The books of Max Hora??
Ken Eakins
what happened to Max ... I see his shop is not there anymore??
k
MR DOLEMITE
sure there are more than a few by now. : )
His shop was replaced with a new modern premises.
He is still around although not many people know where exactly.
LPG
redcat
"Ken Eakins" <kenes...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f3e4b0c$0$12651$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
> Are they still available?
>
> what happened to Max ... I see his shop is not there anymore??
>
> k
>
>
The Prisoner shop is still there. But it's run by Portmeirion now, instead
of being rented out.
The Max books are out of print, as far as I know (I think there was a
omnibus edition that appeared last year (?). But I haven't seen it or know
anything else about it.)
All in-print/available TP books can be ordered from www.priz.biz (or
www.priz.biz.com) worldwide. A couple of Prisoner items can be bought
directly from the Prisoner Shop (www.portmeirion.com), but only if they're
being mailed to a UK address.
redcat
Frankymole
third (Village World).
--
Frankymole
~~~~~~~~
The alt.tv.prisoner FAQ can be found at:
http://www.priz.co.uk/atp/faq.txt
Rick Davy
"Ken Eakins" <kenes...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f3e4b0c$0$12651$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
> Are they still available?
No, they went out of print over 10 years ago. I recently sold my copies on
ebay recently, where there are often copies available, but expect to pay
between £5 and £10 for each book.
>
> what happened to Max ... I see his shop is not there anymore??
>
Max was turfed out of Portmeirion as his shop was dirty, unhygienic, sold
very little and even had a sign on the door warning people not to come in!
The shop is still a Prisoner shop but is now brightly lit, pleasantly
staffed, with internet access, and stocks a nice range of products.
The last I heard, Max was illegally taping people in their own home and
making threatening phone calls to young females.
Rick
Peter Dunn
"Rick Davy" <Rdav...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bhlv6c$nn$3...@hercules.btinternet.com...
taping of a fellow co-ord was illegal in the UK but it was certainly
immoral) it is a continuing disgrace to that generally disgraced society
that Max remains a co-ordinator of what little remains of the rump Six of
One.
BCNU
Peter Dunn
remove spamless. from email in any direct replies
roger
news:bhm4ua$tmg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> (however I doubt the covert
> taping of a fellow co-ord was illegal in the UK but it was certainly
> immoral)
Apart from exceptional circumstances involving the security of the nation
and police surveillance, it is illegal to record a person in their own home
without their permission.
I'll keep it vague to avoid the need to introduce a spoiler: UK viewers will
see in a forthcoming 'Panorama' the CEO of a "household name" being
doorstepped by the investigative crew. The tv journalist begins asking the
first awkward question when the subject of their inquiries invites them to
step inside, knowing full well that once inside they cannot continue to
record without his permission. It's a pretty wretched morning, wind and rain
blowing, and the net result is that the crew, by insisting on trying to
continue the conversation outside the home, end up looking silly, while
their "victim" appears the picture of politeness, as he keeps insisting they
come in from the bad weather.
simonwells
Try alibris.com or bookfinder.com. They occasionally turn up there.
redcat
"roger" <road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz> wrote in message
news:blz%a.250$0V2.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Besides being funny, this is educational. Ah, the things one learns on this
n.g.!
redcat
Nigel Kitcher
"Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
news:bhlknv$gum$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I have two to spare - one of his first (Prisone rof Portmeirion) and one
of his
> third (Village World).
>
Thanks Frank... been trying to remember what the third one was as I've found
the other two to sell on Ebay (currently on auction). Nor sure where my
Village World has gone :-(
Nigel Kitcher
"roger" <road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz> wrote in message
news:blz%a.250$0V2.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> news:bhm4ua$tmg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > (however I doubt the covert
> > taping of a fellow co-ord was illegal in the UK but it was certainly
> > immoral)
>
> Apart from exceptional circumstances involving the security of the nation
> and police surveillance, it is illegal to record a person in their own
home
> without their permission.
>
I remember looking into the legal aspect when this came up and as I recall
the problem *wasnt* the recording (which is legal for your own records).
The recording *became illegal* when it was subsequently played back the
third parties (Nogger and co) without the permission of the person who was
recorded (Dave) at which time Nogger was then breaking the law. Nice for a
solictor that - wonder what the legal professions version of the Spanish
Inquisition (The Law Society) would say about that?!?!!?
Nigel Kitcher
"Rick Davy" <Rdav...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bhlv6c$nn$3...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
>
>
Thats why Max was turfed out - PM needed the sign to put outside the place
to stop idiots falling off the Colonade ;-)
Peter Dunn
"roger" <road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz> wrote in message
news:blz%a.250$0V2.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> news:bhm4ua$tmg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > (however I doubt the covert
> > taping of a fellow co-ord was illegal in the UK but it was certainly
> > immoral)
>
> Apart from exceptional circumstances involving the security of the nation
> and police surveillance, it is illegal to record a person in their own
home
> without their permission.
Not quite true - though I wish it were. The 2 key acts I believe are the
Human Rights Aand the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
along with the At the same time Telecommunications (Lawful Business
Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (T(LBP)(IC)Regs
2000) the later has the exemptions you mention but only applies to
organisations - state ones i the main in the case of RIPA - One might have a
civil rather than a criminal case against Max under HRA but I don't think
there is a case precedent yet that applies as Six of One has tried to limit
its formal existance as an organisation and ould claim anyway that max acted
alone and actions against individuals are not allowed under HRA. Any lawyers
out there on the group (other than you know who) who know differently? I
extract below a summary of the legal consequences of the acts I have just
listed. :
Human Rights Act (HRA)
In 1990 the Labour Party pledged to 'bring rights home', in 1998 the HRA was
incorporated into UK law, and it came into force from October 2000. It
brought a range of rights into force, the right to life, prohibition of
slavery and forced labour, right to respect for private and family life and
the right to marry. These rights however are balanced with duties to others
and so their exercise may only be carried out in accordance with the law and
rules of a democratic society. The impact so far has been that of a 'quiet
revolution' bringing about modification of behaviour and cultural change.
Few court judgements have been made based upon HRA.
