Metal thieves lead to chaos on railway
9:10am Monday 14th November 2011 in News
METAL thefts have been blamed for hundreds of cancelled trains which run in and out of Swindon.
The figures, released by First Great Western, reveal that the company has suffered 117 cable thefts this year alone, causing a staggering 381 trains to be cancelled and resulting in delays adding up to 36,800 minutes.
In contrast, in 2009, just 13 journeys had to be abandoned after 61 incidents, the company told an inquiry by a committee of MPs.
Now a four-point plan to curb the growing trade in stolen metal will be considered by the Government, where ministers will decide whether to crack down hard on scrap-metal dealers who sell stolen signalling cable, following pleas from police and MPs across the country.
Network Rail has described how gangs repeatedly sever the cable ducting with an axe and roll up hundreds of metres of the wire, which they pile into the back of a pick-up truck.
The growing problem has been blamed on a sharp rise in the price of copper on world markets, combined with lax controls on scrap-metal dealers who buy the stolen cable from thieves.
Under existing legislation, the dealers must simply obtain a permit from the Environment Agency and register with their local authority to begin working in the industry.
Now the Local Government Association has put forward a four-point plan, which would: l Ban cash payments, so people who sell scrap metal can be traced more easily, l Require licences to be renewed on an annual basis l Install CCTV with automatic number plate recognition in scrap yards l Require scrap dealers to keep a detailed log of people from whom they buy metal.
South Swindon MP Robert Buckland said he was lobbying the Government to introduce new legislation.
Commenting on those who steal from railways, he said: “They’re endangering their lives and they’re endangering the lives of rail users.
“If they’re caught either stealing or handling stolen goods, they should be dealt with severely.
“I know, indeed, the courts take a dim view of this sort of behaviour.
“And there’s a strong public interest in individuals caught indulging in this being dealt with severely by the courts.
“It’s not just the inconvenience, it’s the danger to life and limb.”
Comments(122)
robertfm
says...
9:30am Mon 14 Nov 11
I 2 Could B
says...
9:47am Mon 14 Nov 11
"And there’s a strong public interest in individuals caught indulging in this being dealt with severely by the courts."
With respect, Mr Buckland, the public are very aware that criminals are NEVER dealt with severely by the courts. Worse still, the criminals themselves know it only too well... hence the increase of crimes such as metal theft.
scottwichall
says...
10:11am Mon 14 Nov 11
keepitrealuk wrote:Couldn't agree more. The only time that happens though is if you deprive the state of revenue, as noted by I2 on the alcohol and illegal tobacco thread.
Lock em up and throw away the key.
Rape, steal etc and it's a slap on the wrist for you you little scamp.
dglaholm
says...
10:22am Mon 14 Nov 11
silvergran
says...
10:53am Mon 14 Nov 11
Just a thought
says...
10:54am Mon 14 Nov 11
Gooey
says...
10:54am Mon 14 Nov 11
robertfm
says...
10:59am Mon 14 Nov 11
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
11:22am Mon 14 Nov 11
This has not yet made the news headlines for obvious reasons, but many police forces are now dealing with rising number of burglaries targeting food in fridge freezer.
itsamess
says...
11:29am Mon 14 Nov 11
Who in their right mind would leave cables exposed to the degree thieves only have to slice through the cables?
Prevention is foremost--wake up BR.
jamos01
says...
11:36am Mon 14 Nov 11
Oik1
says...
11:54am Mon 14 Nov 11
Very well said Gooey, and to be honest I can't see things getting any better in the long term never mind short, it won't be too long before there's another outbreak of riots followed by the usuall wringing of hands and wailing of why!
beaulieu
says...
1:41pm Mon 14 Nov 11
SAM2WIN
says...
4:56pm Mon 14 Nov 11
If trains have been cancelled how can they run run in and out of Swindon?
Phantom Poster
says...
6:20pm Mon 14 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Well, it all comes down a cost analysis, doesn't it? With around 10,000 miles of railway track in the UK it would cost a hell of a lot of money to bury all of its cabling underground (with the additional cost of subsequent maintenance).
It would appear far too simple to access the cabling--and control rooms have warning systems in place which give the locations of breakages in circuits.
Who in their right mind would leave cables exposed to the degree thieves only have to slice through the cables?
Prevention is foremost--wake up BR.
At the time the cabling was laid down the price of metal and the state of the economy (and arguably the morality of people) wasn't such that the theft of cabling was considered an issue.
It's very easy to criticise on here with 20/20 hindsight.
Topically, there was a TV report a week or two ago about metal plaques actually being stolen from war memorials. How do you protect everywhere which has a bit of metal?
itsamess
says...
7:26pm Mon 14 Nov 11
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
robertfm
says...
7:49pm Mon 14 Nov 11
Gooey
says...
8:09pm Mon 14 Nov 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:07pm Mon 14 Nov 11
robertfm wrote:Dear god Robbo, not even 8pm and you've already hit the gin bottle.
What are HS trains?
Phantom Poster
says...
11:22pm Mon 14 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:There already are electric trains on the west coast line north. But I've yet to hear of anyone attempting to cut the overhead electric power lines - I wonder why!
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
However, I'm sure that your previous "wake up BR" exclamation on here will have the needed effect. Or at least it would if BT actually existed any-more!
Strange that you don't know that as only last week you told everyone that you were on a very important rail trip to London with two very important phone calls to make!
I'm surprised that when you last made sure to tell us all that you had to go because you had to get on a plane to attend an important conference that you didn't say to were getting on a BOAC flight!
But hey, you still use a fax!
itsamess
says...
6:42am Tue 15 Nov 11
Woo woo--have you been out sharpening your little knife--your verbal attacks are becoming more frequent.
Can i advise you to look a little more closely at comments on this site--as you do appear to be attributing comments i have not made. If you look a little more closely perhaps you would note you appear to be making the same grammatical errors--or typos as you prefer as a well known poster here!
