Anyone else had a letter from Philip Ross Solicitors ?.

FES is a business which seems to have attracted some stick because the owner is chummy with the sinister Newell. Although we are honestly loathe to been seen to be censoring anything, we'd ask that people are a bit more sensitive than usual at this time of making any sort of accusations which we cannot firmly back up. It wasn't me that removed the post Jocko, but I'd agree with it. If you think that they are abusing their mandate and have proof of that then you should take it through the relevant channels.

At the moment the letter we've had wasn't really a threat as such, just a request that the post was removed. The post was inflammatory rhetoric with no basis in fact, so we removed it and replied as such. We thought that would be the end of it, but the bigger issue is that Village pops up with this thread and the creepier side to Argyle internet forums has re-surfaced.

Why did FES/the solicitor have the wrong identity?
Who gave them VillageGreen's address details?

Dane. wrote:

What a load of crap. I would throw the letter straight in the bin.

Totally agree

The Red Star wrote:

Dane. wrote:

What a load of crap. I would throw the letter straight in the bin.

Totally agree

Too easy.

Wipe your arse with it then send it back.

But don't pay any postage, they'll then have to pay the postage themselves and all they're paying for is your skids

Yea Man wrote:

The Red Star wrote:

Dane. wrote:

What a load of crap. I would throw the letter straight in the bin.

Totally agree

Too easy.

Wipe your arse with it then send it back.

But don't pay any postage, they'll then have to pay the postage themselves and all they're paying for is your skids

I like your thinking Yea Man.

What a waste of dosh, we could have had a new mural!

Hey Village, auction the letter and put the proceeds in a legal fund

GOB wrote:

Hey Village, auction the letter and put the proceeds in a legal fund

do you think nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk would bid two grand for it?

I feel at the risk of being unpopular that now more than ever we should all watch what we say and think before you press send when it comes to FES and the M7 of new unless what you say is true and can be proved.

We can still fight the good CLEAN fight for the club and fans without saying things that can backfire without proof. We are being watched with the aim of getting this place shut down and silence the growing number of fans unhappy with the M7. We got to be on guard now for a bit.

Angry of Manchester wrote:

I feel at the risk of being unpopular that now more than ever we should all watch what we say and think before you press send when it comes to FES and the M7 of new unless what you say is true and can be proved.

We can still fight the good CLEAN fight for the club and fans without saying things that can backfire without proof. We are being watched with the aim of getting this place shut down and silence the growing number of fans unhappy with the M7. We got to be on guard now for a bit.

I think you're right AoE. There's no need for anything silly, there's plenty enough that the w@nkers do to drop themselves in the shyte without having to add to it.

Yea Man wrote:

VillageGreen wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Village, I would contact Philip Ross, denying you are the poster "Punchdrunk", demand a written apology for distress caused to yourself and ask them to supply you with the details of how they obtained your name and address so that you have the opportunity to take the matter further.

I have done that now.

Dear Sir.

I wish to complain against a threatening letter sent to my address on 23rd March 2013 (Notice and take-down letter under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31EC) .

The letter was regarding damaging comments made on the Plymouth Argyle Talk Democratic thread - ''New Grandstand wish list!?.

Firstly,i do not use the user name of ''punchdrunk'' and secondly,i have not posted any comments on the named thread.

My user name on Plymouth Argyle Talk Democratic is ''VillageGreen'' and i do not use any other user name.

I would like to know how you got hold of my address and/or details and who passed them on to you,so that i can look at taking possible legal action myself for the unwanted attention this has brought me.

I would also like an apology from you in writing.

Good follow up VG.

We can provide you with a complete list of all of your posts made as Village Green if you ever need it.

Cheers for that...

Was the offending post anything to do with the massive 23.4% secured loans that mean if you borrow £5,000 over 7 years you end up paying back £13,154.40, correct as of this website

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And you are reminded that secured loans mean that if you cannot afford to keep up with your payments your home is at risk

I know Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk does a lot of good with his auction purchases, but it's the way it all pans out with Nool pretending to tempt him and Nikkkkkkkkkkk thinking about it, when Nool has said that the auctions are basically a pantomime for Nikkkkkkkk's benefit as he enjoys the theatre of it all.

