Tim Bill and IMOC-UK

[ryan]

1. Leeroy
2. Enigma
3. anna
4. skinthespin
5. simmo
6. ht
7. Dwayn Pipe
8. Ivor Grandon
9. Osama Bin Laden
10. Betty Swollocks
11. Mary Hinge

[simmo490]

thats what i like 11 people now. nothing like helping ya mates out

[RichLee]

[Icsunonove]

Tim, you have already inflicted enough damage on IMOC by wearing down a number of the committee members to such a point that a few of them have decided to quit. And the repercussions of your (threatened) actions are ongoing and potentially costly. The further steps that IMOC may / will need to take will mean that club funds are used taking professional advice. These are funds that could have been used elsewhere….

Yet you continue to post under this ridiculous facade of EdMR2????

Please leave and allow IMOC to continue in the successful vane it was previously enjoying.

[skinthespin]

Why the less said about me the better Ed? Is that because I have been able to see through Tims facade for longer than most?

[EdMR2]

Icsunonove i'm not Tim! tim's left this forum now because of this crap!

Personally i think you stepping down as committee was the best thing you did, take it a step futher and step down from moderator as well because you obviously don't have any facts and are just out to cause futher trouble.

If you can prove were the same person then post it.

That goes for you as well Simon. Put up or Shut up.

Alot of the members on here have seen us both and know us both personally. You stupid alligations aren't good enough.

Ed.

LOCK THIS THREAD!

[BenF]

Ed,

Regarding the points I made earlier, by refuting that Tim ever made any legal threat you put us in a difficult position needing to correct this assertion. Action was threatened in emails and PMs that Tim sent which you may not have seen - please check with Tim - as a result we took those very seriously.

We're happy to provide all of these and all other correspondence in relation to this matter in the interests of full disclosure to our club members - but we respect Tim's wishes and acknowledge that at this time Tim has not agreed to this.

Certainly Lauren, myself and Malcolm have each received communications containing the threat of legal and therefore we acknowledged this to Tim and dealt with the situation appropriately - Malcolm has already said that the time that he put into Legally addressing this if billed to IMOC at a market rate would have run past £2,500.

In the future, we're looking at having to potentially spend a four figured sum recurring annually to change and protect the club, its members and officers - Given we're not run for profit, and have a small income funded by members and companies that advertise here this does disappoint me but it sadly appears to be required in this day.

Ben

[EdMR2]

Ben i understand your stand point but i believe Tim contacted the committee regarding his ban and was told to basically go away in a more harsh way. The terms legal only came into this because of that.

Regarding releacing all the information i believe this has been explained.

You have to ask yourself that if certain committee members weren't on there high horse and listened then we wouldn't be here. Nor would be here if this thread wasn't posted which i feel was just a way to discredit his lifelyhood.

Why would changes result in a 4 figure annual sum? there are lots of other forums on the internet that don't get changed that to protect themselfs. All it needs is someone who understands the law. Also not being funny but as i pointed out to speedy last night the new rules and conditions you've added to this site doesn't mean anything as the rules in force at the time of regestration are whats agreed upon. Not being awkward but you've still got a huge loophole. Now that didn't cost 4 figured did it?

Ed.

[BenF]

Icsunonove i'm not Tim!

Ed,

It has been noted that you and Tim appear to be sharing the same PC (IP address) and continue to share the same email address - I believe this has been bought to your attention previously via PM from Tom.

I accept Ed and Tim are two different 'real' people - but in the interests of clarity I'd suggest you do not share PC or Email addresses otherwise you leave open the possibility that both accounts are being operated by one person, which would be against forum rules.

Ben

[EdMR2]

its operated from a single computer at Tim's which is used for office work also. Email address is @xxxx.com address because its all forwarded through the website.

Like tonight i'm at Tim's watching UFC, its finished so i'm off home.

Ben after this farse of a thread is locked i'm leaving anyway so no worry about duplicate accounts. This has been explained also before.

I just don't understand why this all blew out of proportion, You seemed very happy that Tim was back and gave his word to change his ways.

Did he or did he not contact you when he came back offering to help anyway he could and contribute to this forum?

Why not just leave it all with that instead of starting a thread which would obviously drag up the past and cause problems?

Ed.

[BenF]

Ben i understand your stand point but i believe Tim contacted the committee regarding his ban and was told to basically go away in a more harsh way. The terms legal only came into this because of that.

Lauren is well known for her directness; do not mistake that for being unfair or harsh. She calls it like it is; we have to do that when moderating any posts here.

You have to ask yourself that if certain committee members weren't on there high horse and listened then we wouldn't be here. Nor would be here if this thread wasn't posted which i feel was just a way to discredit his lifelyhood.

Ed, we did try really hard with Tim to work with him, and we have put probably ten times more effort (and that's an underestimate if anything) into working with Tim whilst he was here.

He does have something to contribute to the MR2 community, but his actions effectively put IMOC and its members at risk from legal action from other Businesses as a result of his conduct here.

In the Club's interests, we couldn't permit this. The Rules were setup to provide a steer for most members

Why would changes result in a 4 figure annual sum? there are lots of other forums on the internet that don't get changed that to protect themselfs.

I can't speak for other forums, but but briefly:

The issue is that if legal action is being brought, it would be against the individual members of the committee at that time as they represented the Club at the time of the issue.

We're currently working to address this - but any solution is going to cost over a grand to implement - either Ltd Company (Accountants, Public Liability insurace) or PL cover for the club as it (I've had premiums quoted of upto £5k).

Given a typical annual income is around £3-4k you can see what an impact needing to set aside £1k will have on the club's members.

Also not being funny but as i pointed out to speedy last night the new rules and conditions you've added to this site doesn't mean anything as the rules in force at the time of regestration are whats agreed upon. Not being awkward but you've still got a huge loophole. Now that didn't cost 4 figured did it?