Para 1. --are there any electric trains coming into swindon? Did the article clearly state it was trains into swindon which were affected? Does the tube use overhead cables? Could it be that most electrified rail systems use the 3rd rail system here? Do we have any HS electrified trains here in this country?
Para 2. BR is still colloquially used and yes BT are alive and well--but as far as i know only deal with communications.
Para 3. Do read my comments on that article and you will find (a) i did not state how i was getting there. (b)
why would i go all the way to london to make 2 phone calls?
Para 4. "you didn't say to were getting etc"--classic bob error.
Para 5. Fax--DX--Telex are all still widely used in a wide range of services and industry.
scottwichall
says...
8:15am Tue 15 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
8:28am Tue 15 Nov 11
Yes and the legal system uses DX Reuter and stock exchanges still use telex.
scottwichall
says...
8:36am Tue 15 Nov 11
robertfm
says...
8:53am Tue 15 Nov 11
So I'm now PP, how many more people Walter. You really have lost your marbles.
itsamess
says...
8:58am Tue 15 Nov 11
Yes and relatively secure--better than e-mail.
robertfm
says...
10:00am Tue 15 Nov 11
If you get an email address wrong it is near certainty it won't go anywhere, unless you are stupid enough to use a hotmail account for business purposes.
scottwichall
says...
10:25am Tue 15 Nov 11
I 2 Could B
says...
11:19am Tue 15 Nov 11
scottwichall
says...
11:42am Tue 15 Nov 11
I 2 Could B wrote:I don't want anyone reading my Swindon Freecycle posts lol
Nobody here is important enough to have to worry about unsecure email, phone or fax. Despite what they might think.
Gooey
says...
11:44am Tue 15 Nov 11
I 2 Could B wrote:Itsamess will have his workers collecting all our ip addresses in his crusade vs the evil adver posters
Nobody here is important enough to have to worry about unsecure email, phone or fax. Despite what they might think.
itsamess
says...
12:00pm Tue 15 Nov 11
Always Grumpy
says...
6:38pm Tue 15 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:You clearly don't understand that the current trains running through Swindon are basically already electric trains. They are diesel electric, implying that the 'diesel' engine, installed in the loco, generates electricity to feed traction engines which propel the loco forwards (or even backwards).
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
Your previous history on this site has shown that you struggle to understand energy generation.
itsamess
says...
8:01pm Tue 15 Nov 11
I do think you should pay more attention to the article as it is about signalling cable stolen as opposed to electric power cables. In other words it does not matter one jot if modern trains are diesel electric as if the signalling is out--trains cannot run--or is that too simple for you?
As you have reproduced my post do note i quoted HS trains which are full electric.
As for my knowledge of energy generation-as my field is nuclear energy which utilises all the components created from nuclear eaction to drive various devices to ultimately convert the power into electricity. So yes i am fully conversant with all the scientific principles.
Perhaps you should study the science behind diesel/electric as it breaks some of your beliefs.
Always Grumpy
says...
8:08pm Tue 15 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:No, you said HS trains. Current diesel electric trains are HS trains.
Always Grumpy
I do think you should pay more attention to the article as it is about signalling cable stolen as opposed to electric power cables. In other words it does not matter one jot if modern trains are diesel electric as if the signalling is out--trains cannot run--or is that too simple for you?
As you have reproduced my post do note i quoted HS trains which are full electric.
As for my knowledge of energy generation-as my field is nuclear energy which utilises all the components created from nuclear eaction to drive various devices to ultimately convert the power into electricity. So yes i am fully conversant with all the scientific principles.
Perhaps you should study the science behind diesel/electric as it breaks some of your beliefs.
You just don't like it when you get things wrong and are picked up, do you?
As to your so called qualifications, no-one believes you, least of all me.
Your last sentence is totally meaningless. But then grammar was never your strong point!
itsamess
says...
8:32pm Tue 15 Nov 11
Do you think i care what you think?
Nothing wrong with my last sentence.
Perhaps you should have read the report on the new HS rail service.
Always Grumpy
says...
10:38pm Tue 15 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:I read your post and corrected it - something you never like.
A.G.
Do you think i care what you think?
Nothing wrong with my last sentence.
Perhaps you should have read the report on the new HS rail service.
Quite clearly you haven't got a clue what you're writing about, which is why you always get so defensive when challenged.
Next will come your usual abuse no doubt.
itsamess
says...
11:19pm Tue 15 Nov 11
Always Grumpy
says...
6:44am Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:No, because I've already corrected you. Not that you would ever accept the mere thought of someone correcting an error you have made.
Nothing to correct AG.
robertfm
says...
9:03am Wed 16 Nov 11
As for cabling the article mentions cable ducts, not signal cables, although the ducts would of course contain these cables.
Always Grumpy
says...
9:42am Wed 16 Nov 11
robertfm wrote:That's correct, but as everyone knows he's 'always' right and will never accept being corrected by anyone.
So AG let me get this straight Walter doesn't believe the 125mph Diesel/Electric trains are High Speed. Are there any trains in the UK that routinely go faster with the exception of the Euro Star perhaps.
As for cabling the article mentions cable ducts, not signal cables, although the ducts would of course contain these cables.
He does suffer from delusions of adequacy.
robertfm
says...
10:15am Wed 16 Nov 11
How did that happen.?:):)
itsamess
says...
10:42am Wed 16 Nov 11
Bob
Again you should read what i say--rather than put a spin on it.
Para 4 refers to the stealing of signalling cable--Para 5 describes the method used--common sense would tell you on those facts--rolling up the cable would not be possible without the ducting removed as the claim was hundeds of metres.
If you study the new plans for HS rail links you will be a little wiser instead of trying to create yet another argument.
robertfm
says...
10:44am Wed 16 Nov 11
Your claim is not because they are not 100% electric powered.
itsamess
says...
10:48am Wed 16 Nov 11
There is no ficticious legal action.
itsamess
says...
