Is it me?

Hi All
Just having my regular look arround, and is it me , or have a number of topics and posts been removed ?

26 Comments

  1. Legaleaglet says:

    Hi,
    A couple of topics (threads) got removed because they were no longer relevant, the rest are still in place as they were, comments and all.

  2. peterbard says:

    Oh I see them now. I had a problem navigating this forum, my fault. not the most computer savvy person in the world.
    I was going to make a post on the various, “stabbed in the back” type threads, being a new member of the club, In retrospect it is probably as will I didn’t .

  3. Legaleaglet says:

    There is now a tag cloud on the sidebar. Clicking on a tag will show all posts tagged under that topic.

  4. BillK says:

    “Et tu, Petrus ?” I’m sorry to hear that you appear to have been betrayed by those whom you trusted. As one who speaks his mind in no uncertain terms, you will of course have made enemies – but to have been betrayed by those whom you considered as confidants can be doubly distressing.

    Do at least take some comfort in the general consensus that those who live by the sword – die by the sword.

  5. peterbard says:

    Hi Bill Hows the numbers game. I have missed your intelligence and humour.

    Yes I am usually pretty fair at spotting a wrong-un Bill, you may remember me making a “thing “of the way LB was going, long before any of the recent shenanigans came to pass.
    However i was taken in by the sob stories, like everyone else who encountered this individual and like many ignored the evidence. I eventually came to my senses when i found that my confidential rambling were being shared in order to provide succor to someone who would do me harm.

    Poor bard I hear you say. None of it. I am as fine as frogs hair, as someone once said(i am sure they must have).

  6. peterbard says:

    Hi Bill Hows the numbers game? I have missed your intelligence and humour.

    Yes I am usually pretty fair at spotting a wrong-un Bill, you may remember me making a “thing “of the way LB was going, long before any of the recent shenanigans came to pass.
    However i was taken in by the sob stories. Like everyone else who encountered this individual and like many ignored the evidence. I eventually came to my senses when i found that my confidential rambling were being shared in order to provide succor to someone who would do me harm.

    Poor bard I hear you say. None of it. I am as fine as frogs hair, as someone once said(i am sure they must have).

    • Mark says:

      Morning Peter

      Just a few points here. Firstly, you are rarely, if right about anything, let alone spotting a wrong un. Your sucking up to the biggest wrong un of them all is testament to that and quite frankly, embarrassing for you.

      I’m not sure what “confidential ramblings” you refer to but perhaps you’d care to elaborate in order to afford me/him the opportunity to challenge these accusations. I’ve never been forwarded any of your emails by anyone. Can you say the same about the biggest wrong un of them all regarding her forwarding my emails to you? You’ve even come out on this very site claiming to have read them all-Or was just that just another of your “white lies” because you were angry.

      Regarding his current “associates”, this adds up to me alone. I don’t think he has any other friends on BHF, so all this nonsense is, in true Bard style, exaggerated crap. You have far too much of an obsession with an “us and them” thing. It doesn’t have to be like that at all and like minded people from any forum are perfectly entitled to be friendly with each other without fear of retribution from a bully like you. This is exactly what happened though isn’t it Peter? As soon as you found out about what was effectively occasional emails and telephone conversations, you turned on him. Every post you made to him was a swipe or a snide dig. What did you expect? Him to just take it? For me, it just showed the true Bard as the nasty, uncaring person that many know him to be. Did he really deserve your vitriolic outbursts and sarcasm on the back of something like 3 emails and two telephone conversations with me, in a period of around 4 months?

      Why would these actions affect others? What is the harm in it and why should he not speak with someone just because the domineering Mrs H says so? What harm was it to you that a handful of emails and a couple of phone calls took place? You feel the need to continually tell people that you are never wrong because deep down, you know that you usually are-That is what this is about isn’t it Peter? I’ve shown you up publicly to be the ill educated fool that you are. Everything else is incidental. Why would I want to do you harm? You are no threat to me-I actually feel sorry for you, your quality of life must be poor and your lack of intelligence is clearly something that haunts you. To me, you are a clown, one of the highlights of the net and I always look out for your posts but please don’t think I’d do you harm, I’m not Mrs H you know?

