Double standards

FreeSpeech

One thing that can be gleamed from the Beagles’ behaviour is that they have double standards, and that applies pretty much to everything.

Example One: Beagle Leaks

Some of the Ban Club members were accused/suspected of leaking information and those suspicions were enough for the Beagles to decide to get rid of the suspects, without further investigation. Clearly leaking information is something the Beagles are very much against, unless they are the recipients of the leaked information.

The Beagles always welcome tidbits of information and they do use it in various ways. They do not hesitate to turn the leaked information to their advantage, and have even been known to twist and distort the contents of private communications between parties that did not involve them, beyond recognition, and attempt to use these communications against those people who have fallen from grace.

Example Two: Contributors

As per comments posted on this thread, when a poster highlighted the fact that Their Nemesis never read not only what the OPs and other posters write, but not even his own posts, which are often full of typos and various mistakes, Kate’s response was that it was preferable to have contributors who post with typos rather than no contributors. A very laudable attitude, was it not for the fact that a number of contributors were banned for personal and political reasons that didn’t even have anything to do with the quality or content of their posts.

In other words, when it comes to Their Favourites, they take the view that all is forgiven because everyone is a volunteer giving their time freely to help others and they really appreciate their contributions. When it comes to people they dislike or clash with, for whatever reason, then it’s clearly preferable not to have volunteers giving their time freely to help posters than to have on board people who may challenge them or may be friends with the wrong crowd from their perspective.

Example three: Procedures

The Beagles have set out procedures to be followed in certain cases, for example, if someone wishes to complain about the site content, they have detailed what to do and what they can be expected to do about the complaint. They require the complainant to send an email to their admin email address and provide details of the complaint being made. All well and good and pretty much in keeping with the way most sites would handle similar matters. Only when it comes to them submitting their own complaints, then they don’t see fit to follow their own procedure of sending an email via the website to start with. Instead, they take a heavy-handed approach, involving private investigators and solicitors from Day One!

It’s OK for their site to be used as a platform to criticise and discredit a variety of individuals, businesses and organisations. Financial institutions, law firms, debt and claims management companies, other forums, debt purchasers and DCAs, bailiff companies, etc. You name it, they have been the subject of criticism and discredit on Legal Beagles, not necessarily by the Beagles themselves, but certainly by various posters. Nothing new here, most consumer forums are used as a place where people can have their say. They have now set up a sister ratings and comparison site, presumably that will mean the companies featured on there will be reviewed and rated positively or negatively. Nothing wrong with that, only when it comes to criticism, they’ve shown they just can’t take any themselves.

13 Comments

  1. Dignity says:

    If Nick Spooner had done certain things that he’s done to some people to me, I would have reported him to the police.

    Not that I would expect the police to do much but is it ok for Spooner to film someone without permission, for example?

  2. BillK says:

    I’m not sure what the law is regarding filming without permission, Dignity. These days, the World and his wife have cameras in their smart-phones – so everybody gets filmed one way or another. I would think that the illegality is with the purpose of the film, and what the film is eventually used for. I believe the Terrorism Act covered some of the illegal uses, and I myself was once told (wrongly) by a couple of coppers that it was illegal to film coppers hiding behind a wall with a speed gun. It was not, and I later produced photos in court to defend a speeding ticket ! However, had I intended to use them for any other purpose, I may have well been acting illegally. Likewise with filming kids school concerts/sports/parties etc. This is often banned by schools to protect them and the kids from the dangers of internet paedophilia – but is not in itself illegal as far as I understand. However, if it is used for anything other than personal family memorabilia – then that use could well be illegal.

    If Mr Snooper films an event, then his reason for doing so must be the sole criterion in determining its legality. The use of the footage is what I believe defines this – so using it for blackmail or harrassment purposes is obviously illegal. But also publishing the footage or even sharing it with anyone without good reason is probably also illegal – as, I would also think, is putting copies of it up for sale. Obviously this would include offering to sell the footage to the subject of the video for a price – which would make a good case for blackmail, I reckon !!!