HRA only applies to 'public authorities' which is defined as an authority
'exercising functions of a public nature'. Under HRA an individual cannot
bring a claim against another individual but in such a case a court may
decide to apply a judgement in accordance with HR principles anyway. To
bring a claim a plaintiff must be directly and personally affected by the
breach which therefore excludes claims being brought by pressure groups. For
the purposes of the act a corporate body, defined as 'any legal entity' may
bring a claim. A claim must be brought within twelve months of the original
breach.
Several defences exist under the act, some of which are listed below:
a.. Restrictions of democratic society.
a.. Interests of national security.
a.. Interests of public safety.
a.. Prevention of crime and disorder.
a.. Protection of health and morals.
a.. Protection of rights of others.
a.. Is the body exercising a public function?
a.. Is the claimant a 'victim' and is the claim in time?
a.. Is the public authority acting in according to primary legislation?
There is only one remedy under the act and that is 'just satisfaction'. This
means that a court action may not result in a large monetary award of
damages but in a declaration of the breach of human rights.
Article 6 HRA gives the right to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time and by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
law. However to be successful the civil rights and obligations must be
determined. The fair and public hearing does not need to be court of law
internal disciplinary procedures may be satisfactory for this purpose.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
This act gained Royal Assent in July 2000 and came into force from October
2000. At the same time Telecommunications (Lawful Business
Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (T(LBP)(IC)Regs
2000) came into force. The areas covered by RIPA are shown below:
a.. Interception of communications
a.. Acquisition of communications data
a.. Intrusive surveillance
a.. Covert surveillance
a.. Covert human intelligence sources
a.. Access to encrypted data
Interception of a communication (phone, letter or e-mail) in the course of
transmission intentionally and without lawful authority is a criminal
offence. The courts can impose a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and
a fine. There is some debate as to whether or not e-mails can be intercepted
once stored in the 'in box'. The act does not cover an internal
communication system that has no connection with the 'outside world'.
Unintentional interceptions of a communication within the UK gives rise to a
civil wrong (tort) and can result in damages or an injunction.
Lawful authority is gained: when there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the sender and recipient have consented; when either the sender or the
recipient consents and the surveillance is authorised and when the provider
of the communication system needs to carry out maintenance. In practical
terms an organisation needs to take steps to inform users of their
communications systems that surveillance is in operation.
The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000 (T(LBP)(IC)Regs 2000) like a knight in
shinning armour come to the rescue and permit businesses, which includes
Universities, to intercept communications carried out in the course of
business. Communications can be intercepted for the purpose of monitoring or
recording business communications provided they are relevant to the
business, the system is provided in connection with the business and all
reasonable efforts are taken to inform users of the possibility of
interception. So far there has been no case law to test the courts
interpretation of the regulations.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act gives the right to respect for private and
family life. Surveillance, for example the listening to private phone calls
on a business line, could lead to a breach of human rights. Therefore care
needs to be taken when collecting evidential data to ensure that there is no
breach of human rights.
> I'll keep it vague to avoid the need to introduce a spoiler: UK viewers
will
> see in a forthcoming 'Panorama' the CEO of a "household name" being
> doorstepped by the investigative crew. The tv journalist begins asking the
> first awkward question when the subject of their inquiries invites them to
> step inside, knowing full well that once inside they cannot continue to
> record without his permission.
Though if they had a public interest defence they could still attempt to
record - covertly or otherwise within their home
Peter Dunn
"Lew Stringer" <Lew.St...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:BB650199.1CED7%Lew.St...@btopenworld.com...
> in article 3f3ed035$0$15033$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com, Nigel Kitcher at
no neither - see my post this morning in this thread on RIPA and HRA
BCNU
Peter
remove spamless. from direct replies
In
> his defence, I expect Nogger could say he thought Dave had given his
> permission to be taped, although it'd be rather a weak excuse.
>
> Whatever the legal position is, it's undeniably *unethical*, and the
immoral
> aspect continues to grow like a cancer as the months progress without one
> word of apology from Six of One. The society hate us to continue
discussing
> it here, because it exposes their seedy nature, but it was they who did
the
> deed, and it was they who made it public in their newsletter.
>
>
DaveHealey
>his defence, I expect Nogger could say he thought Dave had given his
>permission to be taped, although it'd be rather a weak excuse.
Whatever the offence I don't really think that pleading ignorance of the facts
would get you very far in a court of law. Nogger (that is Roger Langley -
solicitor and team member of the Six of One fan club), should really be aware
of that. I heard of an amusing motoring case the other day - when stopped by
the police for speeding the motorist claimed that "I didn't realise that the
speed limit applied after midnight." If everyone took this attitude it would be
very handy for the drink driving fraternity who would just have to make sure
that they stayed out a little longer than usual (have another drink in a club
perhaps) in order to be able to drive home happy in the knowledge that the law
doesn't apply after midnight. Max Hora (team member of the Six of One fan club
and general rat) would of course be unable to escape prosecution on the basis
that he carried out the illegal taping during the early evening! ;-)
Dave Healey
DaveHealey
>its formal existance as an organisation and ould claim anyway that max acted
>alone and actions against individuals are not allowed under HRA.
I think claiming that Max had acted alone was probably OK until you actually
then decide to join in his 'crime' by listening to said tape and in Roger
Langley's case then spout off about same in a printed document.
Dave Healey
P.S. I didn't make it through the small print of the Human Rights Act, Peter.
It doesn't really matter does it. I doubt many people will trust any of the
people involved again and certainly would not allow them into their homes. To
think that I used to offer Max a place to stay when he was in need. I bet his
list of free accommodation has reduced dramatically since he showed his true
colours.
MR DOLEMITE
Why he never said sorry for his actions amazes me.
LPG
Frankymole
As the law stands, any conversation (phone or otherwise) can be recorded so long
as ONE of the two parties gives permission. When the bank (or whoever) say they
are recording your telephone call "for training purposes", and ask your
permission, this is jsut courtesy - by law they don't have to.
Now, the one-party-permission concept is so that things like phone-tapping by
a third party are not possible (unless it's the government). For instance, Max
can tape Dave (legally speaking), but Roger could not tape Max and Dave unless
Max permitted it.
Where this goes into illegal territory is Max playing the tape to Roger
without Dave's permission. Sure, Max can legally record the conversation for
his own use to to prove a "crime". However, it turns out that no crime or
injury to public interests took place. Roger is also not a public body nor was
he acting (on duty, during his working hours) as a legal representative. In
fact, we cannot even be sure Max (or one of his technical friends - anyone
remember the "roadshow" guy?) did not edit and alter the sense of the tape.
