Sockpuppets on t'other forum

[Robin Orton]

You too might be surprised by the number of the great and good in our communities who have been targeted. […]
If you encounter one - do have a chat with them - ask a few questions.

Unlikely. I'm afraid I don't move in those circles.

[admin]

CB has targeted me in the past, as admin on this forum - more than once. Distasteful.

[JGD]

Unlikely. I'm afraid I don't move in those circles.

I use the term euphemistically. It was intended to cover the full spectrum.

Pretty sure I don't qualify either - but you get the gist of it.

It's a little regrettable if you don't.

Hey-ho!

[hotterthanurex]

Well it's clear he's got a lot of time on his hands... So yeah, pretty likely. Hi Chris!

[hotterthanurex]

Really don't like the idea of an anonymous collection of accounts though, sorry. If someone irl was rude or v goady or unpleasant (but not doing anything illegal) then collecting everyone's account of that person's behaviour and posting it on the noticeboard by the station wouldn't be OK. So this isn't either.
If it's a crime to falsely accuse someone of being under police investigation (which the police have confirmed it is) then it should be a police matter, but only if that person wants to take it further. From what I've read engaging with Chris is the last thing anyone would want to do so I can see why she might leave it.

[admin]

Rod Taylor asked:
?? Admin - how likely is it that a poster on STF could be a Chris Beach sock puppet? Am I right in presuming as long as he continues to change email address he could pop up indefinitely with a new sock puppet?

He has had at least two sockpuppet accounts on here in the past.

[Robin Orton]

We had a prolonged debate on this forum several years ago about the use of pseudonyms. I thought the default position for a local forum should be that posters should use their real names, but the consensus was very much in favour of anonymity.

I find that using my own name has the advantage of making me careful about what I post - I always try to think, 'Would I be happy about this post if I met the person I am arguing with in real life (as I might well do, Sydenham being quite a small place)?'

I did briefly meet Chris once, and we were quite civil to each other. I cannot say that the prospect of being 'traduced' by him worries me very much. Indeed, to be so traduced might well be both interesting and flattering, given that I find both his right-wing politics and his schoolboy atheism so inimical to my own ways of thinking.

[hotterthanurex]

Yeah but if you were a local teacher, youth leader, pastor, business owner, councilor, playworker (any job where you need a fair amount of public trust) you really wouldn't want Chris Beach on the attack, given the lengths he'll go to include accusing you of stuff on his widely read forum, using sock puppets to gain access to your social media and making up bs police investigations. Really potentially damaging stuff. Plus, I like speaking freely on forums (obviously not lambasting individuals but maybe giving my opinion on a planning issue). The vibe over at se. 23 life means I'd never have felt comfortable doing that under my own name.

[Nic]

Hi, this is Nicola. There’s a lot of speculation on here about the existence of a police report/investigation, so I thought I’d tell you what I know. After having seen the statements about a police report/investigation on SE23.Life etc, I voluntarily contacted Lewisham MPS and Kent Police to assist with enquiries. I have now attended Lewisham Police station on three separate occasions and visited/spoken with Kent Police on three separate occasions. On each occasion, no record of any report against me was found on their systems. The last time I visited Lewisham Police station, with an independent witness last week, I took with me the documents posted by Dick on this thread above, and I was told that there was no record of the MPS letter ever having been sent and the person I spoke with at Lewisham MPS told me they believed that this letter was faked/doctored. On the basis of all these enquiries directly with MPS and Kent Police forces, I could only conclude that no report/investigation exists.

However, over the weekend new evidence has come to light from an independent source – not from Lewisham MPS or Kent Police – that indicates that a report of some sort may have been filed with Kent Police. The evidence is credible, although it is not clear, if it is true, who or what the report relates to. I therefore contacted Kent Police again over the weekend with this new evidence and provided them with all my personal details. I haven’t heard anything back from them yet, so I am still no clearer at present.

Despite the fact that all my enquiries with the police to date point to the conclusion that a report/investigation involving me does not exist, I intend to proceed on the basis that a report does exist, at least until I have received answers to the questions this latest evidence raises. I have therefore arranged to meet with a criminal solicitor this week to discuss next steps. In the meantime, it’s probably not helpful for people to continue the speculation on here. I, for one, am giving Chris the benefit of the doubt on this – I don’t think it’s any secret that we’re not best friends, but it’s hard to believe he would make false claims about the existence of a police report and investigation, so I am prepared to believe there is a reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve any wrongdoing on his part.

I have chosen to make this post today to put an end to the public speculation about the existence or otherwise of a police report/investigation. I won't be commenting further unless and until I receive factual information that I deem appropriate to share publicly.

[Pally]

I have to agree with Robyn...not a wise idea on a public forum

[JGD]

I have to agree with Robyn...not a wise idea on a public forum

In all circumstances that are normal - I could not but agree.

If however a community has a predator in its midst and it is selectively picking off victims, abusing them and chooses to hide its activity, the community is entitled to see an articulation of what behaviours are being used to achieve this.

You can draw your own conclusion if you have seen any comparison in the behaviours and events, whether you see yourself as a victim or as an observer.

And you must make a decision if you believe you can identify the perpetrator of the predatory behaviour.

That part is left to you.