    • Flaming Parrot says:

      I spoke to someone who told me exactly what you say above. Attempting to sell the video in the sense of “selling the negatives” in the olden days of film photography would amount to extortion, as it would be within the context of “if you pay me £xxx, the evidence will disappear”. However, in this case the offer clearly states “a copy” so it’s just an attempt at profiteering rather than blackmail.

      Filming may not be illegal as such but, as you say, it all depends on what the footage is used for. In this case, it was apparently to establish that correspondence had been hand delivered. What’s wrong with asking for a signature in the conventional way? The whole thing was heavy-handed and intimidatory. :(

  3. BillK says:

    I think that getting a signature upon delivery is pretty well established as the normal method of confirmation of delivery these days. Just about every courier or delivery firm these days uses electronic PDA-type gizmos to get an electronic signature when confirmation is needed. Occasionally when legal documents are served, there is a requirement for a second person to witness their formal service – but I have not heard of such service being video-taped as proof of delivery.

    I therefore think it is quite clear that the primary purpose of the video was to intimidate the recipient at the point of delivery, and that obtaining proof of delivery by this method was not the real reason for video-taping it. As FP says:-

    What’s wrong with asking for a signature in the conventional way? The whole thing was heavy-handed and intimidatory.

    …and illegal, in my opinion.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Occasionally when legal documents are served, there is a requirement for a second person to witness their formal service – but I have not heard of such service being video-taped as proof of delivery.

      The need to witness service of legal documents arises from the fact that people may not want to be served with them and may attempt to refuse service. There is no lawful way to force people to either sign in wet ink or scribble on an electronic gadget, hence the need to witness service. As previously posted, the witness statement of the process server would then be used in proceedings as evidence of service.

      I’ve not heard of video evidence used in court in this way and all this would only be applicable if the documents in question were actually legal papers used in the course of proceedings. Hand delivery of documents is lawful and was used much more in the days before email became widespread, to ensure swift delivery of important documents. However, just because a document is hand delivered, that doesn’t make it a “legal” document, not does it increase its relevance or importance. If you have the mean$, you can send a holiday postcard by courier to the recipient, it would still be a holiday postcard. The way in which the item is delivered does not alter the nature of the item.

      One reason legal documents cannot be served by email is because there is no way to establish that the documents were actually received. You could have someone standing behind you, witnessing (and filming) you sending the email, that would only prove the email was sent but not that it reached the recipient. However, almost everything else can be sent by email.

  4. revenge says:

    Yep I agree Bill and FP this is totally unacceptable behaviour.

    Well they have not pulled the site down and also have still not shown any clear reason to do so. This site is here to stay whether they like it or not.

  5. grimreaper says:

    Hear Hear Revenge. And I agree with all Bill K has said. As I understand it any “filming” has to be used for lawful purposes only and using it as leverage as in the case under discussion amounts to extortion. In a local case here, minors from the local council estate were creating havoc by throwing apples, stolen from a local garden at busy traffic including motorcyclists which included one serious accident. the Police sat in my lounge  claiming they could not act because there was no definitive evidence only a number of eye witness statements. When questioned about using photographs I was told we would all be arrested as suspected paedophiles if these children were filmed or photographed on a public highway and the pictures submitted as the evidence they, the police and CPS required to proceed. A catch 22 situation but the principle is clear I think.

  6. BillK says:

    We had a similar problem here with kids, GR – and the police said that identification of the kids was essential. When I asked about installing CCTV, I was told that any camera used must only be able to ‘see’ within our property, and not out into the street. Wrong. The Information Commissioner states that a camera may ‘see’ into the street if the owner/operator registers with the ICO as a Data Controller – which costs just £35 per year as I recall. Individual police officers cannot be expected to know the Law from top to bottom – but if they are to assume the role of advisors, then they should not pretend that they do – as that is an abuse of their assumed position. Nemesis please take note – and those who knowingly allow him to constantly give bad advice in Legal Beagles.