Thus, only a party to the conversation can know that the tape is a true record.
Anyone else printing assertions based on what they believe to be the
conversation recorded, on the basis of the contents of the tape (heard as
essentially a third-hand, possibly altered, report), is laying themselves open
to accusation of libel; i.e. seeking to defame one party's good character based
on something that will not stand as proof, since the only tape recordings which
are beyond dispute in law are police/government ones. One should also look at
the privacy protection laws brought in to curb the press in the last few years;
the yellow document is a press document (i.e. printed and distributed, and not
funded by an individual but by either "Escape" or "Six of One the Prisoner
Appreciation Society" funds). I think Nogger has fallen foul of this.
Peter Dunn
All I can find is RIPA and HRA which only covers organisations not
individuals taping individuals but I am not legally trained and obviously
you have another source for this legal view point which Act or case
precedent is it?
BCNU
Peter
remove spamless. in direct replies
"Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
news:bhnt5n$8mf$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Dunn
"DaveHealey" <daveh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Yes I think what he did was quite galling and sickening. I wish there was a
piece of criminal law we could pin on him but he will just have to make do
with the utter contempt of scores of former friends and acquaintances such
as myself.
Lew Stringer
on the group.com wrote on 17/8/2003 1:41 PM:
> Where this goes into illegal territory is Max playing the tape to Roger
> without Dave's permission.
At least one other coordinator heard the tape too, as Dave Barrie said he's
heard it.
>One should also look at
> the privacy protection laws brought in to curb the press in the last few
> years;
> the yellow document is a press document (i.e. printed and distributed, and not
> funded by an individual but by either "Escape" or "Six of One the Prisoner
> Appreciation Society" funds). I think Nogger has fallen foul of this.
>
> --
> Frankymole
> ~~~~~~~~
Nogger never actually published what was said on the tape. He said Max
wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
(good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
privately saying there were financial problems.
Nigel Kitcher
> Max Hora (team member of the Six of One fan club
> and general rat) would of course be unable to escape prosecution on the
basis
> that he carried out the illegal taping during the early evening! ;-)
>
> Dave Healey
Perhaps Max is going to change the old famous "Nnanty" ("no noise at night
thank you" for the newbies) to "Tanty" (taping at night thank you)
Nigel Kitcher
> piece of criminal law we could pin on him
>
> Peter
>
How about recieving funds by deception for the "Prisoner" Moke? Who
remembers Lallys hat going round to repair it....
I seem to recall conversations about said Moke actually not being a Prisoner
Moke at all, and that it just happened to be one owned by some ITC
affiliated or such production company and also that it was green and not Old
English White.
Anyone able to confirm/deny this?
Frankymole
> Sorry Frank but which exact Act or piece of case law does this comefrom ??
> All I can find is RIPA and HRA which only covers organisations not
> individuals taping individuals but I am not legally trained and obviously
> you have another source for this legal view point which Act or case
> precedent is it?
>
> BCNU
> Peter
>
> remove spamless. in direct replies
I'll look it up when I get back to work. I think it was clarification notes we
were given to the Freedom of Information Act. I did ask a legal-training friend
of mine about the initial taping incident, though, and the gist of what they
told me is in the last message. They reckoned the playing-back and publishing
was actually criminal!
Frankymole
> Nogger never actually published what was said on the tape. He said Max
> wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
> (good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
> the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
> outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
> rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
> the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
> privately saying there were financial problems.
Well, the possible false accounting (if true) is in fact a civil offence, if
nothing else it should obviate the person involved from ever holding a
Treasurer's position again -- and if lying to the membership actually happened,
that would be fraud (not an offence as such, but frowned upon by every financial
manager from here to Timbuctoo). So I might understand why the word "criminal"
would arise :D
As no-one has been allowed to see the "books", if they exist, we'll never
know!
Frankymole
news:3f3f94cb$0$11381$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "Peter Dunn" <pete...@spamless.ourhome33.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bho1kj$cul$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "DaveHealey" <daveh...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >
> > I wish there was a
> > piece of criminal law we could pin on him
> >
> > BCNU
> > Peter
> >
>
> How about recieving funds by deception for the "Prisoner" Moke? Who
> remembers Lallys hat going round to repair it....
What, wasn't it restored then???
Lew Stringer
on the group.com wrote on 17/8/2003 4:40 PM:
> "Lew Stringer" <Lew.St...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:BB654A06.1CF45%Lew.St...@btopenworld.com...
>> Nogger never actually published what was said on the tape. He said Max
>> wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
>> (good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
>> the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
>> outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
>> rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
>> the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
>> privately saying there were financial problems.
>
> Well, the possible false accounting (if true) is in fact a civil offence,
It wasn't false accounting. As I said, it's more a question of whether the
persons in charge were up to the task.
Frankymole
You can't possibly say either way. The accounts are not published, and you
haven't seent hem. No-one has!
Nigel Kitcher
> in article bho7v2$h7b$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, Frankymole at Frank@Ask for
it
> on the group.com wrote on 17/8/2003 4:45 PM:
>
> > "Nigel Kitcher" <remove_ZZ...@nkitcher.co.uk.zz> wrote in message
> > news:3f3f94cb$0$11381$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >>
> >> "Peter Dunn" <pete...@spamless.ourhome33.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> >> news:bho1kj$cul$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>> "DaveHealey" <daveh...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >>>
> >>> I wish there was a
> >>> piece of criminal law we could pin on him
> >>>
> >>> BCNU
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about recieving funds by deception for the "Prisoner" Moke? Who
> >> remembers Lallys hat going round to repair it....
> >
> > What, wasn't it restored then???
>
>
>
>
He did yes and I think it fell off the back of the trailer or broke big time
or something when he collected it. The Mini Moke Club guys would know more
than I do.
I seem to remember having discussions with Moke club people about the cost
of what limited restoration work was done at the time (IIRC it was simply a
spray job).
