so would be to get them a URL and the only reason to do that would be to allow them to be posted on a forum otherwise they would just be attached as files to an email. They were stored in a fairly random fashion too. This suggests that each image was stored there for a particular purpose as the need arose. I also think it is fair to assume that he has probably saved just about every screenshot that he has ever thought might prove useful which means that he has copied lots of posts, emails, text messages etc from lots of people so that he can use them should he need to in the future. The fear of blackmail might explain the reticence of the Pasoti mods to kick him out or to ban him. There can be no doubt at all that the instances where people have been banned for far doing less are many and they must be really pissed off at the impression he has created of all of them as either being involved in what he was doing or unable to put a stop it.

Ffarquhar - the Data Protection Exemption thread is still on the admin board (its just going down quickly as there are several queries). JonB (who seems know a bit about the DPA) has stated that Florrie Lindley's last statement about holding details of banned users does not comply with the DPA and he suggests that details are removed after 60 days (and a statement added to the initial joining agreement).

And Mark Pedlar has just made an apparently unequivocal statement to the effect that discussions are taking place that will be shared and will put stop to this in future. Given the "mistake" made already, you can't say any fairer than that.

Also the "I thought they were protected" doesn't stand up. If they were then they couldn't be posted on a forum.

You can have all the data protection you want...

Nothing is going to change in that Pasoti mod room until the likes of Ponty and Posty have been thrown out. Newell and Daz appear to have left (how many times has that happened before) but you can rest assured they can call in favours to their old mates.

Even someone like Mark Pedlar, who when I asked him the reason I was last banned, couldn’t come up with an answer. Only to say he had reviewed the file and that it was “the truth”. Now he is either lying, or too stupid to realize he has been duped.

The pasoti mod room is nothing but a den of plotting schemers.

That whole mod team should be switched out over the next three months to achieve any credibility whatsoever.

It won't happen though.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Ffarquhar - the Data Protection Exemption thread is still on the admin board (its just going down quickly as there are several queries). JonB (who seems know a bit about the DPA) has stated that Florrie Lindley's last statement about holding details of banned users does not comply with the DPA and he suggests that details are removed after 60 days (and a statement added to the initial joining agreement).

Thanks Ali. My mistake.

Rickler wrote:

You can have all the data protection you want...

Nothing is going to change in that Pasoti mod room until the likes of Ponty and Posty have been thrown out. Newell and Daz appear to have left (how many times has that happened before) but you can rest assured they can call in favours to their old mates.

Even someone like Mark Pedlar, who when I asked him the reason I was last banned, couldn’t come up with an answer. Only to say he had reviewed the file and that it was “the truth”. Now he is either lying, or too stupid to realize he has been duped.

The pasoti mod room is nothing but a den of plotting schemers.

That whole mod team should be switched out over the next three months to achieve any credibility whatsoever.

It won't happen though.

And what if an ex mod is still an owner of the website? Do they trump mod admin rights and rulings if they don't agree with something?

anybody thought of sending a freedom of information request. holders of databases HAVE to respond with the requested info by law, any failure to adhere to those requests can be dealt with in a court of law, resulting in a large fine.

is there a postal address for pasoti? Im preparing my foi request, but need an actual (REAL!) address to send it to.

Sneinton Green wrote:

anybody thought of sending a freedom of information request. holders of databases HAVE to respond with the requested info by law, any failure to adhere to those requests can be dealt with in a court of law, resulting in a large fine.

is there a postal address for pasoti? Im preparing my foi request, but need an actual (REAL!) address to send it to.

Try a domain look-up service. www.who.is might shed some light

I presume if the same questions were asked of the mods of ATD then they would have an answer.

Are you asking that then, Pete? The whole ethos of this site is the complete antithesis of how your favourite site has been moderated in the past. Any decisions are justified and the processes are as transparent as they can be within the law, and of course moderators will be elected by the membership of the site? Democratic you see.

Charlie Wood wrote:

Are you asking that then, Pete? The whole ethos of this site is the complete antithesis of how your favourite site has been moderated in the past. Any decisions are justified and the processes are as transparent as they can be within the law, and of course moderators will be elected by the membership of the site? Democratic you see.

I think you should stand in the elections Charlie.It is not the intention for the mods to stay in position for too long, as that in itself can lead to problems.

The current mods will make their personal decisions whether to stand after May 1st . This will probably depend for some, upon who else has come forward. At present we only have one qualifying candidate with a membership of over 3 months and at least a hundred postings.
This message goes out to anyone else who believes in maintaining the style and freedoms offered on ATD.

pilgrim_pete wrote:

I presume if the same questions were asked of the mods of ATD then they would have an answer.

When the day comes that your private details/ private messages are broadcast over the net by a mod on here I will join you in getting to the bottom of the problem and publicising it in the hope of stopping it happening again, until then, don't be such a poodle.