    I therefore believe that filming anyone outside of one’s own property comes under the Data Protection Act, and to do so for any reason other than for private and personal use requires the operator to be registered by the ICO for that purpose. The Crown Prosecution Service also states here: http://www.nullrefer.com/?http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/data_protection/
    “If a person has obtained personal information illegally it is an offence to offer or to sell personal information. Section 55(3) makes the contravention of section 55(1) a criminal offence.” So whoever shot the footage needs to be ICO registered to do so, and if they ever dare offer to sell that footage, they need to be doubly sure that they can do so legally.

    As revenge has said, we’re still here. Still guarding the rights of those who are being thrown to the dogs by a forum that is too busy trying to silence its critics than to bother with anything so trivial as people’s ‘rights.’ As I’ve said before, Legal Beagles are quick to claim ‘bragging rights’ at every opportunity and blow their trumpet loudly – but when it comes to answering criticism, their silence condemns them, because they are clearly unable to defend the indefensible.
    They have an open (and constantly re-stated) invitation to speak up for themselves in this forum, and yet their only effort has been one LB Team Member who made no attempt at answering the criticism whatsoever – other than by inane remarks. Their way of dealing with criticism has been to do all they can to silence their critics – and to do so by fair means or foul, as fairness means nothing to them. It’s the same cowardly way they have always dealt with anything or anybody they disagree with, but this time they are up against decent and principled people – and we ain’t going nowhere.

    • Flaming Parrot says:

      Indeed, Bill, the “consumer champions” have adopted a rather heavy-handed approach to the whole thing. They don’t seem to believe in practising what they preach, such as following a process to submit complaints similar to what they have posted on their own website. The average LB poster they aim to help can’t afford to hire private investigators, send couriers armed with video cameras or instruct solicitors every time they spot something they don’t like. That privilege belongs to those who have the mean$ to pay for such luxurie$ while the rest of us have to use the money for food and bills. It’s an uneven playing field, akin to getting a 16 year old to run against a five year old. A school wouldn’t allow it, neither should LB.

  7. Interested Party says:

    I’ll tell you about Double Standards, how about those who at the beginning of LB professed to fight hard on behalf of the consumer, changed at the drop of a hat to laughing when they heard that someone had lost their job at the hands of an alleged friend of theirs.

  8. Dignity says:

    It is crystal clear that Nick Spooner has crossed the line.

    Why don’t so many people realise that it is Mr Spooner who is the real owner of LB? Without his cash the site would have been closed down a long time ago!

     

    Kate and Shazza are just muppet show puppets and neither of them have shown to have real legal knowledge. Some of Kate’s template letters actually acknowledge debt unnecessarily. I thought she was smarter than that!

     

  9. Dignity says:

    Let’s sum up what Old Fart has been up to over the last couple of years.

    He reported a consumer forum to FCA. Whilst this was seen as an LB operation (which it was of course) Spooner was the one who actually contacted the authorities.

    He is believed recently to have hired a private investigator to intimidate the person who he believes is behind this site. Furthermore, it is my understanding that he’s hired solicitors in order to silence us!

    Is he normal?

  10. Interested Party says:

    About as normal as someone who is ‘allegedly’ obsessed with chucking good money after bad at a now almost defunct site, as normal as someone who ‘allegedly’ pay’s to have someone rock up on a bike, dressed in leathers to ‘hand’ a dodgy letter over whilst ‘allegedly’ paying for someone else to film the process, as normal as someone who years ago ‘allegedly’ paid for a wreath to be sent to the now ‘infamous’ Angela Knight then get questioned about it by the old bill, as normal as someone who is up at silly o’clock watching this blog, then keeping an eye on it all day.

    Yep, is that normal ……..

    Morning Nick by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *