Off Topic Sensible party policy suggestions (sensible ones please)

Yep, it's clear you're a hypocrite and happy to ignore the board rules.

 

Go away you pathetic little twerp!

 

Although Pete actually requested that you post personal information to "prove" that you lived in Spain and had a savings account. So he actively encouraged the publishing of personal info. I suspect it is one of the evolving Sensible Party policies.

 

Don't forget, you're agreeing to it being fair game for what ever people choose to use that personal information for. You're implying that the rules on victimisation and abuse are waived for you and your chums.

 

I'm not threatening to reveal anything, that's kind of the point.

If someone does post your personal details, and you go to a solicito, it shows you're a hypocrite, a bully and that you don't uderstand the law.

 

If personal information that I'd not chosen to put in the public domain had been posted without my permission, then no of course not.

But we're talking about a bloke who's using his own name and his own face as his avatar. HE'S CHOSEN to allow people to know who he is, and has made the same information available on this site HIMSELF.

It's really not complicated.

 

He posted his own personal details, that's the point! You fool!

I give no one permission to post my personal details. If I wanted them known, I would have posted them myself - just like Pete did!

I understand the law far better than you, you numpty, I assure you!

 

Exactly.

If I chose to post my name, which then lead to my personal website, which contained my home address and my life story, then that would a decision I had made, and is obviously one that Peter Saxton has made.

In fact Hull even said way back that he knew why Saxton posted under his own name and understood his reasons for doing so. Maybe he thinks it's good PR? Who knows that goes on his head.

However, the simple fact is it was his choice, no-one else's, a choice he made consciously. All Hull is doing here is deflecting away from the questioning of him and his usual clamour for the moral high ground.

 

I know mate, it's his customary diversion tactics, trying to divert attention from his latest arse kicking that he was getting last night!

 

Nobody has given either of you two muppets permission to repost that information.

The fact you'd get angry at being treat how you treat others shows you for the cowardly, hypocritical bullies you are, hiding your activitie behind an anonymous username.

Yep, I'm anonyous too, but I'm not trying to justify stalking and victimisation.

 

You do understand that Peter Saxon has put this information into the public domain himself. He has tacitly shown that people can repost this information by posting this information into public domains, forums, websites and such (such as a user on here quoting someone's post, or viewing someone's Facebook profile). Not that permission is needed because as soon as information is put into the public domain it is by very definition not private, so long as it is not used for slander/libel.

But I'm sure you must know this already and are just creating a straw man argument...

 

It's information that's in the public domain, put there by HIM.

It's on THIS SITE, posted by HIM.

This thread is about a registered political party and it's website - put out there by HIM.

We've been taking the piss about his 2 kitchens, information put out there by HIM

He knows we've seen his house, as his website shows his address - information put there by HIM

He wasn't in the slightest bit bothered either when it came up.

 

Squeals and wriggles from some.

None of you had permission, tacit or otherwise, and it breaches the forum rules, as does victimisation.

It's noted that you cowardly bullies would go to lengths against anyone that did it to you.

I hope your 'jutification' for abusing information doesn't put people off posting fundraising information. That's fair game in your world.

 

You've excelled yourself by shoehorning in a completely random charity reference in order to try and add to your faux indignation.

Well done

 

I'm not indignant, faux or otherwise. The hypocrital cowards seem to think everyone is fair game but them.

 

His 'logic' is completely off the wall and he's beginning to mirror Pete in his ludicrous way of developing an argument!

In his mind, if a company posts their company address on their own website then you could share that address - say for Weatherspoons as it would be 'abusing their information' as such no one would ever be able to tell anyone else where that company/Spoons was!

 

Sure you're not.

There's no hypocrisy here at all btw, as for it to be hypocritical we'd have had to have done the same thing that Mr Saxton has done and expect different treatment.

What he has done is allow his real identity to be known via his username, and the picture he has as his avatar - his choice. We choose not to (same as you do) and therefore don't want our identities revealed on a public forum, and that right is ours to hold. Pete chose to make his identity public, and is seemingly not arsed either, and has made no comment suggesting that he is, so what gives you the right to get on your high horse about it?

 

I've argued nothing of the sort. That's a piss poor attempt to justify the cowardice.

 

He's created this latest straw man argument merely to deflect from the original discussion about 'abuse', in which he was made to look a complete hypocrite