      Quite why you’ve chosen this forum to use as a platform for your own pathetic agenda is another example of your selfish ways. You haven’t given this forum a second glance for months yet the minute you want to air a grievance publicly, you are straight here like a shot. Put the violins away, you sorry excuse of a man, nobody cares. Start acting like a man, not a child. Your pack mentality style has been rumbled, your schoolboy/teacher relationship with JK is telling of the person that you are. Most importantly, stop your “them and us” obsession, it is a battle you are never going to win-Nobody is even bothered with your anti BHF threads anymore, we have far bigger fish to fry than worry about a grubby man and his domineering mistress and a few worthless posts on CAG.

      • peterbard says:

        Mark, what is it with you.

        You seem to accuse others of what you yourself do, Does this post not indicate all the things you accuse me of, bullying ranting being uneducated*(whatever you man by that) and all the other stuff.

        I will not discuss my confidential conversations with you for two reasons mark, one you would have already been told them, and two they are confidential.

        As far a I remember mark it was only a month ago that you were saying the exact same things about this person, ust because you have found a service he can provide you with, and you can pressurise him into performing by stopping abuse on the cesspit , does not alter his character however it does do yours no favours.

        Now isn’t this the kind of argumentative post that the team here said they would remove if I made it, so ok lets see if you were sincere please remove all potentially offensive posts including my responses. lets see if this applies all ways.

      • Flaming Parrot says:

        There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding going on here, it was actually ME who put up a post about being betrayed by the person in question, when I found out my emails had been leaked to all and sundry, people who were not even supposed to be in good terms with the individual in question, at least on the surface. As ever, you just can’t tell. FYI, private communications discussing very personal issues were used against me, and other people got involved. It wasn’t just a bit of forum banter, it was all a lot more official than that.

        Peter did not choose this forum for his own agenda, I chose to come and post up here when I found out what had been going on. Peter was just wondering what had happened to the post I’d made and that’s where all this started. I can’t see Peter saying anything about you, it’s someone completely different he was referring to, when he said he was wrong about that person. It wasn’t you, or any of the people you mention above.

        Actually, you seem to have chosen this platform to air your grievances about something that’s got nothing to do with the issues posted up on here, none whatsoever.

  7. BillK says:

    You’re very kind, Peter – I miss your direct forum comments. If I may, I would consider you to be the Dennis Skinner of the forums – and I try to remain on good terms terms with you for exactly that reason !!! I do believe that you are in better health these days, as compared to that which you were enduring when we last spoke privately. The term “Rude Health” may well be appropriate – and I do hope it is !!!

    Indeed, you were perhaps the first to openly declare “I smell a rat” in LB when Her Ladyship decided that linking the forum with her newly-found (but oh so short-lived) ‘career’ in a solicitor’s office would be a jolly jape. The softies like myself gave her the benefit of doubt, and you were the sole ‘voice in the wilderness’ who of course had to be silenced. I would go as far as to suggest that you were in fact the ‘founder member’ of the Legal Allsorts’ Ban Club.

    Likewise with another rat, I was a ‘softie’ who was taken in by well-woven stories. In that case, it appears that you were also ‘suckered,’ but let’s face it – this guy was a true professional who also managed to ‘sucker’ the CONsumer Champion herself. I guess it was a ‘Clash of the Titans,’ where the adage “You can’t con a con-man” became the ultimate challenge. There was no winner of that battle, though – because both ‘Titans’ were found to be no more than deluded twerps in the fulness of time.

    “Poor Bard” you do NOT hear me say, sir !!! I know you are ‘doin’ OK,’ guv’nor by posting in here – but I DO empathise with you in that I share your sense of betrayal.

    IMHO, the real victims of all this are those who still entrust the Barely Legal Beagles with their financial (and general) well-being – and are being betrayed on a daily basis.