11:01am Wed 16 Nov 11
I did not say that--read what i say--not your interpretation.
robertfm
says...
11:04am Wed 16 Nov 11
You stated quite clearly, 'As you have reproduced my post do note i quoted HS trains which are full electric.'
So are you still maintaining that intercity trains aren't High Speed Trains, yes or no.
robertfm
says...
11:15am Wed 16 Nov 11
'The term High Speed Train (or HST125) is currently also used as a brand name for the present British fleet of Class 43 125 mph (201 km/h) InterCity diesel trains.'
Not 100% electric Walter, Diesel/Electric.
itsamess
says...
11:46am Wed 16 Nov 11
robertfm
says...
12:00pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Enough said.
itsamess
says...
12:14pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
12:20pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Gooey
says...
12:29pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
12:42pm Wed 16 Nov 11
So who was not seeing what is on the screen?
robertfm
says...
12:46pm Wed 16 Nov 11
As to what PP said note relevant merely more diversion.
Yes Gooey you are of course right, we are all ignorant and devoid of the powers Walter has.
Gooey
says...
12:52pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:You do it regularly. Twisting what is said to suit your own agenda. Just an observation on my part....
Its all there Gooey--even you knew what HS meant--do read. I was clearly referring to the HS links proposed that are all electric--pointing out the realistic risks of thieves taking the heavier supply cables as well as the signalling cables So who was not seeing what is on the screen?
itsamess
says...
12:59pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Thats what i said--so i have twisted nothing--Bob and AG changed it to suit their agenda--understand now GOOEY
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
Gooey
says...
1:03pm Wed 16 Nov 11
robertfm
says...
1:11pm Wed 16 Nov 11
'As you have reproduced my post do note i quoted HS trains which are full electric'
That is not true as my post stated:
The term High Speed Train (or HST125) is currently also used as a brand name for the present British fleet of Class 43 125 mph (201 km/h) InterCity diesel trains.'
Anyway off out to interact in the real world not Walters fantasy land.
Always Grumpy
says...
1:24pm Wed 16 Nov 11
I think we would all get more sense trying to communicate with a brick wall than trying to get through to him.
I'm afraid that people like him are always trying to compensate for their shortcomings by trying to argue with everyone. He reminds me of a snappy, bad tempered little dog snapping at your heel. In the end the only way you get rid of them is by giving them a good boot up the arse and walking away - you can never reason with them or make forends with them. They are a persistant irritant - just like itsamess.
The only consolation is that there are a few others around like him and it does make the rest of us (well, most of us) feel quite normal and sane.
If he weren't quite so odious I suppose we could feel a little bit sorry for him. Then again, perhaps not.
itsamess
says...
1:37pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Again you try to twist what i said as it was A.G who raised diesel/electric thus as i stated quite correctly the planned HS trains are full electric.
Do note as usual others have introduced other issues completely unrelated to the article-i merely questioned as to the article the thefts of signalling cable and the possibility of theft of heavier cabling if the proposed full electric trains are introduced.
Therefore do not take a few words out of context to the full text by me to try to prove something i clearly have not said.
itsamess
says...
2:30pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Your post sums you up well as you do in all cases purposely misinterpret what has been said to suit your agenda--you are still a little man who does a little work for SBC--or do you actually work for SCC which is more likely.
You are the sad one as in every case you lay claim to expert knowledge when you are no more than an odd-job man--and the occasional farmer.
Perhaps when you read you could read what is said instead of raising fascile and irrelevant arguments on subjects you have little to no knowledge.
There were no gaffs and my post was very clear as to electrifying new rail links and the prospect of further thefts which is after all what the article is about--until you raised the diesel/electric trains and other issues knowing your buddy would support you. Not very wise.
itsamess
says...
6:16pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Always Grumpy
says...
6:45pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Oh dear, what a lot of misconceptions you have about me.
A.G
Your post sums you up well as you do in all cases purposely misinterpret what has been said to suit your agenda--you are still a little man who does a little work for SBC--or do you actually work for SCC which is more likely.
You are the sad one as in every case you lay claim to expert knowledge when you are no more than an odd-job man--and the occasional farmer.
Perhaps when you read you could read what is said instead of raising fascile and irrelevant arguments on subjects you have little to no knowledge.
There were no gaffs and my post was very clear as to electrifying new rail links and the prospect of further thefts which is after all what the article is about--until you raised the diesel/electric trains and other issues knowing your buddy would support you. Not very wise.
I've never claimed to be an expert on anything, unlike your idiotic claims.
I'm happily retired thank you, after a very successful career that you could only dream of.
You just don't like it when anyone challenges your frequent errors and only ever resort to trying to squirm out of it by denial.
What a sad little loser you are, living in a fabricated dream world of your own, that impresses no-one. Haven't you realised that everyone on this site despises you. No, probably not as you choose not to acknowledge the truth even when it's staring you in the face.
Itsamess, you are truly pathetic.
In a strange way I hope you do try to take Bob to court as that would expose you to the full glare of the public, who I'm sure would be only to pleased to know who you really are and make their presence known to you. It's never going to happen though, is it? You sad deluded fool.
robertfm
says...
7:19pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Just for the record Walter using capitals is considered bad form on the internet, it's akin to shouting, the tactic of the failed.
itsamess
says...
7:35pm Wed 16 Nov 11
ting what was a very valid claim--as the new article confirms--thus as i stated--i referred to high speed electric trains on the new high speed links--pair of ****.
robertfm
says...
7:53pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Walter you cocked up once again why not just for once admit it Diesel/Electric trains are high speed trains. The next generation of trains ,may well be all electric but the debate/discussion was about now.
But hey keep denying, it won't do you any further harm, everyone knows you are a deluded fantasist. Actually can you be both???
itsamess
says...