Going back to my original point is that (if I'm not mistaken) "officially"
its a Moke from the series - although AFAIK nothing has ever been shown to
prove that it is indeed one of the mokes that appeared. I could equally
claim that my Moke was one of those used (its not however as mine was built
on 8th May 1967, and immediately exported to Sri Lanka until 1980 - but it
was Old English White! ;-)
DaveHealey
>wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
>(good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
>the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
>outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
>rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
>the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
>privately saying there were financial problems.
Just for any new readers to this debate. For the record I never said that the
magazine should not be mailed out, merely that I was not prepared to mail out
the magazine (which included my address as the editorial address) with a
renewal notice asking for money from members when Roger Langley had openly
announced to the team (and this is independenly verifiable) that we did not
have enough money to honour our responsibilities to existing members. Therefore
part of the renewal would have to have been used to offset a shortfall. If
Roger had been prepared to detail this and members had the full facts of what
their money was to be used for then all would have been fine. The members would
then have been able to decide whether they were prepared to bail out the
society. As it was they would expect all of their subscription to be utilised
for the purpose it was sent i.e. four mail-outs.
Incidentally there are many lies in that ridiculous yellow document, which
tried to blame all manner of things on everyone except the only people who had
the information and society money to make appropriate decisions (Roger and
Karen Langley). That they had all this power was quite wrong and that they had
the gall to carry out the acts they did when it was discovered they had fouled
up dramatically was even worse. That they could persuade people to back them in
such actions quite frankly beggers belief. Accountability is a very important
factor when you are looking after people's money. Roger and Karen were not
accountable to anyone.
A lot of people have subsequently voted with their feet (and we are talking
about very long standing members here) and they should be proud that they have
placed their moral beliefs above their need to be part of a corrupt society. I
personally take a lot of comfort from that and so should they.
Dave
DaveHealey
>haven't seent hem. No-one has!
But Roger admitted to a room full of people (twice, because I queried it!) what
the current funds were and, from outstanding mailings, it was possible to
work-out a substantial shortfall. Asking for money from members without telling
them about this shortfall and that they would be required to subsidise it, is
quite wrong. Whether you class it as an offence or not is immaterial, it is
misleading in the extreme and not something I was prepared to be party to.
Dave Healey
Dave
roger
news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> P.S. I didn't make it through the small print of the Human Rights Act,
Peter.
Below is an extract from another jurisdiction's take on the topic, which
clearly describers the act as illegal, but, regardless of the various small
prints, there's a much larger moral issue involved here.
Private conversation is private conversation. Even more so in one's own
home. Private. Just that. Private.
If we all had to spend our entire lives watching what we said, then free
expression would come to an end, just as it has within the pages of Box66
publications.
Max committed an illegal act by taping Dave Healey in his own home
without his permission and the society's solicitor astonishingly endorsed
this law-breaking with repetition of extracts from the conversation in what
has become known as the Yellow Document.
I can see that Max wanted to get Dave to make a definitive statement at the
time but he could just as easily, and legally, have plonked the cassette
recorder on the Healeys' table and said, "How long have you thought Roger
Langley was a criminal, Dave?"
(That's a joke BTW, Dave!)
If Dave had responded, it would have indicated his agreement to the
recording and it might have elicited a more tactful and settling response.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the magazine distribution and
dripfeed funding, the fact nevertheless remains that Max, on behalf of the
society, committed an illegal act, which none of the ten co-ordinators at
the time has denied or apologised for.
Small print:
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication -- Consent
required -- Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for
any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state, its
agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio,
or other device between two or more individuals between points within or
without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record
and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or
actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the
communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise
designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device
is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the
persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications
or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a
fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of
extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or
(c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient
hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or
barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation
ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter,
consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all
other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any
reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is
about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is
to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire
service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona
fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis,
shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or
conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is
expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily
apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the
communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a
newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from
divulging the communication or conversation.
Nigel Kitcher
If there was a shortfall then... and Six Of One has had reduced income then
whats kept it going til now? Has Roger had to dip into the infamous "escape"
fund? (the other unaccounted for account!!!!)
Nigel Kitcher
> in article rsS%a.18$sG6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net, roger at
> road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz wrote on 17/8/2003 10:27 PM:
>
> Good point about Max deliberately avoiding the opportunity to show that he
> had a tape recorder about his person. It seems to me that the reason he
> wasn't open about it was to trap Dave into saying something that could be
> used against him to turf him off the team. (Otherwise, why didn't Max just
> take notes?)
>
> The "yellow document" (End of Year 25 Statement) has the following rather
> stupid boast:
> "On the tape, which Max has now played to the 9 UK and US coordinating
team
> members, David Healey said many shocking things".
>
> Not only illegal and immoral, but the thought of the team sitting around
> listening to a secretly taped 40 minute conversation is rather perverse
too
> I think. The fact that not one of those coordinators saw the wrong in
this
> tells us volumes about their character.
>
>
I thought it was longer than 40mins... didn't Max keep asking for cups of
tea/coffee so he could change tapes whilst Dave was in the kitchen?
re...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"roger" <road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz> writes:
>"DaveHealey" <daveh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
>> P.S. I didn't make it through the small print of the Human Rights Act,
>Peter.
>
>Below is an extract from another jurisdiction's take on the topic, which
>clearly describers the act as illegal, but, regardless of the various small
>prints, there's a much larger moral issue involved here.
>Private conversation is private conversation. Even more so in one's own
>home. Private. Just that. Private.
Yes but what jurdistiction?? Is this from a UK act or EC directive -
if so which one? Or is that from something that does not apply to the
UK - the text below does sound very North American to me.
NB Just because I am unsure if Max' actions were in any way illegal
does not mean I support them - they were clearly outrageous and should
be uttterly condemned.
BCNU
Peter Dunn
Lew Stringer
That's the curious thing. Dave said Max was there for much longer, so either
he kept switching the machine on and off or it was edited later. Six of One
state "On 31st October, Max Hora visited Dave Healey and tape-recorded 40
minutes of a conversation with him". (It's only later in the same document
that it's revealed Dave didn't know he'd been taped).
David Mackenzie
But the Yellow Document *does* contain direct quotes from Mr. Healey.
Ironically, they are the most sensible paragraphs in its pages!
--
David (please modify address to david@ before replying!)
The Internet Prisoner Database: http://www.priz.co.uk/ipdb/
roger
From: <re...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.prisoner
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: The books of Max Hora??
