Tim Bill and IMOC-UK

[anna]

I agree Nik, No chance it would have got anywhere...

But in defending any action as individuals you would have to be able to front the costs of defence, and if you won, you'd have to be sure those costs would be reimbursed by the other party...

As a committee of individuals, I fully respect that any decision to go forward to defend any action or threatened action must be unanimous as it affect the whole committee as individuals.

[Lauren]

Yes yes it will.. Just you wait and see.. hilarity will appear.

Although Lauren you would need a sense of humor first...

MMC. Oh the irony.

Its 'Humour' btw.

[Speedy]

Yes yes it will.. Just you wait and see.. hilarity will appear.

Although Lauren you would need a sense of humor first...

MMC. Oh the irony.

Its 'Humour' btw.

I thought that was the joke

[RichLee]

This entire thread is a joke!

Lock it, delete it if you have the clubs interests in mind, this dragging on and on, people posting comments all based on no evidence what so ever...most of it is all hear say.

In fact this thread should never have even been created in first place and in my eyes was only created to rub salt in to the wounds as this was the reaction that the IMOC committee clearly wanted.

As for Committee members leaving because of this whole thing, oh the drama indeed! More like a sense of guilt and 'get out whilst they can' if this ever went further.

[nailmonkey]

The bank account which deals with the hosting fees and premium memberships is run as a club account. Not a business.

But bank accounts can be one of two types 1) business or 2) personal what is a club account?

1) Yes, so we'd all have to stump up the cash to fight it. Not worth it, we'd just take the collective decision to close the club instead.
2) Yes, we're looking into it at the moment.

What exactly does the 'club' entail if there is no business/company behind it and how could it be closed? Especially as we've determined that any action would be taken against the committee as individuals?

I'm sure you're right (on both counts). No matter what the result is, you've got to put up a lot of cash to fight the action.

Tim would have to have the cash to start the action, and we're talking ten's of thousands. This is based on costs for libel cases, as I can't find any mention of anyone seeking damages for being banned from an internet forum. This means that it would probably cost even more as there is no precedent.



Finally, I'm not posting in order to be argumentative but as I presume that you will shortly be looking for new moderators/committee members, people need to be aware of the factors involved.

Nik

[Speedy]

People posting things based on no evidence? Could you please point me to the posts where somebody has been accused of something with no evidence? Then can you point me to the place where we have asked about being able to post up all of the stuff we have?

We are not going to lock this unless it becomes abusive. We have absolutley nothing to hide about the affair. If we lock it, then it just becomes some giant conspiracy.

The thread was created to stop any rumors, so that people know what is going on.

and as for :

As for Committee members leaving because of this whole thing, oh the drama indeed! More like a sense of guilt and 'get out whilst they can' if this ever went further.

As you say, you shouldn't really post up comments based on no evidence. I'm sure you've talked to the moderators and committee people who have decided to leave, so you know that for sure.

[nailmonkey]

I agree Nik, No chance it would have got anywhere...

But in defending any action as individuals you would have to be able to front the costs of defence, and if you won, you'd have to be sure those costs would be reimbursed by the other party...

As a committee of individuals, I fully respect that any decision to go forward to defend any action or threatened action must be unanimous as it affect the whole committee as individuals.

Hi Anna,

I think the committee did exactly what anyone would have done in the same situation. I think that it is awful that the committee members should be threatened as individuals when they are trying to run a club for the benefit of the members.

It's such a shame that we have lost so many members of the committee due to this, I think it's clear from the other threads that everyone appreciates all of the work that you and the others have put in.

Nik

[Speedy]

The bank account which deals with the hosting fees and premium memberships is run as a club account. Not a business.

But bank accounts can be one of two types 1) business or 2) personal what is a club account?

1) Yes, so we'd all have to stump up the cash to fight it. Not worth it, we'd just take the collective decision to close the club instead.
2) Yes, we're looking into it at the moment.

What exactly does the 'club' entail if there is no business/company behind it and how could it be closed? Especially as we've determined that any action would be taken against the committee as individuals?

I'm sure you're right (on both counts). No matter what the result is, you've got to put up a lot of cash to fight the action.

Tim would have to have the cash to start the action, and we're talking ten's of thousands. This is based on costs for libel cases, as I can't find any mention of anyone seeking damages for being banned from an internet forum. This means that it would probably cost even more as there is no precedent.