8:24pm Wed 16 Nov 11
If you think your witterings or assumptions bother me in the slightest--they do not--you rattled your sabre like the valiant chappie you are without the ability to read a very straightforward statement as to the new electrified trains--trying to tell everyone you knew better as they are diesel electric and put me in my place with your caustic comments--you were wrong and you try to justify yoursef by more abuse.
Likewise you have no idea whatsoever
as to the situation with bob--therefore you make assumptions--you are way off the mark as i am merely doing the donkey work for a friends family--my personal issue has
been sidelined and i do not have to attend court personally--nor be named and he has to state a fact that caused him to libel me--hey--turn up at the hearing and watch the look on bobs face and collapse at the cosrs awarded. Meanwhile my priority is the other matter--worth waiting for.
Thus your post is a denial as i was absolutely correct in my claim--you simply wanted to tell everyone what a bright chappie you are--do look back at some of your previous posts and you will find you have told us quite a few things about yourself--you are a little forgetful--now go and read the article on the new all electric routes as i correctly informed the folk on here about.
itsamess
says...
8:35pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Read what i said bobby
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
"planned HS trains will be electric powered"
Now go and read the article in the site today that confirms that"
Nothing whatsoever to do with diesel electric--nothing to do with HS125s--a new train--all electric.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:05pm Wed 16 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
10:17pm Wed 16 Nov 11
Go and read the new article--it confirms what i said. The pair of them have tried to change the thread to their agenda--just to argue.
Always Grumpy
says...
10:49pm Wed 16 Nov 11
I do have to agree with Punctured on this occasion - you really are totally nuts.
Incidently, what do you think I have said in the past and what do you think you know about me? I'm afraid you know nothing about me other than perhaps I went to university and was also in the army! That could mean I'm a very intelligent trained killer. Fancy your chances then? Of course, I might have done something totally different. Am I bothered what you think - not a chance.
Finally, you say "and i do not have to attend court personally--nor be named and he has to state a fact that caused him to libel me". Well, that would imply you will be named, otherwise how would anyone know who's been libelled? I'll certainly be in court to see who you are, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen - you can though!
robertfm
says...
7:31am Thu 17 Nov 11
Now when was the last time I gave evidence in a Criminal Trial, not certain, but probably 1983.
So it's taken Walter 27 years to track me down to 'avenge' his dead friend.
And this brought up again because he's trying to avoid stating Diesel/Electric 125's aren't High Speed Trains.
itsamess
says...
8:06am Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Bob
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
Still claiming you cant read then--nothing has been changed--just your version.
I never said Diesel/electric are not high speed trains i said the new high speed trains planned are electric.
Do read the adver article that confirms this.
robertfm
says...
8:37am Thu 17 Nov 11
So no more threats of court action Walter for goodness sake just get on with it, I am now looking forward to restate what a fool, liar and fraud you are. I am sure the court house will be packed by posters seeking to have a good laugh.
Or do you intend to ask for it to be in camera.
itsamess
says...
12:07pm Thu 17 Nov 11
AG raised the diesel/electric issue and suggested i was not aware of that. My comment was clear that the planned electrification of routes for high speed electric trains--the later article confirms precisely that.
You jumped in on the diesel/electric issue which was never my claim.
I repeat the later article confirms what i said as to electric trains is true.
As to court cases (3) i am only directly involved in 1 Libel/Defamation
which is ex-parte. The burden of proof is on you to give the court any fact you rely on that proves i am not as claimed. You have verified on here who you are and self confessed various logins are you even in your full name. I would welcome posters on here to turn up. As there are 3 sworn affidavits as to my status--which is the issue there is nothing which can change that--regardless of any opinion you have. Stuffed i call it bob. That is on hold until the other 2 have been fully prepared which you seem very confused as to what is claimed. You are in fact pleading innocence to something before you know what it is. You are however wholly aware of your threat against our CFA by 'your people'--not really a smart thing to do was it?
You have a nice day now as its nice and sunny.
Gooey
says...
12:56pm Thu 17 Nov 11
I await the adver headlines with baited breath
robertfm
says...
1:06pm Thu 17 Nov 11
So I rather think Walter is a little 'stuffed'.
As for the other things, heaven only knows. Pure fantasy I suspect.
itsamess
says...
1:07pm Thu 17 Nov 11
Gooey
says...
1:13pm Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:The old 'read' snipe you regularly use. Maybe if you read my post you might answer the question i asked.
Not able to read then Gooey--do behave like an adult.
robertfm
says...
1:18pm Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
1:56pm Thu 17 Nov 11
As the libel act itself does not protect the claimant itself there is adequate provision in specific laws to protect parties in both civil and criminal cases.
Likewise numerous other acts brought out or amended to cover the increasing use of internet abuse and crime which also permits information gained as to anonymous posters.
Several cases have been heard since the ammendments were passed.
Another part deals with the impact of
any false claims repeated by others in considering damages.
The essential parts will remain unchanged if someone makes a claim in writing in an attempt to discredit another and cannot produce a fact to support that claim both libel and defamation is proved. There is no way out bob so do not try to kid yourself. Do stop your b/s
itsamess
says...
2:14pm Thu 17 Nov 11
All 3 claims are in recent posts. Either of 2 of them will prevent him ever standing for official office.
The threat made on here by him to have his 'people' crash a CFAs system is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act--regardless of no attempt to do so conspiracy is simply stating the plan to do so--and no req to name others as his claim is the offence.
He always diverts to one of his standbys when in trouble.
itsamess
says...
2:14pm Thu 17 Nov 11
All 3 claims are in recent posts. Either of 2 of them will prevent him ever standing for official office.
The threat made on here by him to have his 'people' crash a CFAs system is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act--regardless of no attempt to do so conspiracy is simply stating the plan to do so--and no req to name others as his claim is the offence.
He always diverts to one of his standbys when in trouble.
Gooey
says...
2:23pm Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Thanks for answering the question. I await any court cases against Bob with interest. The amount of comments on here will crash the site if it does happen.