> Yes but what jurdistiction?? Is this from a UK act or EC directive -
> if so which one? Or is that from something that does not apply to the
> UK - the text below does sound very North American to me.
> NB Just because I am unsure if Max' actions were in any way illegal
> does not mean I support them - they were clearly outrageous and should
> be uttterly condemned.
Quite right, Peter, it is North American, and below are some more examples
from around the world! The last one seems particularly pertinent
:-)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/cases/german/bundes/bundes_19dec1978.ht
ml
http://www.callrecording.com/faqs/legal_usa.asp
http://www.papillontechnology.com/Download/One%20party%20consent.pdf
http://www.unitedsystems.co.uk/support/legal_usa.asp
http://www.cix.co.uk/~spalter/telecomm/record.htm
http://www.accademy.com/technical/digest/21819
http://www.ukool.com/acatalog/UKool_com_Gadgets__n__Gizmos_9.html
I cited previously the Panorama instance and there are others, the Beckham
baby kidnap surveillance by the Sunday newspaper, where all the published
recordings were from hotel rooms, car parks, etc., for example, all of which
indicate that recording private conversation in someone's home without their
permission is illegal. You're damn right it's immoral too and should be
emphasised as such, as it is on this newsgroup at present. With an irony
that must be apparent to the Langleys by now, it's particularly immoral in
the context of the tv series 'The Prisoner'.
In the case of the Healey/Hora illegal taping, the following extract from
one of the above URLs would have served Max well, had he read it beforehand:
"Some people seem to want to record people without their knowledge to
deliberately entrap them into saying/admitting something so that the tape
transcript can then be used against them. Some people even go so far to ask
deliberately misleading questions to confuse/goad the other party, who might
just be doing their best ! Informing the other party of the recording is
likely to make them more careful and accurate in the first place, thus
AVOIDING any mistakes altogether. So, in some circumstances, unless you're
just plain dishonourable and you WANT people to make mistakes so that you
can 'sue' them, you might decide that advising people of the recording works
in your favour ! On the other hand, some people/companies are in the habit
on continuously making claims which they know to be false, and they should
be stopped."
Steve Dix
<remove_ZZ...@nkitcher.co.uk.zz> wrote:
>>
>> Didn't Phil Caunt take it off his hands in the end?
>>
>>
>
>He did yes and I think it fell off the back of the trailer or broke big time
>or something when he collected it. The Mini Moke Club guys would know more
>than I do.
It fell off the back of a lorry which was being used to transport it
to the NEC for a motor show, ISTR Phil telling me. This was about
two-three years after he had restored it.
>I seem to remember having discussions with Moke club people about the cost
>of what limited restoration work was done at the time (IIRC it was simply a
>spray job).
>
The "restoration" was a botch-job done by the local butcher, who owned
a welder. Basically, instead of completely removing old damaged
panels and replacing them with new ones - something which is
considered a proper restoration, and requires a jig to hold the
monocoque in place - bits of steel were welded over badly corroded
areas. This is a very short-term solution as firstly, it puts stress
on areas which weren't designed for it in the first place, and which
are still weakened by the original corrosion, and secondly because
plating over holes from both sides actually traps moisture, and causes
accelerated corrosion!
Phil told me that the botch-up had seriously compromised several
load-bearing areas of the original shell which had to be completely
replaced.
--
http://www.mp3.com/simpletons http://www.mp3.com.au/TheSinistrals/
http://www.snorty.net/ http://www.stevedix.de/
UKMG/(B)R[6x-]!M!S(J)(F) E8?1A3?2B2K2?1 GAS+ C= P= G= B+ R+/= M+ S++(--) r-(--)
Steve Dix
<Lew.St...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> I thought it was longer than 40mins... didn't Max keep asking for cups of
>> tea/coffee so he could change tapes whilst Dave was in the kitchen?
>>
>>
>
>
>That's the curious thing. Dave said Max was there for much longer, so either
>he kept switching the machine on and off or it was edited later. Six of One
>state "On 31st October, Max Hora visited Dave Healey and tape-recorded 40
>minutes of a conversation with him". (It's only later in the same document
>that it's revealed Dave didn't know he'd been taped).
>
It didn't necessarily have to be to change tapes. He could have been
checking that the level was sufficient and that what he'd recorded was
audible.
re...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"roger" <road...@NOSPAMpriz.biz> writes:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <re...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.tv.prisoner
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:24 AM
>Subject: Re: The books of Max Hora??
>
>> Yes but what jurdistiction?? Is this from a UK act or EC directive -
>> if so which one? Or is that from something that does not apply to the
>> UK - the text below does sound very North American to me.
>> NB Just because I am unsure if Max' actions were in any way illegal
>> does not mean I support them - they were clearly outrageous and should
>> be uttterly condemned.
>
>Quite right, Peter, it is North American, and below are some more examples
>from around the world! The last one seems particularly pertinent
>:-)
Sadly though it does seem that UK/EC case law relates only to actions by
organisations (and for the most part state organisations)
rather than by individuals.
As for the media examples you have quoted it is true that the recordings
have been ruled as inadmissable as evidence in those cases so that
prosecutions depending on them have collapsed - BUT the journalsists making
those recordings have not then been criminally pursued for making them.
Covert media recording can be tolerated by the courts if there is a clear
public interest defence - hence the admission into the public inquiry evidence
of the Susan Watts covert recording of her David Kelly interview.
Of course media relations are very much my bread and butter and the issue
of covert recordings and other related matters is something I have to deal
with in a regular basis.
BCNU
Peter
Nigel Kitcher
"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
news:85n1kvc21ecg1hq9t...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:44:15 +0000 (UTC), Lew Stringer
> <Lew.St...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> I thought it was longer than 40mins... didn't Max keep asking for cups
of
> >> tea/coffee so he could change tapes whilst Dave was in the kitchen?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >That's the curious thing. Dave said Max was there for much longer, so
either
> >he kept switching the machine on and off or it was edited later. Six of
One
> >state "On 31st October, Max Hora visited Dave Healey and tape-recorded 40
> >minutes of a conversation with him". (It's only later in the same
document
> >that it's revealed Dave didn't know he'd been taped).
> >
>
> It didn't necessarily have to be to change tapes. He could have been
> checking that the level was sufficient and that what he'd recorded was
> audible.