The fact that he considers Webb and Nool friends and backs the Forza Verde doesn't necessarily make him a bad person, it just makes him a piss poor judge of character.

I find it surprising that a committed trade unionist and an owner of a high interest secured debt loan company would be so close.

He is removed by mods with no class what so ever

Pokesdown wrote:

I find it surprising that a committed trade unionist and an owner of a high interest secured debt loan company would be so close.

Who's the committed trade unionist? Webb's just a fraud in everything he does. He pisses me off because he is such a sham, but I'm willing to wait and see what his reaction is to the stadium plans, if he wasn't in on it all along, because if he's the man many think he is then he will be knocking on Brent's door and telling him it's not good enough, feck their friendship this is in the best interests of the club and it's long term future. If he comes back grinning like a tranquilized chimp as usual and says how great it is then it will just show what some people will do for a title and a AAA pass.

Pasoti do a good line in tracking you down via your IP.

To avoid creating any more work for lawyers, I will confirm that after I posted on Pasoti a few times via a Company laptop, a certain Mr Weeb repeatedly contacted me, threatening to visit my workplace, report me to Directors of the Company I work for, get me the sack etc. etc.

It all just shows how some people react to critisism or indeed to any comments that show a different viewpoint.


On a totally separate topic, I note that the Govt. is to take action against businesses that charge the most desperate people in society, what can only be decribed by any reasonable person as criminal rates of interest.


Should anyone get a letter such as described in the OP, I feel it should be replied to thus:

Dear Sir,

I am in the smallest room in my house. Your letter is in front of me, shortly, it will be behind me.

Yours etc.

can any of the sharpest legal minds on here please clarify something for me please? If (note the if) I call the unknown (on this site) username Nikkkk a cnut, is that against any civil or criminal law?

To be fair to Nikk if someone had told a pile of crap about him then he was dead right to do what he done, nobody should pass criticism on him for that.

Also, every time someone voices a pile of crap on here it doesn't do this site, the Club or the fans any favors, it simply diminishes the truth when it's told and cast doubt on fact. Because of this it will be that much easier for those that want to diminish the site to do so and, ATD is today less credible than it was yesterday undoing a hell of a lot of good work and helping to bring the truth to the Argyle world, that's a shame.

The issue here is not Nikk, it's how the personal information was gained.

GOB wrote:

To be fair to Nikk if someone had told a pile of crap about him then he was dead right to do what he done, nobody should pass criticism on him for that.

Also, every time someone voices a pile of crap on here it doesn't do this site, the Club or the fans any favors, it simply diminishes the truth when it's told and cast doubt on fact. Because of this it will be that much easier for those that want to diminish the site to do so and, ATD is today less credible than it was yesterday undoing a hell of a lot of good work and helping to bring the truth to the Argyle world, that's a shame.

The issue here is not Nikk, it's how the personal information was gained.

I do agree with you gob like I said at the beginning of this thread how the fefing hell did the solicitor get villagegreens address that is a more worrying concern. If it was me I would push this as far as I could legally of course with the help of a good solicitor. Fight fire with fire.

Bollocks - I've got to go to work. I was just going to get the popcorn out and sit through this thread all night.

Pokesdown wrote:

can any of the sharpest legal minds on here please clarify something for me please? If (note the if) I call the unknown (on this site) username Nikkkk a cnut, is that against any civil or criminal law?

I ain't the former, but know the latter to be a criminal offence. Probably.

There's been a lot of prosecutions regarding this sort of online behaviour, driven largely by political angst.

That said, there is some polictical activity that may see the related offences a smidge more difficult to commit - that such behaviour will have to be seen as 'abusive', not just 'insulting'. It hasn't happened yet though.

Pokesdown wrote:

can any of the sharpest legal minds on here please clarify something for me please? If (note the if) I call the unknown (on this site) username Nikkkk a cnut, is that against any civil or criminal law?

Use of foul and abusive language is a criminal offence, the usage cnut could certainly be constured as abusive, the CPS have brought some seriously tenuous cases for abuse which have resulted in some dopey generally young people doing some time, properly appealed, that is to say all the way to Strasbourg, would most certainly result in the convictions being quashed, it is ridiculous to suggest that some knobber gobbing off on an internet site deserves to be jailed and a less celebrity centric form of law would recognise that.