Gooey All 3 claims are in recent posts. Either of 2 of them will prevent him ever standing for official office. The threat made on here by him to have his 'people' crash a CFAs system is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act--regardless of no attempt to do so conspiracy is simply stating the plan to do so--and no req to name others as his claim is the offence. He always diverts to one of his standbys when in trouble.
Always Grumpy
says...
4:29pm Thu 17 Nov 11
Gooey wrote:Can I book a seat at the front please?
itsamess wrote:Thanks for answering the question. I await any court cases against Bob with interest. The amount of comments on here will crash the site if it does happen.
Gooey All 3 claims are in recent posts. Either of 2 of them will prevent him ever standing for official office. The threat made on here by him to have his 'people' crash a CFAs system is a conspiracy to commit a criminal act--regardless of no attempt to do so conspiracy is simply stating the plan to do so--and no req to name others as his claim is the offence. He always diverts to one of his standbys when in trouble.
Somehow I can't see anything happening, other than in itsamess's silly little mind.
robertfm
says...
5:36pm Thu 17 Nov 11
The fact that you claim to have filed affidavits proving who you say you are means diddly squat as no one on here knows who you are so you cannot be libelled.
You would have to show that your login was sufficient to reveal your identity, which you clearly maintain it's not.
As has been shown your claims about being a Nuclear Scientist doesn't stand up to the claims and absolutely no one you claim to know, knows you. I have a clear defence in law.
Bring on your highly paid Brother in Law Barrister I look forward to making him look an **** for taking your case, but I somehow think if he exists at all he wouldn't be that stupid.
Phantom Poster
says...
6:59pm Thu 17 Nov 11
Phantom Poster
says...
7:15pm Thu 17 Nov 11
scottwichall wrote:You can secure SMTP if you use TLS (the email equivalent of SSL), assuming the target server supports it. In fact gmail by defaults uses TLS.
Bob, email is NOT secure, unless you are using S/MIME. Normal SMTP email can be intercepted by any device that routes it. If that device has been breached by a hacker, the SMTP traffic can be sniffed and read.
Other than that you can always use something like PGP to encrypt your messages before you send them.
I've got to admit, I'd never heard of S/MIME before or seen it used anywhere.
robertfm
says...
7:50pm Thu 17 Nov 11
.com/tutorial/smime/
smime.aspx
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
7:55pm Thu 17 Nov 11
Crikey Robbo, that's a bit rich coming from you. In your case it's even been proven.
robertfm
says...
8:07pm Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
8:09pm Thu 17 Nov 11
You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site as a very well known lawyer who had entered in to abuse and libelous claims were made against him as he was anonymous and used the available law and was awarded damages--the decision was appealled and the decision was upheld
The precedent was set and featured very strongly in early super injunctions where numerous posters then libelled under anonymity and were also located and prosecuted. Since then there have been numerous social site prosecutions. Amendments to various laws both criminal and civil. If you look back quite some while on here these same issues were raised.
As to anyone on here knowing who i am--dear dear bob you claim you know who i am many times and follow it with your usual claims--silly boy.
No i do not have to prove anything other than i am the user of that log in and that under that login i warned you of the intent to issue proceedings.
You have claimed to have asked numerous people locally and scientists
if they know me--they always answer--no he must be a nutter. I selected 3 very persons to verify before a judge who in am in a sworn affidavit--one who knows you too--good move.
No bob my family barrister is not acting for me--not needed as a decent advocate can handle it.
That dear boy is a minor issue.
The main one is coming together nicely.Bad move to threaten a CFA especially that one.
Did you know that several councillors took anonymous posters to the courts
and won?
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:32pm Thu 17 Nov 11
robertfm wrote:Just stating a fact.
Nice to see the intellectual, gutter level of your posts continue Punctured.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:23pm Thu 17 Nov 11
robertfm wrote:Thanks Bob, I know how to google too! That's why I say " I'd never heard of S/MIME before" - past tense. I did look it up!
http://www.marknoble
.com/tutorial/smime/
smime.aspx
Unlike other one here, I can't claim to know everything.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:38pm Thu 17 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Oh no, verbal diarrhoea yet again! You don't half talk a load or crap!
Bob
You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site as a very well known lawyer who had entered in to abuse and libelous claims were made against him as he was anonymous and used the available law and was awarded damages--the decision was appealled and the decision was upheld
The precedent was set and featured very strongly in early super injunctions where numerous posters then libelled under anonymity and were also located and prosecuted. Since then there have been numerous social site prosecutions. Amendments to various laws both criminal and civil. If you look back quite some while on here these same issues were raised.
As to anyone on here knowing who i am--dear dear bob you claim you know who i am many times and follow it with your usual claims--silly boy.
No i do not have to prove anything other than i am the user of that log in and that under that login i warned you of the intent to issue proceedings.
You have claimed to have asked numerous people locally and scientists
if they know me--they always answer--no he must be a nutter. I selected 3 very persons to verify before a judge who in am in a sworn affidavit--one who knows you too--good move.
No bob my family barrister is not acting for me--not needed as a decent advocate can handle it.
That dear boy is a minor issue.
The main one is coming together nicely.Bad move to threaten a CFA especially that one.
Did you know that several councillors took anonymous posters to the courts
and won?
So basically, your saying that despite you being an anonymous poster we ought not to criticise you as if you get offended you might sue us all!!
Good try, you sad basket case!
The ironic thing is that your hated enemy Bob used to get all the flak on here, but now you've diverted all that attention by taking on the mantle of the most hated poster on here!
Phantom Poster
says...
12:08am Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:itsamess, here's a tip on how to get rid of your verbal diarrhoea. Your posting could be reduced to:
Bob
You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site as a very well known lawyer who had entered in to abuse and libelous claims were made against him as he was anonymous and used the available law and was awarded damages--the decision was appealled and the decision was upheld
The precedent was set and featured very strongly in early super injunctions where numerous posters then libelled under anonymity and were also located and prosecuted. Since then there have been numerous social site prosecutions. Amendments to various laws both criminal and civil. If you look back quite some while on here these same issues were raised.