>
Thats sounds far to technical for our cat loving, cornflake eating, van
driver cum spy ;-)
DaveHealey
>whats kept it going til now? Has Roger had to dip into the infamous "escape"
>fund? (the other unaccounted for account!!!!)
My guess is that Roger has done exactly what I protested about. He would have
had to have done so by his own admission at the meeting at which he revealed
the shortfall. In order to pay for owed packages it would have required money
being taken from new or renewing subscribers. This would obviously then mean
that they would either have to receive less than they were entitled to or that
further future subscribers/renewers would need to subsidise 'their' mailings.
You will note that subscription costs have in fact increased - I wonder why?
Dave
DaveHealey
>members, David Healey said many shocking things".
And if any one of them was as shocking as Roger's revelation regarding his
management of the society's finances I'll eat my hat.
>Not only illegal and immoral, but the thought of the team sitting around
>listening to a secretly taped 40 minute conversation is rather perverse too
>I think. The fact that not one of those coordinators saw the wrong in this
>tells us volumes about their character.
>
You will probably recall that I once mentioned an e-mail I had from Bruce Clark
which detailed his (and Roger Langley's) dreadful part in the Alternative
Arrival issue during which they managed to betray just about everyone including
Carlton and McGoohan. You will probably note however that in spite of requests
I declined to reproduce this on the newsgroup because he asked me to keep the
contents private. Misplaced loyalty I know, but I do sleep soundly at night
with my conscience!
Dave
Lew Stringer
You're right. Subscriptions are now £20; a rise of £2 per head.
Helen Weathers
> "Ken Eakins" <kenes...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3f3e4b0c$0$12651$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
> > Are they still available?
>
> No, they went out of print over 10 years ago. I recently sold my copies on
> ebay recently, where there are often copies available, but expect to pay
> between £5 and £10 for each book.
>
> >
> > what happened to Max ... I see his shop is not there anymore??
> >
>
> Max was turfed out of Portmeirion as his shop was dirty, unhygienic, sold
> very little and even had a sign on the door warning people not to come in!
>
> The shop is still a Prisoner shop but is now brightly lit, pleasantly
> staffed, with internet access, and stocks a nice range of products.
>
> The last I heard, Max was illegally taping people in their own home and
> making threatening phone calls to young females.
>
> Rick
My three books will be going on ebay when I get round to it. Do you
think it's better to sell them as a set Rick, or individually?
The Prisoner shop improved drastically when Portmeirion took over the
running. I assume they were embarrassed by Max's shambles of a shop -
racks of photos selotaped to the wall, cats running round, dishes of
cat food all over the floor, the smell of cup a soup and damp, rusty
badges reduced in price, Max's possessions stacked under blankets...
Rick Davy
"Helen Weathers" <helen_w...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ae9250.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> My three books will be going on ebay when I get round to it. Do you
> think it's better to sell them as a set Rick, or individually?
>
I would personally sell them individually as different people seem to bid on
each one (IE have only 1 missing from their collection). Make sure you sell
"worldwide" as oiur friends in the US seem to be keener to bid on these
items than those in the UK.
Rick
DaveHealey
>waiting at the door...a typical fan shop really, like the early comic shops
>were (some still are). It's a far brighter place now, and the free computer
>use is good.
...and you don't have to encounter Max! Always a bonus for the privacy-minded
customer. I really dread to think of the consequences of Max ever investing in
a concealed video camera!
DaveHealey
>"worldwide" as oiur friends in the US seem to be keener to bid on these
>items than those in the UK.
Why would that be, Rick?
The author seems to be a very popular topic on this newsgroup. Surely he must
have a dedicated readership in the UK! ;-)
DaveHealey
>house for over an hour. Six of One claim the tape is 40 minutes long. Either
>it was edited after the event or Max was secretly turning it on and off.
He did seem to have an odd posture and was very fidgety. Having known him many
years I did not however consider this in any way unusual!
Dave
redcat
Also, you won't get any phone calls about the consequences that will be,
Dave ;-)
rc
redcat
I never even noticed "worldwide", but I'll tell you what the magic word is
for me: PayPal. I ignore cash only auctions.
redcat
Rick Davy
> >Make sure you sell
> >"worldwide" as oiur friends in the US seem to be keener to bid on these
> >items than those in the UK.
>
> Why would that be, Rick?
>
Aa far as I recall, they were only available through Max's shop, so US
Prisoner Fans (of which there are many who have seen the series for the
first time in the last 10 years while the books have been OOP) wouldn't have
had the chance.
Rick
DaveHealey
>Dave ;-)
Too true. Although I don't really think that there is much more they can throw
at me other than perhaps physical violence.
It does occur to me that in a strange way the Six of One team have been
immortalised by having a newsgroup soap opera devoted to them. Almost every
move is reported, they must be very flattered! ;-) Perhaps we ought to give it
a name. Any suggestions?
Dave
Frankymole
> >Nogger never actually published what was said on the tape. He said Max
> >wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
> >(good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
> >the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
> >outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
> >rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
> >the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
> >privately saying there were financial problems.
>
> magazine should not be mailed out, merely that I was not prepared to mail out
> the magazine (which included my address as the editorial address) with a
> renewal notice asking for money from members when Roger Langley had openly
> announced to the team (and this is independenly verifiable) that we did not
> have enough money to honour our responsibilities to existing members.
Hmm, that would be against the "going concern" principle of the 5 main
international standard accounting principles.
Yet the mail to all members said there were no problems! Surely this cannot be
true, if the Society's Treasurer was still in place.
--
Frankymole
~~~~~~~~
The alt.tv.prisoner FAQ can be found at:
http://www.priz.co.uk/atp/faq.txt
Frankymole
news:20030817164613...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >Nogger never actually published what was said on the tape. He said Max
> >wanted to find out why Dave was holding the mags, but didn't give Dave's
> >(good) reasons. Instead, he said "many shocking things were said" and that
> >the word "criminal" was used. So basically he focused on an emotional
> >outburst of Dave's in order to portray him as "not acting in a stable way"
> >rather than give Dave's ethical reasons, which were that Dave didn't want
> >the mags going out with a note pretending all was well, when Six of One were
> >privately saying there were financial problems.