    • Flaming Parrot says:

      Glad to see you around, Peter. :)

      Having also got suckered quite badly, I can fully relate to this situation. The one thing that still baffles me is WHY? It’s easy to understand people doing things for personal gain, however, in this case none of it ever made any sense, there was nothing to be gained. Nothing to be gained from all the tall tales and the lies, nor from leaking private communications to third parties who probably just had a good laugh. The leaked communications were used to attempt to harm people who had previously offered their full support to the leaker in his hour of need, absolutely disgraceful and what did the leaker get out of it all? Nothing whatsoever!

    • peterbard says:

      Hi Bill

      Yes I feel fine, eating and drinking normally, in fact a bit too normally if I am honest. It is the 1 year anniversary of my new kidney on the 29th. We are aware of it but tend not to celebrate(this was my second transplant), my good news is borne of someone else’s devastation, so the occaision always brings about mixed emotions.
      I had a look at LB yesterday, a smorgasbord for Kate and crew it seems to me, the less tasty morsels being left to the Briggs tender mercies.

    • Mark says:

      Peter-I have not said anything derogatory about this person for around 2 years, not 2 months. Just because you only discovered around Xmas time, doesn’t mean that it started there.

      You need to really understand that not everybody takes this stuff as seriously as you and Mrs H. I have no need or desire for anyone to “provide me with a service” on the internet. You really do need to comprehend that not everyone is as obsessed with the pathetic flame wars as you two. I see it as a bit of fun, nothing more and I certainly don’t want or need others to post on my behalf-I get my kicks by winding you up personally, it wouldn’t be half as much fun if others did it on my behalf.

      As for it being an argumentative post, you are the one who came here to use the site for your own agenda, sneakily trying to connect it to LB in order to justify it.

    • Mark says:

      And FYI Peter said:

      “in order to provide succor to someone who would do me harm”

      That is mentioning me-Suggesting I would do him harm. He is my entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a lie to suggest I would do him harm. Peter deals in lies on a daily basis. When these lies concern me, I will address them.

      Peter has also (continually) suggested that the other person is posting on CAG under my instruction. This is a fantasy that Peter has going on inside that tiny mind of his. It is incorrect and again references back to me. Whenever Peter posts this crap, I will address it. Does he think I am as petty minded as him and that I’m that bothered about internet posts that I’d ask others to post on my behalf?

      Peter also suggested that I’d been privy to some of his confidential ramblings. I haven’t. This is just another of Peters pipedreams and it is noteworthy that he declined my offer to elaborate on this nonsense. If he’s not bothered about it then why go out of the way to post several messages about it?

      And regarding not being on good terms with people, it was actually common knowledge on BHF, I just didn’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops on the open forum

      I would suggest that the above is all very relevant to the subject and as I am getting dragged into this with lies, I will respond. Don’t mention me & I won’t post on here simple as that. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in LB.

      • Flaming Parrot says:

        It is YOUR interpretation that the reference was to you, there was no mention of you in any way, shape or form. I was going to agree with Peter in terms of the person we are referring to, leaking stuff to “people who would do me harm”. He certainly did, the leaked emails WERE used to try to do me harm and some even got other people involved. None of them were you, or had anything to do with you. No-one reading the statement about people who would do harm would have thought about you, I certainly didn’t think it referred to you at all, I didn’t think you could do any real harm to Peter to start with.

        It was all posted in a completely different context and I have to wonder what prompted the person in question to leak the stuff in the first place.

        You were not mentioned and this site appears to be aimed largely at discussing LB.

    • Mark says:

      And while we’re on the subject of misunderstanding, Peter is coming on here like he is some sort of victim in all this. Lets set out the chronological version of events:

      Peter discovers that I speak with someone who posts on CAG
      Peter then singles this person out for the Peter treatment-Sarcasm, abuse, bullying & insults
      Peter then claims he’s been betrayed after doing “so much” for the other person
      Peter actually did the square root of fcuk all for the other person
      I highlight a couple of things on BHF
      All of a sudden, I’m receiving confidential ramblings.
      Peter was mistaken. Peter doesn’t care about that though-Any excuse to bully and abuse another poster is what Peter craves
      Peter then comes on here with his usual brand of bullsh#yt portraying himself as a victim

      Peter is a bully-He gets thread after thread locked on CAG and has been frequently banned for this behaviour over the years

      • Flaming Parrot says:

        Mark, did you read what I posted earlier? Peter DIDN’T come here to post about being betrayed to start with, it was ME. I even put my name to the post so there would be no mistake. It had nothing to do with CAG or BHF.