LondonGreen wrote:

Sneinton Green wrote:

anybody thought of sending a freedom of information request. holders of databases HAVE to respond with the requested info by law, any failure to adhere to those requests can be dealt with in a court of law, resulting in a large fine.

is there a postal address for pasoti? Im preparing my foi request, but need an actual (REAL!) address to send it to.

Try a domain look-up service. www.who.is might shed some light

cheers fella

no address for mr gadd on there though, so i'll try another search

Sneinton Green wrote:

LondonGreen wrote:

Sneinton Green wrote:

anybody thought of sending a freedom of information request. holders of databases HAVE to respond with the requested info by law, any failure to adhere to those requests can be dealt with in a court of law, resulting in a large fine.

is there a postal address for pasoti? Im preparing my foi request, but need an actual (REAL!) address to send it to.

Try a domain look-up service. www.who.is might shed some light

cheers fella

no address for mr gadd on there though, so i'll try another search

Why not look on thenewellfiles when they are opened again ?

I was under the impression that FOI only applied to Government and their Departments and agencies?

"We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files"...Mrs. Robinson Simon & Garfunkel.

So the person on Exeweb known as Southampton Gull, SG for short, who had nothing to do with the planting of a virus in Ricklers e-mail account, is defending Porkie's actions now, and thinks whoever created the Newell Files are looking pretty sad themselves as he has done nothing illegal. He also thinks this has been an own-goal on ATD's part!

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?52039-My-posts-being-removed/page3

As my post will almost certainly be removed anytime now, as soon as Newell sees or hears about it as he has unlimited powers even on Exeweb, here are SG's comments:

Originally Posted by Southampton Gull

I've only ever read it occasionally but over the last few days I've taken a look more frequently and to be honest I think most of the Ian haters on there are looking pretty sad. If they think he did something illegal in putting those files on a site accessible to the public then what is the difference between him doing that and those that then highlighted the fact by posting links to them? Own-goal if you ask me. It might have caused him some embarrassment but not much else.

Greenjock wrote:

So the person on Exeweb known as Southampton Gull, SG for short, who had nothing to do with the planting of a virus in Ricklers e-mail account, is defending Porkie's actions now, and thinks whoever created the Newell Files are looking pretty sad themselves as he has done nothing illegal. He also thinks this has been an own-goal on ATD's part!

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?52039-My-posts-being-removed/page3

As my post will almost certainly be removed anytime now, as soon as Newell sees or hears about it as he has unlimited powers even on Exeweb, here are SG's comments:

Originally Posted by Southampton Gull

I've only ever read it occasionally but over the last few days I've taken a look more frequently and to be honest I think most of the Ian haters on there are looking pretty sad. If they think he did something illegal in putting those files on a site accessible to the public then what is the difference between him doing that and those that then highlighted the fact by posting links to them? Own-goal if you ask me. It might have caused him some embarrassment but not much else.

Dave Floyd is a prick and just as bad as Newell. He was the scum who helped try to slur Sturtz by accessing his Facebook photo's. Scum attract scum

The Red Star wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

So the person on Exeweb known as Southampton Gull, SG for short, who had nothing to do with the planting of a virus in Ricklers e-mail account, is defending Porkie's actions now, and thinks whoever created the Newell Files are looking pretty sad themselves as he has done nothing illegal. He also thinks this has been an own-goal on ATD's part!

http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?52039-My-posts-being-removed/page3

As my post will almost certainly be removed anytime now, as soon as Newell sees or hears about it as he has unlimited powers even on Exeweb, here are SG's comments:

Originally Posted by Southampton Gull

I've only ever read it occasionally but over the last few days I've taken a look more frequently and to be honest I think most of the Ian haters on there are looking pretty sad. If they think he did something illegal in putting those files on a site accessible to the public then what is the difference between him doing that and those that then highlighted the fact by posting links to them? Own-goal if you ask me. It might have caused him some embarrassment but not much else.

Dave Floyd is a prick and just as bad as Newell. He was the scum who helped try to slur Sturtz by accessing his Facebook photo's. Scum attract scum

Don't hold back, on here you can tell it like it is

Newell has admitted saving those screenshots on to Flickr so that they could be linked to on the hidden Pasoti admin board. I believe him. He says he thought they were secure. I believe him again. The fact that they weren't proves him to be a complete idiot. What he has not explained in any way at all is why he kept those screenshots in the first place. I saw many posts copied from messageboards that went back as far as 2006. Why did he keep them at all in the first place? The files on Flickr of those 2006 screenshots were created at various times but much more recently than 2006. You could tell this because Flickr's sequential file numbering located them amongst holiday snaps which were dated at various times. That means those images were saved somewhere else until he needed a URL for them. So how could he have known those particular images would be needed? He couldn't. He must have obsessively kept hundreds and hundreds, thousands maybe, of various screenshots just in case they might come in handy. These are the actions of a deeply paranoid man troubled by his own guilty conscience acutely aware that he would need every tool possible to one day dig himself out of a hole of his own creation.

The problem is there was stuff there that was nothing to do with modding Pasoti. The request to hack goes far beyond the pail. The screenshots of people Facebook pages obsessive stalking.