>
> Just for any new readers to this debate. For the record I never said that the
> magazine should not be mailed out, merely that I was not prepared to mail out
> the magazine (which included my address as the editorial address) with a
> renewal notice asking for money from members when Roger Langley had openly
> announced to the team (and this is independenly verifiable) that we did not
> have enough money to honour our responsibilities to existing members.
> part of the renewal would have to have been used to offset a shortfall. If
> Roger had been prepared to detail this and members had the full facts of what
> their money was to be used for then all would have been fine. The members
would
> then have been able to decide whether they were prepared to bail out the
> society. As it was they would expect all of their subscription to be utilised
> for the purpose it was sent i.e. four mail-outs.
>
> Incidentally there are many lies in that ridiculous yellow document, which
> tried to blame all manner of things on everyone except the only people who had
> the information and society money to make appropriate decisions (Roger and
> Karen Langley). That they had all this power was quite wrong and that they had
> the gall to carry out the acts they did when it was discovered they had fouled
> up dramatically was even worse. That they could persuade people to back them
in
> such actions quite frankly beggers belief. Accountability is a very important
> factor when you are looking after people's money. Roger and Karen were not
> accountable to anyone.
so why were they not simply voted out?
Frankymole
> >You can't possibly say either way. The accounts are not published, and you
> >haven't seent hem. No-one has!
>
> But Roger admitted to a room full of people (twice, because I queried it!)
what
> the current funds were and, from outstanding mailings, it was possible to
> work-out a substantial shortfall. Asking for money from members without
telling
> them about this shortfall and that they would be required to subsidise it, is
> quite wrong. Whether you class it as an offence or not is immaterial, it is
> misleading in the extreme and not something I was prepared to be party to.
So the accounting principle of matching (expenditure to income) comes in exactly
where???
Frankymole
news:rsS%a.18$sG6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...> news:20030817074529...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> > P.S. I didn't make it through the small print of the Human Rights Act,
> Peter.
>
> Below is an extract from another jurisdiction's take on the topic, which
> clearly describers the act as illegal, but, regardless of the various small
> prints, there's a much larger moral issue involved here.
> Private conversation is private conversation. Even more so in one's own
> home. Private. Just that. Private.
>
> If we all had to spend our entire lives watching what we said, then free
> expression would come to an end, just as it has within the pages of Box66
> publications.
>
> Max committed an illegal act by taping Dave Healey in his own home
> without his permission and the society's solicitor astonishingly endorsed
> this law-breaking with repetition
What did the Society's Treasurer say about the bank deficit?
Frankymole
curtail the press' invasion of individuals property on film/video or audio tape.
Plenty of case law too I should think.
redcat
"Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
news:bhreh9$iau$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
I don't think the Society has a voting body such as a Board.
redcat
Frankymole
news:bhqmop$937$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
As I already said, no "public interest" issue was at stake here. though it
would be great to see the accounts which we had a financial interest in.
Frankymole
> >If there was a shortfall then... and Six Of One has had reduced income then
> >whats kept it going til now? Has Roger had to dip into the infamous "escape"
> >fund? (the other unaccounted for account!!!!)
>
> My guess is that Roger has done exactly what I protested about. He would have
> had to have done so by his own admission at the meeting at which he revealed
> the shortfall. In order to pay for owed packages it would have required money
> being taken from new or renewing subscribers. This would obviously then mean
> that they would either have to receive less than they were entitled to or that
> further future subscribers/renewers would need to subsidise 'their' mailings.
That would be illegal - not giving previous subscribers the value they had
bought, in order to subsidise continued operations. Since the society does not
'retain profits' (being non-profit making) and has no balance sheet showing
'retained profits', published or otherwise maintained (e.g. for private members
to view), it msut match all in-year expenses to outgoings.
--
Frankymole
Frankymole
Please repost! I didn't see it.
Frankymole
news:BB66FE52.1D023%Lew.St...@btopenworld.com...
> in article bhreh9$iau$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk, Frankymole at Frank@Ask for it
> on the group.com wrote on 18/8/2003 9:55 PM:
>
> > Accountability is a very important
> >> factor when you are looking after people's money. Roger and Karen were not
> >> accountable to anyone.
> >
> > so why were they not simply voted out?
> >
> > --
> > Frankymole
>
>
> K's twaddle and expelled Dave & Jo instead.
>
> As self-proclaimed mediators, Dave Barrie and Max Hora approached the
> situation like this: Okay, Roger and Karen must stay, now how can we resolve
> this?
>
> As most core members and independently-thinking coordinators knew Roger to
> be the main problem, there was no middle ground for discussion. By the time
> of Dave H's expulsion, Dave and Julie Jones had already left. The odds on
> the team were in Roger's favour.
But I can't see how 3 normal members can "expel" anyone. No rules or
constitution allowed this. Surely a vote of all members should decide (and most
members PAID a lot of money, unlike the co-ords). Non-paying co-ords have no
investment and hence no pwoer to vote.
redcat
> in article 20030818162141...@mb-m16.aol.com, DaveHealey at
Constipation Street
>;-)
rc
Frankymole
> in article 7ae9250.03081...@posting.google.com, Helen Weathers at
> waiting at the door...a typical fan shop really, like the early comic shops
> were (some still are). It's a far brighter place now, and the free computer
> use is good.
Didn't 'The Boy Lard' try to buy the wasp? ;o)
Frankymole
news:Rdb0b.394$yQ3...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I never said they did. I am tlaking about equal members. All of whom paid
money - lots of money - unlike Langley who stays in - free of charge -
subsidised by ordinary members.
DaveHealey
You tell me!
Having complete control of the money and membership list means a lot.
Possession is 9 tenths of the law so the saying goes and in this case it proved
to be the case.
Dave
DaveHealey
>constitution allowed this. Surely a vote of all members should decide (and
>most
>members PAID a lot of money, unlike the co-ords). Non-paying co-ords have no
>investment and hence no pwoer to vote.
They did though. It's Animal Farm all over again!
Hold on a minute I think I've got a name for the soap. I know it's been used
before but what the hell. Oh, OK then Langley Farm, if you insist. A story of
simple Ipswich folk...
Dave
Frankymole
But weren't the paid-up members actually superior to the (supposedly of only
equal-standing) un-paid up "Co-Ordinator" (singular)?
Smacks of a lack of conviction to me. The members hould have told him to piss
off.
