Pasoti Statement...

Non-profits ( is Pasoti really non profit? Discuss) still have to comply with the basic principles of the DPA. Requests for deletion must be complied with and personal details - including ip addresses should be deleted as a user leaves the site.

Anyone wanting to know what Pasoti holds on them can make a Data Subject Access Request, which has to be responded to in full, giving an individual all information that an organisation holds on them. The only disadvantage is that the holding organisation can charge £10 for processing these requests

If they knew it was previously banned posters why not delete and ban and why did angry Andy resign then

Homeslice wrote:

A few things, apart from those already mentioned on here ( and btw Peggy - great post!)

Does anyone have screenshots of the original thread where people complained about Soper? Because I'm bloody certain they were all long-standing pasoti users.

If, as the Porkmeister is claiming, the people complaining about Soper were previously banned posters, why aren't they showing in the 'banned users' section now? If Porky knows who they are, then surely he'll have them booted and publicly named and shamed.

No mention of the fact that what Soper said was so vile and depraved that he should have been removed as a mod even if no-one had complained.

Correct, they all seemed to be regular contributors...Up the line and Knibbsworth being 2 that I can recall. Another blatant lie and og from porky.

It's ok. Newell knows better than the lawmakers about privacy.

That's why he had Brent's text messages, Rickler's home address, a young man's medical details and all sorts of other private and confidential information on his Flickr account, which was of course open to public view.

His middle name is data protection, don't you know.

Let's play a game.

How much hypocritical bullshit can you see in this post from Porky:

The Porkmeister wrote:

The people that seem to hate us, watch every word mate.

Again I find it strange that we defend our policy whilst others flaunt it.

The problem is the Mods and I can see things (E mail addresses and IP adresses) which we know are false or linked to these people, making trouble, but we just deal with it quietly.

Even Daniel M above who falsely claims there are no exceptions to this law, once posted a terrible comment about the private life of a Pasoti'te which had to be removed (I wonder where a persons privacy was in his mind when he wrote that!). You see how difficult it is for us to remain controlled and all times. As soon as a Mod or I retaliate, the 'agents' come on and are outraged calling for people to be 'sacked' etc. It's almost amusing as to how predictable it is. The frustrating part is how people believe their repeated (and by God I mean repeated) bullsh*t.

Even last night we avidly protect a persons right of not having his private life blasted over a football forum as some people feel the need to hint at it. That's proper 'data' protection, not some stupid act that helps shadow dwellers to hide behind if applied incorrectly.

 

I see one of the Mods agreeing with that statement is  Andy Soper Alan Turing

I have this lovely image of an overweight guy in Plymouth right now feverishly searching the data protection act online.

akagreengull wrote:

I have this lovely image of an overweight guy in Plymouth right now feverishly searching the data protection act online.

Then getting flustered as his search for daterprotectshun has no results

Yea Man wrote:

akagreengull wrote:

I have this lovely image of an overweight guy in Plymouth right now feverishly searching the data protection act online.

Then getting flustered as his search for daterprotectshun has no results

Have you noticed how the spelling mistakes go up with his blood pressure

He's just incredibly dim.....instead of taking the hit over GC and hunkering down in his bunker he's escalated it out of all proportion with multiple posts on multiple threads raising the profile and digging his hole bigger now looking an utter berk over data protection

Playing the victim card i see ..tossers
All together now ahh!! Lets all get the violins out the prick shouldnt have made the remark in the first place

RegGreen wrote:

Playing the victim card i see ..tossers
All together now ahh!! Lets all get the violins out  the prick shouldnt have made the remark in the first place

No No No No No Reg cmon play the game.....
This vile and poisonous website forced Soper to make the remark. Nooly says so...

Tgwu wrote:

Save going over

A few days ago we lost a long serving and valued Moderator due to the fact he posted an ill thought out comment.
As you can imagine all of the Site Admin are gutted by this.

What was interesting though was almost all of the objectors, containing some whom we believe are banned posters using different usernames and some of whom have not posted here for many many months, came on collectively and complained in the strongest terms about Andy's single comment.

These same posters use Free Chat and ATD regularly where vile comments, character assassination and insults are made daily and nothing is done about them and are left unmoderated.

With this in mind, perhaps you can forgive the Site Admin of Pasoti to suspect that there is a long term and sustained campaign from the sites concerned.

We realise that many Pasoti posters do not want to read about such nonsense but sometimes we feel the need to have our say.

Blah!! Blah!! Blah!! Same old bollox blame everybody else  

Les Miserable wrote:

Gotta love the diverse, thoroughly un-orchestrated responses from these random pasoti members

That is impressive, 100% agreement and no disagreement on the LOCKED THREAD only open to poodles, only on pasoti.

Homeslice wrote:

Non-profits ( is Pasoti really non profit? Discuss) still have to comply with the basic principles of the DPA. Requests for deletion must be complied with and personal details - including ip addresses should be deleted as a user leaves the site.

Anyone wanting to know what Pasoti holds on them can make a Data Subject Access Request, which has to be responded to in full, giving an individual all information that an organisation holds on them. The only disadvantage is that the holding organisation can charge £10 for processing these requests

Profit is made from Pasoti - The horse's mouth told me in 2013



24/01/2013 13:55:12: Dane: Probs still one yourself and I read you own pasoti

24/01/2013 13:55:30: Ian Newell: Posty detests you mate, not a chance.