Yes, that's also in hand.

[EdMR2]

Ed, we did try really hard with Tim to work with him, and we have put probably ten times more effort (and that's an underestimate if anything) into working with Tim whilst he was here.

He does have something to contribute to the MR2 community, but his actions effectively put IMOC and its members at risk from legal action from other Businesses as a result of his conduct here.

In the Club's interests, we couldn't permit this. The Rules were setup to provide a steer for most members

So he was allowed to return, but you say you wouldn't permit this?

So are you saying because he returned because of a loop hole you and the committee were upset that you lost face and have let this thread persist to push him out?

Ed.

[EdMR2]

EdMR2 wrote:
Ben i understand your stand point but i believe Tim contacted the committee regarding his ban and was told to basically go away in a more harsh way. The terms legal only came into this because of that.



Lauren is well known for her directness; do not mistake that for being unfair or harsh. She calls it like it is; we have to do that when moderating any posts here.

I wasn't actually talking about lauren, but the harshness of committee comments. I feel this lead to an email being sent outlining the rules and legal standpoint being an affiliate contract.

Could you then put this down to a big misunderstanding on both parties because of certain attitude inturpitations?

Ed.

[BenF]

its operated from a single computer at Tim's which is used for office work also. Email address is @xxxx.com address because its all forwarded through the website.

Like tonight i'm at Tim's watching UFC, its finished so i'm off home.

Ben after this farse of a thread is locked i'm leaving anyway so no worry about duplicate accounts. This has been explained also before.

Yes, but you appreciate you sharing a PC gives us a problem? We're giving you the benefit of the doubt currently.

I just don't understand why this all blew out of proportion, You seemed very happy that Tim was back and gave his word to change his ways.

Ed, I was relieved that Tim and ourselves could come to a agreement to resolve the situation. After four weeks of discussion and a lot of time from many people it was good to move on.

This agreement was as stated at the start of this thread, nearly 400 posts ago:

After discussions between the Committee and Tim Bill of xxxx following the withdrawal of Advertiser status for xxxx, it has been agreed that Tim Bill will be permitted to post on the Forum using the account Tim-B in an individual capacity and not as a representative of xxxx from 28 May 2007.

As with all private individual accounts, no advertising or promotion of commercial products is permitted.

The Committee

As for locking the thread - if questions arise that haven't already been answered, it is fair to provide a place where they can be posted and responded to.

We want this discussion to be as open and transparent as we can make it for the benefit of IMOC members.

As with all topics, I'm sure it will draw to a natural close when all questions have been answered.

[BenF]

So he was allowed to return, but you say you wouldn't permit this?

So are you saying because he returned because of a loop hole you and the committee were upset that you lost face and have let this thread persist to push him out?

Ed, we're not pushing this thread, it appears you are. We've chosen not to release the discussions between Tim and ourselves.

As for loss of face - that's the least of our worries !

[BenF]

Could you then put this down to a big misunderstanding on both parties because of certain attitude inturpitations?

I don't see how we could once we'd been informed you were taking legal advice. After all, we had over four weeks to discuss things in - if it was a 'rush of blood' then surely it would have been sorted in a couple of days?

We did seek to speak to Tim directly about this to resolve it but he wanted all communication to be written. IMO, I feel that was an opportunity he potentially missed to sort things out.

[EdMR2]

well thankyou for the benifit of the doubt. Tim doesn't want to comment on this as everything seems to be used as encriminating evidence with no fact. I don't blame him. He is also not telling me what to write these are my own words.

I feel this thread did come to a natural end. Since leeroy brought this back up no new questions have been asked regarding this just abuse and negative comments by a sellect few members and a majority of committee/admin members. Why not just delete all posts that weren't asking a new question? Why let posts that are just negative comments which do nothing but degrade both parties.

I also feel that the committee is letting this continue to discredit him. I've seen PM's from committee members on this forum where its been nothing but abusive comments from start to finish and in not so many words saying "your back but we'll get you out"

I think this could have been handled alot better. It all started off well and professional. I think if only new questions were allowed to be posted and answered. also heavily moderated so only factual information was allowed and preventing feelings of either side from being published it wouldn't have exploded into chaos that it has.

I know for a FACT tim's been very thankyou for all the help the committee put into this, which is why he was suprised some of the comments hes recieved from the committee behind the scenes, Thats also why he offered to help and redeem himself anyway he could.

Ed.

[EdMR2]

EdMR2 wrote:

Could you then put this down to a big misunderstanding on both parties because of certain attitude inturpitations?



I don't see how we could once we'd been informed you were taking legal advice. After all, we had over four weeks to discuss things in - if it was a 'rush of blood' then surely it would have been sorted in a couple of days?

We did seek to speak to Tim directly about this to resolve it but he wanted all communication to be written. IMO, I feel that was an opportunity he potentially missed to sort things out.

He was advised to keep everything for proof if needed.

I don't see how a descussion in writing is any different than one in person? I know Tim hated having to use the legal card and was highly against some of the information that was presented to you. I feel this could have all been resolved peacfully. I know hes had warnings before and hes admitted his mistakes. I mean a flexable comprimise like 12 month ban with a probation for example. I know this banning has changed him, he thinks about his posts more now and doesn't allow himself to post while still emotional.

Ed.

[skinthespin]

Ed, it is quite clear from earlier posts the real Ed has much better spelling and grammar and his english is quite different to yours.

Also I have had problems with Tim in the past and am glad to see him go, I will not hide that fact and if you really wanted I could tell you why, although I have refrained from doing that in the past.

[markiii]

Regarding releacing all the information i believe this has been explained.

not adequatley it's not