Unfortunate is one word that CB does not understand and its not present in his lexicon of vitriolic expressions of hatred used in an outright and uncontrollable persecution of selected victims.
Only one person doxed him - Chris Beach himself. It was he, if anyone was accountable, who may or may not have put his family at risk in his overblown allusion to any such threat by publishing the data. The screen grabs of posts he created are still present.
There is only one person who needs to make a public apology - Chris Beach. For creating his sock puppet Flava Baker and for using that sock-puppet to fabricate a tissue of lies about an innocent women. And used that total untruth to make a report to the police in an effort to have them prosecute her. As the victim herself has stated unambiguously, she did not do what Chris Beach said she did and she has received no formal warning from the police.
Chris Beach is unable to get small facts right. It is not in his nature to be precise or accurate. Accuracy in these matters do not assist Chris Beach in creating his own fog in which his untruths lurk.
For the "most recent meetings" held over some twenty months ago that Chris Beach alludes to, four people attended. The purpose of the meetings were to pool ideas about how STF might be updated in terms of looks and functions. Mr Beach alludes to "not embarrassing" other attendees - and then shows the name of one attendee in the screen capture shown in his post.
I was another attendee. It was clear at the time that Stuart was offering technical support to ideas emerging and, certainly to me, was not there as Admin. That leaves the fourth attendee as being the source of Chris Beach's wildest of pronouncements "..contradicts what I’ve heard from a long standing member of STF who attended your most recent in-person meet-up where “admin” was present".
It cannot be exaggerated to what degree Chris Beach's failure to identify and reach out and directly and personally attack STF's admin has driven him to the verge of apoplexy. The very fact that Admin is anonymous unsettles Chris Beach. His need to inflict his version of the truth on people, drives him to this wildest of behaviours. When he cannot "touch" Admin, it inflicts a greater frustration that is unbearable to him. These types of behaviour have resulted in him having been ejected, bum's rush style, from every forum in this and adjacent areas that is not owned by him.
The censorious and barely accurate censor from RTW wrote:Hi Stuart. That contradicts what I’ve heard from a long standing member of STF who attended your most recent in-person meet-up where “admin” was present.
Since you still own and host the site (the domain, forum, database etc), could you explain why you’re using it to host hundreds of posts defaming me by a number of anonymous accounts? You’re also hosting posts by the lady who received a warning from the police for sending malicious online communications that listed my family members with photos, a photo of my flat, and a threat to pay my wife and three month old baby a visit.
If you recall, it was you yourself who originally posted my home address publicly on your forum, only to later take it down when I made a formal complaint. You also banned me shortly after doxxing me, which meant I was unable to defend my name on your site from the various false statements made by members of your site - and by you yourself.
How do you think this kind of content reflects on the Sydenham community? Do you think STF is a force for good?
Will you continue to deny any responsibility for the content you’re hosting, and ask us to believe that some anonymous “admin” is responsible for it all?
..and in continuing wrote:Four people attended your meet-up in 2018. I will spare your blushes, and I will not name them.
And how we laughed at length about the hollowness of the Nominet threat. Mr Beach, then, could not grasp that Nominet would adjudicate on domain and web issues only - not content disputes.
Groundhog Day is certainly upon us on that point - it seems he still cannot.
Why does such panic-driven imperative exist to have these posts removed?
Could it possibly be that any checks being made by any future employer on individuals referred to in the posts would appear to project very negative characteristics of a prospective employee or consultant?