Now the chances of a criminal case being brought for such an action are pretty bloody remote, the half arse wankers who run the CPS love a bit of high profile spunking of the public cash but such low level abuse of an abstraction on a site with at most 4 people and a dachshund called Colin watching really isn't their bag. The problem that is developing and which may well shortly be enshrined in law is the right of the individual to bring a civil action by requiring site owners to divvy up your details, the shysters will be all over this like they have been the accident compo scene, except in the case of defamation with the absence of legal aid or an insured defendant all the work will be reserved for the firms who can get into the prawn sammidge brigade as such cases will have to be self funded with few judges likely to award serious costs.

There is a possible upside in an attempt to give us the kind of freedom of speech the Yanks have although I am not certain this would be a particularly good thing with the number of key boards in the hands of utter fook'tards.

Two major things, the plaintiff would have to show that substantial damage or distress had been caused by an untruth and that there was some degree of malice involved.

One thing which is consistently overlooked by the generally weak ass owners of web forums is that they bear no responsibility for what individuals post, certainly they can be expected to remove offensive posts on a timely basis when advised but that is not obligatory, they could always show some backbone where the nature of the post could be considered to have some merit or be in the public interest.

Hope this has been of some use.

Grovehill wrote:

Pasoti do a good line in tracking you down via your IP.

To avoid creating any more work for lawyers, I will confirm that after I posted on Pasoti a few times via a Company laptop, a certain Mr Weeb repeatedly contacted me, threatening to visit my workplace, report me to Directors of the Company I work for, get me the sack etc. etc.

It all just shows how some people react to critisism or indeed to any comments that show a different viewpoint.


On a totally separate topic, I note that the Govt. is to take action against businesses that charge the most desperate people in society, what can only be decribed by any reasonable person as criminal rates of interest.


Should anyone get a letter such as described in the OP, I feel it should be replied to thus:

Dear Sir,

I am in the smallest room in my house. Your letter is in front of me, shortly, it will be behind me.

Yours etc.

How could Webb get details of your work when he isn't a Pasoti mod, which would still have been illegal, unless one of the Pasoti mods divulged your details to him, also illegal.

To say that these people are feckin scumbags that hanging is too good for is an understatement in my book.

A cnut isn't offensive, it's not even a word ffs!

Things are getting out of hand !!

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

can any of the sharpest legal minds on here please clarify something for me please? If (note the if) I call the unknown (on this site) username Nikkkk a cnut, is that against any civil or criminal law?

Use of foul and abusive language is a criminal offence, the usage cnut could certainly be constured as abusive, the CPS have brought some seriously tenuous cases for abuse which have resulted in some dopey generally young people doing some time, properly appealed, that is to say all the way to Strasbourg, would most certainly result in the convictions being quashed, it is ridiculous to suggest that some knobber gobbing off on an internet site deserves to be jailed and a less celebrity centric form of law would recognise that.

Now the chances of a criminal case being brought for such an action are pretty bloody remote, the half arse wankers who run the CPS love a bit of high profile spunking of the public cash but such low level abuse of an abstraction on a site with at most 4 people and a dachshund called Colin watching really isn't their bag. The problem that is developing and which may well shortly be enshrined in law is the right of the individual to bring a civil action by requiring site owners to divvy up your details, the shysters will be all over this like they have been the accident compo scene, except in the case of defamation with the absence of legal aid or an insured defendant all the work will be reserved for the firms who can get into the prawn sammidge brigade as such cases will have to be self funded with few judges likely to award serious costs.

There is a possible upside in an attempt to give us the kind of freedom of speech the Yanks have although I am not certain this would be a particularly good thing with the number of key boards in the hands of utter fook'tards.

Two major things, the plaintiff would have to show that substantial damage or distress had been caused by an untruth and that there was some degree of malice involved.

One thing which is consistently overlooked by the generally weak ass owners of web forums is that they bear no responsibility for what individuals post, certainly they can be expected to remove offensive posts on a timely basis when advised but that is not obligatory, they could always show some backbone where the nature of the post could be considered to have some merit or be in the public interest.

Hope this has been of some use.

Sorry Tis,

I wonder if you're quoting American law, not British.

In the UK the 'operator of the site' assumes responsibility for the material that appears. The operators of a moderated site attract more responsibility again.