As to anyone on here knowing who i am--dear dear bob you claim you know who i am many times and follow it with your usual claims--silly boy.
No i do not have to prove anything other than i am the user of that log in and that under that login i warned you of the intent to issue proceedings.
You have claimed to have asked numerous people locally and scientists
if they know me--they always answer--no he must be a nutter. I selected 3 very persons to verify before a judge who in am in a sworn affidavit--one who knows you too--good move.
No bob my family barrister is not acting for me--not needed as a decent advocate can handle it.
That dear boy is a minor issue.
The main one is coming together nicely.Bad move to threaten a CFA especially that one.
Did you know that several councillors took anonymous posters to the courts
and won?
Bob You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site:
But you've always found problems with the concept, haven't you?
Look, so far as I'm concerned I'm not even going to engage with you any further on this web site. You obviously have mental problems and I don't want to exacerbate them. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life as a world famous international scientist. The fact that you believe it is all that matters!
Phantom Poster
says...
12:11am Fri 18 Nov 11
Phantom Poster wrote:Sorry, my posting made no sense, as I've found that angle brackets are filtered out. so try again:
itsamess wrote:itsamess, here's a tip on how to get rid of your verbal diarrhoea. Your posting could be reduced to:
Bob
You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site as a very well known lawyer who had entered in to abuse and libelous claims were made against him as he was anonymous and used the available law and was awarded damages--the decision was appealled and the decision was upheld
The precedent was set and featured very strongly in early super injunctions where numerous posters then libelled under anonymity and were also located and prosecuted. Since then there have been numerous social site prosecutions. Amendments to various laws both criminal and civil. If you look back quite some while on here these same issues were raised.
As to anyone on here knowing who i am--dear dear bob you claim you know who i am many times and follow it with your usual claims--silly boy.
No i do not have to prove anything other than i am the user of that log in and that under that login i warned you of the intent to issue proceedings.
You have claimed to have asked numerous people locally and scientists
if they know me--they always answer--no he must be a nutter. I selected 3 very persons to verify before a judge who in am in a sworn affidavit--one who knows you too--good move.
No bob my family barrister is not acting for me--not needed as a decent advocate can handle it.
That dear boy is a minor issue.
The main one is coming together nicely.Bad move to threaten a CFA especially that one.
Did you know that several councillors took anonymous posters to the courts
and won?
Bob You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site:
But you've always found problems with the concept, haven't you?
Look, so far as I'm concerned I'm not even going to engage with you any further on this web site. You obviously have mental problems and I don't want to exacerbate them. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life as a world famous international scientist. The fact that you believe it is all that matters!
====================
=====
itsamess, here's a tip on how to get rid of your verbal diarrhoea. Your posting could be reduced to:
Bob You are rather stupid to believe you cannot libel an anonymous poster on an internet site:
-- link-to-proof--
But you've always found problems with the --link-to-proof-- concept, haven't you?
Look, so far as I'm concerned I'm not even going to engage with you any further on this web site. You obviously have mental problems and I don't want to exacerbate them. I hope you enjoy the rest of your life as a world famous international scientist. The fact that you believe it is all that matters!
scottwichall
says...
12:46am Fri 18 Nov 11
Phantom Poster wrote:PGP is a great system, but quite complicated to setup, that's why S/MIME is considered in some circles to be superior in that respect.
scottwichall wrote:You can secure SMTP if you use TLS (the email equivalent of SSL), assuming the target server supports it. In fact gmail by defaults uses TLS.
Bob, email is NOT secure, unless you are using S/MIME. Normal SMTP email can be intercepted by any device that routes it. If that device has been breached by a hacker, the SMTP traffic can be sniffed and read.
Other than that you can always use something like PGP to encrypt your messages before you send them.
I've got to admit, I'd never heard of S/MIME before or seen it used anywhere.
I seem to recall that gmail started offering TLS and SSL after some quite high profile email hacks were demonstrated.
itsamess
says...
2:09am Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:P.P
P.P.
Perhaps as planned HS trains will be electric powered there is a clear warning to planners to devise secure placement of cabling and devices.
Anything open that is metal is at risk-recently a statue in bronze was removed from Tidworth--took them hours it seems--growing problem.
Look --i do not care what you think as clearly you--although capable of contributing sensibly always turn your attention to me with spurious claims.
As always you started off sensibly and very soon changed to your i'll have a go at messy mode. On a very simple submission by me that the security needed to be tightened as it was very simple to cut through the cabling.
Initially making a valid point as to the west coast lines being electric then switching to your 'last week you told us you were on an important rail trip to london to make 2 phone calls'
Then my remark i was catching a flight previously in a post with sarcastic comments and another comment i still used fax--which shows you are happy to misquote most things i say--i never said i was going by rail--and certainly not to make 2 phone calls--ridiculous and neither had i said i still use fax--as i stated on the alexandra house thread one of the services they provide is fax.
Those remarks brought a lengthy debate by the usual idiots trying to tell me the trains were diesel/electric.
My post was quite clear that i stated "the planned HS trains will be electric" Therefore i find no valid reason for the tirade of abuse that followed--claim after claim that the trains were actually diesel/electric HS trains and even referred to the report
out confirming the routes through swindon and new routes were electric.
Lo and behold the adver within hours carried the story of the plans. Yet bob and his buddy kept banging on claiming i had got it wrong as HS trains are diesel/electric.
I have since spoken to a project engineer as i happilly can say i have little knowledge about railways. He confirmed the lines are overhead and further explained that separate cabling is not req for signalling and the likelihood of theft almost eliminated + added security devices.
Finally above you remark about the crap--which is how the law has been amended to cater for rising abuse and crime on the net and removing some of the obstacles in tracing offenders and linking it to other laws that simplify criminal and civil laws.
No i am not interested in suing en-masse and can accept valid criticism but not persistent misquotes as to what i have said.
Do try harder to quote what i have said.
itsamess
says...
3:00am Fri 18 Nov 11
Thats good news--sorry--tried that many times. Definately have no mental problems.
link to proof does not work as by return links are returned to something totally unrelated--or an expert on the subject just happens to be staying at his place.
Do take pity on that poor old judge as it will be such a difficult decision to decide if 3 reputable scientists are telling the truth--or bob.
robertfm
says...
7:55am Fri 18 Nov 11
A clear sign of a disturbed mind.
Walter you are lying again. Neither AG or I said all HS Trains were Diesel/Electric, merely that HS Trains were not all electric, as in the FGW trains going through Swindon, and that the 125 inter city trains are High Speed, as shown by the paragraph I posted.
As for libel, Walter please post links all these famous internet cases because they are so famous Google seem to have missed them.
You cannot libel an anonymous poster, the law says so.
blahblahblahblah
says...
8:32am Fri 18 Nov 11
robertfm
says...
8:55am Fri 18 Nov 11
Although it only applies in the case of a person who by the nature of their chosen login can reasonably be expected to be identified.
Walter claims that no one knows who he is so negates his only ability to sue for libel.
itsamess
says...
11:23am Fri 18 Nov 11
Wrong--i started posting on this thread @11-29am mon.
2 and 3 o'clock in the morning--not where i am.
My statement as to the planned HS trains being electric was at 7-26 pm mon and at 10-42 repeated the new plans for HS electric trains.
Unfortunately you cannot accept that my now proven claim that the planned HS trains are full electric and confirmed in the article on this site.
Are you still trying to say the planned HS trains are not fully electric? AG and yourself raised the argument as to current HS trains being D/E.
As for the anonymous posters issues-being party to the case with your vast experience in successfully getting decisions in courts without lawyers--yet completely cocked up in your challenge to the smoking ban and producing videos which totally contradicted each other and failure to get a Judicial review of the decision--you should have learned the importance.
As a party to the libel/defamation the rules of law are quite clear. Once the application is made a judge examines the claim--the law proposed and evidence relied on and will strike out any case considered to be frivolous. As a claimed experienced policeman you will as most folk know a judge has absolute discression to order in all areas of law to grant anonymity and in certain circumstances order a case to be heard in camera.
Specifically numerous laws were amended to counter the notion that an anonymous poster could evade the law on internet social sites and set out clearly the equal right applied to all areas of law where false claims were made either directly or indirectly to anonymous persons.
Simplified it means in all cases if any person Named or anonymous breaches the law-the right to prosecute exists provided the anonymous person can satisfy the court they are the person referred to.
The first person prosecuted was a person online who accused a lawyer of being a fraud-liar and a host of choice allegations untimately demanding the lawyer identify himself. The lawyer satisfied the court his login applied to him and won the case thereby setting the precedent. Go find a lawyer who knows the law booby. You will see almost daily cases being brought against perpetraters of a wide variety of offences.
Perhaps you should try more accurate search engines and read what they say--rather than what you think they say.
Sorry but i am not in the uk right now but of course you will know where i should be.
blahblahblahblah
says...
12:02pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:this is about anonymously posting libel, not posting something that could be seen as libel against an anonymous person. For someone who repeatedly gets offensive and tells others to read your posts carefully, i suggest you take your own advice on this one mr messy, as while it looks all good and formal, it does not backup your claim that precedence has been set.
Bob
Wrong--i started posting on this thread @11-29am mon.
2 and 3 o'clock in the morning--not where i am.
My statement as to the planned HS trains being electric was at 7-26 pm mon and at 10-42 repeated the new plans for HS electric trains.
Unfortunately you cannot accept that my now proven claim that the planned HS trains are full electric and confirmed in the article on this site.
Are you still trying to say the planned HS trains are not fully electric? AG and yourself raised the argument as to current HS trains being D/E.
As for the anonymous posters issues-being party to the case with your vast experience in successfully getting decisions in courts without lawyers--yet completely cocked up in your challenge to the smoking ban and producing videos which totally contradicted each other and failure to get a Judicial review of the decision--you should have learned the importance.
As a party to the libel/defamation the rules of law are quite clear. Once the application is made a judge examines the claim--the law proposed and evidence relied on and will strike out any case considered to be frivolous. As a claimed experienced policeman you will as most folk know a judge has absolute discression to order in all areas of law to grant anonymity and in certain circumstances order a case to be heard in camera.
Specifically numerous laws were amended to counter the notion that an anonymous poster could evade the law on internet social sites and set out clearly the equal right applied to all areas of law where false claims were made either directly or indirectly to anonymous persons.
Simplified it means in all cases if any person Named or anonymous breaches the law-the right to prosecute exists provided the anonymous person can satisfy the court they are the person referred to.
The first person prosecuted was a person online who accused a lawyer of being a fraud-liar and a host of choice allegations untimately demanding the lawyer identify himself. The lawyer satisfied the court his login applied to him and won the case thereby setting the precedent. Go find a lawyer who knows the law booby. You will see almost daily cases being brought against perpetraters of a wide variety of offences.
Perhaps you should try more accurate search engines and read what they say--rather than what you think they say.
Sorry but i am not in the uk right now but of course you will know where i should be.
robertfm
says...
12:02pm Fri 18 Nov 11
Walter don't keep repeating the same old waffle about libel if these cases exist posts a link, and with all the search engines available and given they were you claim internet cases we should be able to find.
You could if you liked just give us a keyword to use.
But of course you won't because once again you are lying. As for the time you posted on this thread I was merely pointing out you were posting on the site from 8am Thursday and still posting 2 and 3 am Friday, quite what the time zone has to do with anything heaven only knows, or you trying to claim you've travelled supersonic to another part of the world.
itsamess
says...