Finally, I'm not posting in order to be argumentative but as I presume that you will shortly be looking for new moderators/committee members, people need to be aware of the factors involved.

Nik

1) You can have a 'club' account with a bank. They don't charge you anything for the account, and you have a limited amount of things you can do, but it's so that no one person is in charge of the money for the club. Cheques have to be countersigned, everybody knows what's going on etc.

2) The club is the money in the account, and all of the Forums/IP contained therein, all of the assets which the club owns (Gazeebos, Banners etc). You would close the club because the committee are effectivley the 'club'. If you close the club, you can't have any legal action against the club.

3) Of course, but like Anna says, it had to be a unanimous decision, since it would potentially threaten the committees assets (houses, cars etc). It wasn't, so we didn't.

4) Again - yes, which is why nobody has been replaced yet, and won't be replaced until such time as these issues are addressed.

[anna]

As for Committee members leaving because of this whole thing, oh the drama indeed! More like a sense of guilt and 'get out whilst they can' if this ever went further.

RichLee - you are wrong. The truth of the matter is that I left because I was fed up with the soul destroying nature that being on the committee entailed at the time.
You get to the point where you seriously CBA anymore... and I had got there with bells on.

Feel free to take up a role onthe committee and do a better job though

Oh - and if it were left to me (and only me) i'd tell Tim to take a run and jump. He's a complete waste of space, and time, and has no concept of anyother persons point of view. I've wasted more time than I'd like to admit on trying to explain what libel is to him, and what advertising means, but he's either as thick as two short planks, or some sort of evil genius bent on getting his business to the top by screwing over anyone that stands in his way. Or at least, that's the way he has come across to me.

[nailmonkey]

1) You can have a 'club' account with a bank. They don't charge you anything for the account, and you have a limited amount of things you can do, but it's so that no one person is in charge of the money for the club. Cheques have to be countersigned, everybody knows what's going on etc.

I wasn't aware of 'club' accounts, guessing it has only two signatories though as anymore would be impractical. So by claiming damages from the committee as individuals, would the club be involved at all as most of the committee member would, legally, have nothing to do with the bank account and therefore the club?

2) The club is the money in the account, and all of the Forums/IP contained therein, all of the assets which the club owns (Gazeebos, Banners etc). You would close the club because the committee are effectively the 'club'. If you close the club, you can't have any legal action against the club.

Pretty much covered in point 1) but as far as I am aware the URL isn't owned by a current member of the committee or a signatory of the bank account ergo 'the club'. I wonder what, if any, Mr. Mailers liability would have been if there was any action, as in the case of internet libel the forum and the ISP become the 'publisher'...

3) Of course, but like Anna says, it had to be a unanimous decision, since it would potentially threaten the committees assets (houses, cars etc). It wasn't, so we didn't.

100% agree, you should do whatever it takes to protect your personal assets, even if it meant the end of IMOC.

4) Again - yes, which is why nobody has been replaced yet, and won't be replaced until such time as these issues are addressed.

Surely the first step would be to form a limited company to remove any personal liability from the committee.

Nik

[anna]

Surely the first step would be to form a limited company to remove any personal liability from the committee.

Nik

Good point well made there...

Unfortunately it costs a fair amount of money, and time to set up. It's also possibly part of the reason for a fair amount of 'flux' in the committee at the moment.

[Speedy]

1) It's a grey area. I'm sure that we would have to use club funds to fight the action.
2) Your right, Mr Mailer was one of the original IMOC people, like Mr Nias and Mr Formesyn (who is the current chairman), way, way back, from before I'd even learnt to drive (probably, just to make them feel old) other than that, it's all a grey area (although I note that a Belgian ISP has been ruled as responsible for p2p traffic over it's network today..)

whatever number the last one is) Yes, that is what we are looking into at the moment.

[RichLee]

People posting things based on no evidence? Could you please point me to the posts where somebody has been accused of something with no evidence? Then can you point me to the place where we have asked about being able to post up all of the stuff we have?

The entire legal side of things, you have made it look like Tim wanted to bring the club down when he was just acting on the fact that you broke your own rules when removing his trader status.

We are not going to lock this unless it becomes abusive. We have absolutley nothing to hide about the affair. If we lock it, then it just becomes some giant conspiracy.

