simon renshaw-smith

pauletruth

maybe it would be an excellent idea for the mods to make sure that all the posts like yesterdays are achived so if they are needed as proof then they can be used. there computer number should be proof of who they are. the police had no problems tracking those wanting to promote the riots.

Coupon-mad

Moneybags horse-of-the-year Simon Renshaw-Smith previously ran a clamping firm of course, and Excel are far from whiter-than-white, having had their DVLA access removed in the past (temporarily, like with OPC).

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23462147-judge-quashes-300-parking-finebecause-it-set-out-to-frighten-and-intimidate-driver.do

Excel, which manages a number of hospital, retail and station car parks, is run from an office in Sheffield by Simon Renshaw-Smith, 41, who is also director of a wheel-clamping firm called Captain Clampit Ltd.
In 1993 he was accused at Sheffield magistrates' court of demanding £145 with menaces from two drivers whose cars he had immobilised.
Asked last night about the case, Mr Renshaw-Smith said: "The accusations against me were dropped. I was acquitted."

Last July*, Excel was finally removed from the "approved" list of organisations allowed electronic access to the DVLA's database.
It followed complaints from around the country and the formation of a 100-strong action group in Mansfield made up entirely of motorists who claimed they had been unfairly treated by Excel.

The move meant that Excel was forced to apply for personal data by post on a case-by-case basis. Yet the ban was lifted only three months later. A DVLA spokesman said inspectors visited the firm and decided it was using the data "appropriately".

MP Mr Meale said he would demand an explanation of the decision from Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly. Martin Bingley, a spokesman for the Mansfield action group, said: "Excel has an appalling reputation for failing to respond to appeals and for insisting they are right and the customer wrong."



*2008

HO87

The police are inundated with complaints about threats and insults exchanged online whether that be through forums or via such social websites (there's a painfully obvious oxymoron) as Facebook and Bebo. This will just be added to the pile and, ultimately, were it to go anywhere is likely to be hijacked by "the other side" who, after all, have an organised PR machine, courtesy of The PR Office.

Yesterday's troll was deliberately offensive and, I'd suggest, achieved his objective by provoking what were entirely predictable responses. I seriously doubt that, were he ever traced (which I'm inclined to believe is unlikely - but would be delighted to be proved wrong), he would turn out to be who it is that is commonly suspected. Whether the person concerned is or was in any way connected with a PPC (rather than simply a mischief-maker) the fact remains that some of the responses taken out of context could be made to play directly into the PPC hand.

I'm of the opinion that sometimes some of us lose sight of the bigger picture and become embroiled in the detail of a single case. Its very easily done. The bigger picture is that such is the amount of money sloshing around in the PPC marketplace that some people are absolutely focussed on keeping their share or, better still, ensuring they get more and as the Russians say, "When money speaks truth is silent". Would we not better serve ourselves by attempting to keep the moral high-ground?

Archived?

pauletruth

ho87 you could be right. however if we allow a bully no matter who they are to do what they want then we lose. its staying quite and being victims that has made these companies their money. they like using the law to scare folks whilst they disregared the law so maybe its time that everytime they breach the law that they are reported. maybe it won't do any good but to not try is equally as bad. by the way a number of people have been found guilty of simular post on facebook.

HO87

I'm sorry, but where did I recommend remaining silent?

bromsgrovebarry

I endorse HO87's advice. The troll was deliberately winding everybody up, I believe with the intention of making one of us say something that could have backfired. I am sure that the anominity of the troll was assured before words were typed. This would be fully compatible with a dirty tricks campaign. Weapons have included spoof internet forums, troll activity and threats PM'd to posters. I remain unconvinced about the validity of at least one PPC court 'victory'. For all their bluster, PPCs are running scared and know we are a threat. This explains the desperate measures.

HO87

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

I endorse HO87's advice. The troll was deliberately winding everybody up, I believe with the intention of making one of us say something that could have backfired. I am sure that the anominity of the troll was assured before words were typed. This would be fully compatible with a dirty tricks campaign. Weapons have included spoof internet forums, troll activity and threats PM'd to posters. I remain unconvinced about the validity of at least one PPC court 'victory'. For all their bluster, PPCs are running scared and know we are a threat. This explains the desperate measures.

I think that neatly sums the situation up and let's be honest, using a proxy server can hardly be defined as a sophisticated means of evasion these days.