[FauxMensch2106]

I used to post here before moving out of area, my work computer doesn't let me google sync, so I've created a new username here.
I've posted on the dot life forums, and I've posted here. a while ago I got annoyed with the way the dot life forums were being run, so posted on here that I was leaving the other place. I then got a PM from CB on the other forums asking if I was the same person who was leaving, and asking why I was determined to undermine his forum, or words to that effect. There followed a series of PMs where he accused me of dirty tricks, and trying to bring down 'his forum', and asking why I'd not supported him when there were previous accusations (I can't remember the specifics now, but he was claiming to be the victim), and then I said that I was friends with Stuart and had got some information from him, and he basically said that I was wrong, and should chose my friends more carefully, and that no wonder I was against him as Stuart is a compulsive liar.
As I'd already moved away, I just started using all London based forum less, until I spent a weekend recently at my brothers in Forest Hill, and learnt about what had happened re CB & Flava Baker, and so came back to see what had occurred.

You do get to know the way certain people speak, use of certain words, phrases, etc, and sometimes it's just obvious that a new username is actually someone else you already know.

CB clearly can't be trusted to have any admin/access rights over peoples data. There are clearly GDPR issues that need sorting, but as he owns the dot life sites, that's not going to be easy to solve. I suspect the only way to stop him having those rights is to remove him somehow from having access, but the question is how? short of getting the service provider to pull the plug on the URLs, and starting over with someone else doing the sys/admin side of things, I can't see how to remove him.

(FauxMensch - formerly know as something else, but those who know, know, those who don't know, probably don't need to know, and can PM me if they'd like to know, and those that shouldn't know will work it out if they care to and really have got too much time on their hands)

[Tim Lund]

“CB clearly can't be trusted to have any admin/access rights over peoples data.”

...is really the take-home message from this whole affair.

And the take home question is why you should trust Facebook, Twitter or Google further with your data than him.

[DickWynne]

This whole business is just one aspect of the Faustian pact that is social media in all its forms.

I’m not on Facebook or Twitter; originally this was only because real life’s too short. But since reading The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (link below) I would never use them. It’s not just about the personal data we knowingly enter into these systems, but our online habits which are being tracked, analysed and sold to advertisers and political influencers. In short — we’re being farmed for all we’re worth.

Carol Cadwalladr (see her Ted talk below) is right to believe that free and fair elections may never again be possible, thanks to these addictive-by-design systems perpetrated by the big tech brats. Never a week passes without Facebook and Twitter whacking yet another subversive mole and saying piously ‘we must do better’ — and just this week YouTube is in the news for all the wrong reasons. This just isn’t good enough. These companies will never crack the problem, and we can’t afford to let them alone own it.

It doesn’t help that our politicians are either clueless or colluding in the problem themselves. A good start would be to make it illegal to collect the so-called ‘behavioural surplus’ data which is the life blood of the big tech companies and their subversive clients. Its price is just too high for all of us. Another essential is Proportional Representation. I know it was voted down a few years ago, but by golly that was then and this is now. PR would restore meaningful choice to the electorate, restore government by and for all the people, and weaken those who seek to polarise us.

We already have a 99% policy-free Brexit (so-called) Party which could, incredibly, win a general election under our fossil of a voting system. Why not a PR Alliance whose manifesto — in its entirety — is a) introduce PR; b) call a general election. To those who say it would lead to delay and more chaos — you are joking, right?!

Here endeth... etc. Sorry!

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... off-review

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwal ... edcomshare

ETA: Full disclosure — I am politically to the left of Chris Beach

[JGD]

ETA: Full disclosure — I am politically to the left of Chris Beach

As is the rest of humankind, along with their dogs, cats, asses and other sundry pets.

[Robin Orton]

I understand the need for online security. But I've never quite understood the mania for online privacy. I'm quite prepared to sacrifice a bit of privacy for the sake of the wonderful ads I get. Cheap funerals, hearing aids, single women over 50 in Lewisham... they've got me to a T!

[Pally]

I have to agree with Robyn...not a wise idea on a public forum

In all circumstances that are normal - I could not but agree.

If however a community has a predator in its midst and it is selectively picking off victims, abusing them and chooses to hide its activity, the community is entitled to see an articulation of what behaviours are being used to achieve this.

You can draw your own conclusion if you have seen any comparison in the behaviours and events, whether you see yourself as a victim or as an observer.

And you must make a decision if you believe you can identify the perpetrator of the predatory behaviour.

That part is left to you.

JGD ...thinking about it again, I take your point!

[JGD]

JGD ...thinking about it again, I take your point!

Thank you.

To know whatever may be at the root of this behaviour may not be much consolation to the individual victims.

Let us hope that the perpetrator responds to the many simple appeals made to him - STOP.

[JGD]

ForestHillNick on SE23.life has published pictures of his leeks.

Now this moderator on SE23.life has worked out his leek problem, perhaps he and his colleagues can restore the thread where Chris Beach confesses his wrongdoing. Chris Beach's alleged and leaked report has never produced any stated intention from MPS to investigate it (or was it MPS then Kent or MPS then Kent then MPS again).

ALL their fanciful machinations to hide behind the alleged police investigation have never stood on firm ground.

Let them now do the honest thing.

Restore the threads on SE23.life and SE26.life.

Let us see Chris Beach's self-confessed culpability.

Edited by JGD.

[Tim Lund]

ForestHillNick on SE23.life has published pictures of his leeks.

Leeks, eh? I think we can do better than that!