        Later on, Peter just asked what had happened to the post I had made, because he couldn’t find it, then he said he’d had a similar experience with the person I was referring to, without mentioning CAG, BHF or yourself.

        I DID do quite a bit for the person in question, I went out of my way to try and stop the posts made about him on various blogs and forums and spent HOURS trying to convince his detractors that he was telling the truth. I also pulled a few strings behind the scenes. I didn’t post up the full narrative anywhere, so neither you, nor most people would know the full facts. For all we know, Peter may have gone through something similar.

  8. peterbard says:

    Hi FP

    I think a lot of it is approval as strange as it sounds. That and the grass is always greener syndrome.
    I think the gain would be no more than a pat on the head, particularly if he feels he is being ignored by his current associates.
    That, and being completely unconscious and or not caring of how his actions effect others.
    My critics often say to me sardonically”oh and you are never wrong are you?”, and they are right i never am, LOL.
    But boy was I ever wrong about this guy, I dont know why because all the sign’s where there, I just thought i new better, there goes my reputation.

    • Flaming Parrot says:

      Hi Peter,
      I can say exactly the same, not only were all the bright, flashing neon signs there, everyone was also screaming: “lies, lies and more lies”. I was even presented with some rather conclusive evidence of back stabbing in B&W, yet I still refused to believe it could be true. I kept believing in Santa, even when Santa had had his red costume and false beard removed more than once.

      That’s a funny way to seek approval, more likely to have the opposite effect. He seems to have lost whatever “associates” he may have had. He will, no doubt, be busy making new acquaintances who won’t have heard any of this.

  9. Interested Party says:

    Hiya Peter
    I remember you well from LB days and your many, many usernames. Oh the times I knew it was you and kept quiet lol
    So glad to hear that you are doing ok, my friend had a new kidney 18 months ago, donated from his brother, they are both doing great so far, fingers, toes and everything crossed.
    If you want to post on my ‘stabbed in the back’ threads, feel free, the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned, mind you if anything descends into a ‘heated debate’ then the blog owners reserve the right to delete them.

  10. peterbard says:

    Hi
    Yes it is a wonderful gift to give. Mine all wanted to do this also, but they all have their own kids and it is surgery after all, I wouldn’t allow it.
    My wife went for the run up , basically because she could care less what i say.

    She had a slight defect in one of hers so she couldn’t anyway, she is absolutely fine but not transplant material. The good thing is that she got a complete MOT out of the experience.

    18 months is considered a success well 12 months is, there is always set backs, it is a matter of getting the rejection therapy cocktail correct in the early months. I am sure he will be fine.
    They do between seven and nine at MRI every week, a different world to when had my first in 85. 98% success rate now just over 40% back then. Anyway doing really well at the moment, some problems associated with the length of time i was on home dialysis, and getting old of course.

    Wash your mouth out “heated” debate , noo you are thinking of someone else. Yes I am very poor at hiding my identity, I have a “unique spelling technique” which generally gives the game away.

  11. peterbard says:

    Hi
    I was nosying arround on there earlier, i randomly check up on my old threads under various user names, this is the only one that seems to be still quite busy. I noticed that the updated information had an error, so logged on and asked “rOb” to correct it. Only a minor error, but he corrected it in good grace. He is actually doing a bank up job on there(damn his eyes).

    As you say we all contributed to make the site a success, you and others, all those posts Bill and the hundreds of hours working on reports to the FOS and calculating redress on for hundreds of members..

    Yet all this was it seems was just a business strategy. If you thought about it for to long you would be reaching for the santex.

  12. peterbard says:

    Thank you site team, much better :)

Leave a Reply

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