12:32pm Fri 18 Nov 11
The law covers websites as to liability and like all websites places the liability on the posters. The changes to libel laws do not reduce any liabilities--they prevent frivolous cases being heard.
As with all law any law applicable can be used and submissions taken that can apply to any case where those laws are relevant. The principle of libel and defamation laws remains the same. The basic principle being if a claim is made as to a false statement being made the burden of proof lies with the maker of that statement to provide the court with a fact capable of supporting the claim made. The judicial committee advising on the growing use of abuse and libels on the internet confirmed an anonymous commenter has the same rights as a named person to use the law to remedy the situation as it is unfair in law to allow either criminal and civil claims to fail ether way by virtue of anonymity as it leaves the door open for outright abuse-like thief--rapist--liar against a person with no remedy in law by virtue of anonymity.
Therefore it was the judges committee that investigated if the law
does provide a remedy for an anonymous person to litigate and found sufficient law existed. Evidencial rules were modified and the requirement is only to produce such evidence that indicates others believe those claims to be true. Verifying the login is an easy matter and if the claimant can give cause to the court to retain anonymity the judge will grant the order--the rules vary between civil and criminal. Much in the same way injunctions are granted to Mr X etc and computer records can be used as verification.
Complicated--but easy.
robertfm
says...
12:46pm Fri 18 Nov 11
This from the latest advice on internet on publishing libel.
TO SUMMARISE:
Defamation is to spread bad reports about someone which could cause them harm
If the plaintiff can prove that the words had a defamatory meaning, identified him and were published, that is defamation.
Is that clear enough Walter, you have an obligation to show your reputation has been harmed, and what I have said has identified you.
Neither is the case because you are anonymous. If you have repeated what I have said to someone who knows you, again there is no libel.
So please give it a rest. I have a copy of the Review Committees recommendations and they say no such thing. If I am lying Walter post the link.
itsamess
says...
12:51pm Fri 18 Nov 11
Exactly--i was talking about planned electric trains--not current trains which appears too difficult for you to understand.
Bob its up to you to find any law you believe will help you and respond to the court with any statement of fact that supports your claim.
You are not really up on modern communications are you bobby--nor it seems time zones.
blahblahblahblah
says...
12:53pm Fri 18 Nov 11
The anonymity vs libel thing only works if the libel or the anonymous users profile provide enough details so as other people can ascertain who the libel is against, as your profile and posts give no details about you out (and the fact you regularly tell everyone we know nothing of you) this means that you cannot be libeled, however in the near future it may be brought in place that libel against a username will be possible as online personas are becoming just as important to people as real life personas....also i think you and bob are reading a lot of american law precendents on this as uk law is still a bit behind the times and is only just discussing this where as america has passed various state laws to this sort of thing.....google better boys.
robertfm
says...
1:07pm Fri 18 Nov 11
12. (1) The court must strike out an action for defamation unless the claimant shows that--
(a) the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused substantial harm to the claimant’s reputation; or
(b) it is likely that such harm will be caused to the claimant’s reputation by the publication.
Coupled with the requirement for the claimant to be identified as I posted previously Walter simply could not succeed. But as I have said let him try. No skin off my nose, and I could hit him them for compensatory costs.
Gooey
says...
1:28pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess
says...
1:33pm Fri 18 Nov 11
A british lawyer went to the american courts against twitter--and won.
The british courts as i have said have clarified the position in our law. Many laws cross over and can be used in these circumstances.
The fact that others believe bobs claims directed at my username and i have statements from friends who know both of us and know my login--so dont worry i have covered all the requirements required in law.
There is nothing i can add which could prejudice the case--and other issues--and no i do not use google to access legal information.
blahblahblahblah
says...
1:44pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:well if you can prove that people can determine it is you from just on here, and get a judge to determine it is not frivolous then you may well have a case. I've got the popcorn ready for the big show just in case.
Blah
A british lawyer went to the american courts against twitter--and won.
The british courts as i have said have clarified the position in our law. Many laws cross over and can be used in these circumstances.
The fact that others believe bobs claims directed at my username and i have statements from friends who know both of us and know my login--so dont worry i have covered all the requirements required in law.
There is nothing i can add which could prejudice the case--and other issues--and no i do not use google to access legal information.
itsamess
says...
1:55pm Fri 18 Nov 11
I am very well advised--and used to bobs google ups and flawed information--and protestations that he cannot possibly get his facts wrong
and i am not stupid enough to waste vast sums of money on a fools errand.
Finished on this thread--unless anyone revives the article.
Gooey
says...
2:00pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:But offended enough to start up court proceedings over comments on a local paper's artices comments? It is a bit petty don't you think?
Blah I am very well advised--and used to bobs google ups and flawed information--and protestations that he cannot possibly get his facts wrong and i am not stupid enough to waste vast sums of money on a fools errand. Finished on this thread--unless anyone revives the article.
blahblahblahblah
says...
2:37pm Fri 18 Nov 11
Always Grumpy
says...
5:15pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:But you are stupid.
Blah
I am very well advised--and used to bobs google ups and flawed information--and protestations that he cannot possibly get his facts wrong
and i am not stupid enough to waste vast sums of money on a fools errand.
Finished on this thread--unless anyone revives the article.
Sue me!
robertfm
says...
6:27pm Fri 18 Nov 11
He now shows clearly he has no idea. The UK lawyer may well have gone to the US and won. There libel/defamation laws are totally different.
So Walter one UK case please where an anonymous claimant has won against someone who is known. That would be you and me.
dc the 2nd
says...
6:55pm Fri 18 Nov 11
itsamess wrote:Either take It to court or stop going on about it, you can sue me as well if you like because I think you are a fraud, liar, fantasist and cretin.
Blah
I am very well advised--and used to bobs google ups and flawed information--and protestations that he cannot possibly get his facts wrong
and i am not stupid enough to waste vast sums of money on a fools errand.
Finished on this thread--unless anyone revives the article.
keepitrealuk says...
9:25am Mon 14 Nov 11