Have you actually read some of the posts in this thread, just look above at Leeroy's and skinthespin's posts for example? Yes if you lock the thread it becomes a giant conspiracy...but isnt that for the best for everyone? We can move on and forget about it all?

As for Committee members leaving because of this whole thing, oh the drama indeed! More like a sense of guilt and 'get out whilst they can' if this ever went further.

As you say, you shouldn't really post up comments based on no evidence. I'm sure you've talked to the moderators and committee people who have decided to leave, so you know that for sure.

Of course, but like Anna says, it had to be a unanimous decision, since it would potentially threaten the committees assets (houses, cars etc). It wasn't, so we didn't.

What threat? What did you all have to worry about unless you were all in the wrong and proven guilty.

Tim would NEVER have brought the club down and people should stop saying that he would have! Do you really think after all of this thats what Tim would have done, after the numerous comments from him saying that all he wanted to do was return as a normal member to give advice etc.

Everyone who wants him off the forum again should be ashamed!

Tim has his supporters on this club, people who can see through all of this 'he was going bring the club to its knees' rubbish.

You started this thread and I have read it, the Committee has acted in a professional manner all the way through and I'm happy you have done so but everything is once again being manipulated and twisted by members on the club.

[Speedy]

What threat? What did you all have to worry about unless you were all in the wrong and proven guilty.

Tim would NEVER have brought the club down and people should stop saying that he would have! Do you really think after all of this thats what Tim would have done, after the numerous comments from him saying that all he wanted to do was return as a normal member to give advice etc.

Everyone who wants him off the forum again should be ashamed!

Ask Tim about the threat. We have chosen not to reveal the nature of what Tim said to the committee at the moment. As Malcolm has said prior, we have chosen not to reveal it at the moment because we would prefer not to, unless Tim is happy with us doing that, which up to this moment he has not been.

[nailmonkey]

1) It's a grey area. I'm sure that we would have to use club funds to fight the action.

But would it have been appropriate to use club money to fight action against individuals?

2) Your right, Mr Mailer was one of the original IMOC people, like Mr Nias and Mr Formesyn (who is the current chairman), way, way back, from before I'd even learnt to drive (probably, just to make them feel old) other than that, it's all a grey area (although I note that a Belgian ISP has been ruled as responsible for p2p traffic over it's network today..)

It's not really a grey area, ISP will always take a site down in the case of illegal activity or libel (at least ones hosted in the UK, Germany, Belgium, etc) See Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited

whatever number the last one is) Yes, that is what we are looking into at the moment.

It's got to be the way forward....

Nik

[CosmosblueMR2]

[
Everyone who wants him off the forum again should be ashamed!

.

I personally don't want someone on here who has had 3 (actually 4! but one lapsed literally days before his last well presided over warning) formal warnings over his conduct.

But he used a loophole to get another username and just act as a "normal" member instead.

Any other person would be banned for 1 year and live by the decision -
... how many effing strikes does someone need before they realise their conduct is out of order ?

[Speedy]

It's not really a grey area, ISP will always take a site down in the case of illegal activity or libel (at least ones hosted in the UK, Germany, Belgium, etc) See Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited

That is true - but the reason I don't think it's a grey area is because this particular case hasn't been tested in a court of law yet, so you don't know if it's actually illegal or not.

[Speedy]

But would it have been appropriate to use club money to fight action against individuals?

Oh, and yes, if it is because of the club that it's happening.

[michael]

Any other person would be banned for 1 year and live by the decision -
... how many effing strikes does someone need before they realise their conduct is out of order ?

Mad isn't it, Xxxx gets banned for life for telling a few lies and someone who threatens to take down the whole of IMOC is back on as if nothing has happened... oh but he's said sorry so we should move on

[anna]

People posting things based on no evidence? Could you please point me to the posts where somebody has been accused of something with no evidence? Then can you point me to the place where we have asked about being able to post up all of the stuff we have?

The entire legal side of things, you have made it look like Tim wanted to bring the club down when he was just acting on the fact that you broke your own rules when removing his trader status.

Well, he did. He threatened legal action on the basis that 'we broke our own rules'.
IMOC's rules have never been legally inspected because it would cost money. It was made painfully clear what the committee interpretation ofthe rules were to Tim, and yet, after the fact, he decides to come and pick holes in them.

That's fine, but hardly an honourable thing to do.