Frankymole
But why did we all stand for this shit? Langley wasn't even a paid up member
(let him show bank accounts to prove otherwise). Did he refund everyone's
subscription who he "Rogered"? Was Max a paid-up member? How can we tell?
Where is it published?
DaveHealey
>you
>> >haven't seent hem. No-one has!
>>
>> But Roger admitted to a room full of people (twice, because I queried it!)
>what
>> the current funds were and, from outstanding mailings, it was possible to
>> work-out a substantial shortfall. Asking for money from members without
>telling
>> them about this shortfall and that they would be required to subsidise it,
>is
>> quite wrong. Whether you class it as an offence or not is immaterial, it is
>> misleading in the extreme and not something I was prepared to be party to.
>
>So the accounting principle of matching (expenditure to income) comes in
>exactly
>where???
Err. What was the question again?
"Now look if we get the back numbers fund from Howard and steal a little from
the future, I'm sure we'll be alright in the end. No-one will notice, will
they?"
DaveHealey
What's a treasurer?
"Oh, that'll be my wife, and she'll agree with me. No problem!"
Is this a trend I see before me?
Dave
Frankymole
The question was whether Nogger's Treasurer followed standard agreed (legal)
accounting practice. PArticularly the 5 principles:
1. Going concern.
2. Consistency of accounting principles and presentation - to which may be added
"true and fair view" reporting.
3. Prudence.
4. Matching of income and expenses, and
5. Separate valuation of assets and liabilities
These of course only apply to Societies.
DaveHealey
>equal-standing) un-paid up "Co-Ordinator" (singular)?
>
>Smacks of a lack of conviction to me. The members hould have told him to
>piss
>off.
I think in a manner of speaking they did (at a work-in). But as he didn't put
in an appearance he couldn't comply!
Dave
Frankymole
A cunning politician. Perhaps a cunning stunt ;o) But I can't help feeling
(falling membership, indelible record of misdeeds on the 'net) he has cut off
his nose to spite his face... is the society really *that* worth holding on to,
when all that made it good, nay great (you included, Mr Healey - and I don't
flatter) is now gone? Save a few faded "archives" what is he lord of?
"Hail - Lord of Nothing" as Sir Tom Baker once said.
DaveHealey
>(let him show bank accounts to prove otherwise). Did he refund everyone's
>subscription who he "Rogered"? Was Max a paid-up member? How can we tell?
>Where is it published?
Why indeed?
I think basically everyone he 'Rogered' left of their own accord, although a
few did have their cheques returned for daring to suggest that Roger was more
equal than the next man.
I doubt Max was a (paid-up) member. Come to think of it neither was I (so I
guess that's why they wouldn't listen!) ;-)
DaveHealey
>accounting practice. PArticularly the 5 principles:
>
>1. Going concern.
>2. Consistency of accounting principles and presentation - to which may be
>added
>"true and fair view" reporting.
>3. Prudence.
>4. Matching of income and expenses, and
>5. Separate valuation of assets and liabilities
>
>These of course only apply to Societies.
1. It's going and I'm not concerned.
2. Presentation (to show) - no that can't be right can it, they would have to
publish the balance
3. Prudence - It might have been Prudence, but from memory I think it was
Karen!
4. Could be. I think when Roger found out how much he needed, he made efforts
to match it (by asking for renewal subs!)
5. They were certainly separated (by more than 50% at the time). In favour of
the latter of course.
Frankymole
Yes, but as I've pointed out before (and it's not an excuse, I'm not like that)
you put in more in the way of blood, sweat and tears than anything you ever took
out (a copy of your own editing efforts? Modesty or what!). Roger desultorily
"contributed" some amateurish, selfishly-withheld news items and self-promotion,
using the murky and dubiously-funded "Escape" account, and revelled in holding
the entire Society in his thrall (not least with the never-accountable bank
account). At the end of the day, we the "ordinary" members (and I am proud to
wear that identity) had so much effort from you, and a few uninterested scraps
from him. I know who robbed me!
Frankymole
> >3. Prudence.
> 3. Prudence - It might have been Prudence, but from memory I think it was
> Karen!
Won't you come out to play!
Ronster
Y'know, I keep thinking of that Simpsons 'Stonecutters' episode, where Homer
(the Chosen One) has lost all his followers and is presiding over nothing
but a few monkeys, or 'loyal stonecutters' as he would have it! The ironic
thing was, Homer lost all his followers after he tried to do some *good*!!
Ronnie
"Mebbe we don't wanna be Six of Oners no more!"
DaveHealey
No the point is I didn't post it.
The deal here is. They kick me in the teeth. I still honour their requests for
privacy.
See the difference?
I drive an Ethical Dilemma, they have a Chieftain Tank.
Dave
DaveHealey
>(falling membership, indelible record of misdeeds on the 'net) he has cut off
>his nose to spite his face... is the society really *that* worth holding on
>to,
>when all that made it good, nay great (you included, Mr Healey - and I don't
>flatter) is now gone? Save a few faded "archives" what is he lord of?
I guess he is now Lord of the Soaps with his own newsgroup show every night.
And you can download old episodes for nothing - legally!
Dave
Frankymole
Is that like an Austin Healey (sorry!) ;o)
Well it doesn't take much to know which I respect more. Roger Langley just has
to ask himself which he wants the respect of more - ethical people or toadying
gits. He's answered this for himself long ago.
DaveHealey
>
>> 3. Prudence - It might have been Prudence, but from memory I think it was
>> Karen!
>
>Won't you come out to play!
I think You Never Give Me Your Money would be more appropriate!
Dave
DaveHealey
>that)
>you put in more in the way of blood, sweat and tears than anything you ever
>took
>out (a copy of your own editing efforts? Modesty or what!). Roger
>desultorily
>"contributed" some amateurish, selfishly-withheld news items and
>self-promotion,
>using the murky and dubiously-funded "Escape" account, and revelled in
>holding
>the entire Society in his thrall (not least with the never-accountable bank
>account). At the end of the day, we the "ordinary" members (and I am proud
>to
>wear that identity) had so much effort from you, and a few uninterested
>scraps
>from him. I know who robbed me!
Thank you. The cheque's in the post!
Dave
Frankymole
LOL!
And from the same (best) album... Maxwell's Silver Recorder...