24/01/2013 13:55:45: Dane: He doesn't even know me

24/01/2013 13:55:48: Dane: Never met me

24/01/2013 13:56:37: Ian Newell: I do own it, but I don't moderate it. I earn all the money from every hit. The more the aggro, the more money I earn!

24/01/2013 13:57:23: Dane: Is it much ?

24/01/2013 13:58:22: Dane: You surely don't get paid for every hit ?

24/01/2013 14:07:08: Ian Newell: Not much, £261 last week, and that was a good week!

24/01/2013 14:07:22: Dane: Are you on a wind up

24/01/2013 14:07:34: Ian Newell: No why?

24/01/2013 14:08:09: Dane: Why would you tell me.  When people online are searching for this answer and no one will tell them

24/01/2013 14:08:58: Ian Newell: Loads of adverts. £450 per advert per year and then fractions of a penny each time sonrone links to them.

From comedy gold to outright lies:

Farm controller wrote:

By the way, way before I came on the scene some of those that now play us up (Peggy, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to name just two) , had multis and lots of them.

Getting desperate now. When we were mods (ie when pasoti was good) we had two logins: one for posting and one for modding. Mod names were changed every so often. Those mod names were the only multis I ever had on there and you know it. Unlike you, I've never felt the need to hide behind a pseudonym, but then I've never felt the need to lie, slander, bully and control, either.

Loving the way telling the truth about all your activities has now become 'playing us up', by the way. The hole you're digging yourself must be getting close to the earth's core now.

Oh, and just to repeat: if anything - anything at all - happens to me as a result of my calling you out and you getting my address from the planning portal the police will be at your door faster than you can say 'ee saved us'.

Dane. wrote:

Homeslice wrote:

Non-profits ( is Pasoti really non profit? Discuss) still have to comply with the basic principles of the DPA. Requests for deletion must be complied with and personal details - including ip addresses should be deleted as a user leaves the site.

Anyone wanting to know what Pasoti holds on them can make a Data Subject Access Request, which has to be responded to in full, giving an individual all information that an organisation holds on them. The only disadvantage is that the holding organisation can charge £10 for processing these requests

Profit is made from Pasoti - The horse's mouth told me in 2013



24/01/2013 13:55:12: Dane: Probs still one yourself and I read you own pasoti

24/01/2013 13:55:30: Ian Newell: Posty detests you mate, not a chance.

24/01/2013 13:55:45: Dane: He doesn't even know me

24/01/2013 13:55:48: Dane: Never met me

24/01/2013 13:56:37: Ian Newell: I do own it, but I don't moderate it. I earn all the money from every hit. The more the aggro, the more money I earn!

24/01/2013 13:57:23: Dane: Is it much ?

24/01/2013 13:58:22: Dane: You surely don't get paid for every hit ?

24/01/2013 14:07:08: Ian Newell: Not much, £261 last week, and that was a good week!

24/01/2013 14:07:22: Dane: Are you on a wind up

24/01/2013 14:07:34: Ian Newell: No why?

24/01/2013 14:08:09: Dane: Why would you tell me.  When people online are searching for this answer and no one will tell them

24/01/2013 14:08:58: Ian Newell: Loads of adverts. £450 per advert per year and then fractions of a penny each time sonrone links to them.

Whilst I won't edit or remove a post be aware that you are responsible for what you post online and if a claim for libel were to come in the new libel laws place the onus on you first and foremost. Just a friendly warning.

Thanks for the heads-up however - This is a saved whatsapp conversation - it cant be libel considering this is an old conversation and he himself sent it. If the situation has changed regarding payment now, so be it, however this came from him back in 2013 !

Dane. wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up however - This is a saved whatsapp conversation - it cant be libel of that what he himself said !

If you have the proof then all is good but keep it safe incase someone does come knocking

I've seen the above posted before and it wasn't called out by Porky then.
In other news Daniel M has been deactivated for speaking freely on the free speech forum.

Yea Man wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up however - This is a saved whatsapp conversation - it cant be libel of that what he himself said !

If you have the proof then all is good but keep it safe incase someone does come knocking

Well i have the entire conversation saved yes !

you can download whatsapp conversations !

harvetheslayer wrote:

RegGreen wrote:

Playing the victim card i see ..tossers
All together now ahh!! Lets all get the violins out  the prick shouldnt have made the remark in the first place

No No No No No Reg cmon play the game.....
This vile and poisonous website forced Soper to make the remark. Nooly says so...

Earwegoagain wrote:

I've seen the above posted before and it wasn't called out by Porky then.
In other news Daniel M has been deactivated for speaking freely on the free speech forum.

LOL, just read that post from Daniel M. Newell owned once again, so, in typical fashion, Danial is deactivated pending a 'mod' discussion (that's him gone then - or maybe not after De-liar has read this and gives him one more chance, whilst playing the we don't ban anyone and free speech is welcome on Pispotti, BS card. LOL)and called an idiot by Newell.

I see Newell got his two-penneth in before denying Daniel his right of reply.

I sometimes forget that Nool paid the bloke who did the Pasoti murals £250 to set up the fake ATD.