29 July 2006


I appologise my loyal readers. Have been pretty busy with work. Well what has happened.... Following on from a comment on here it seems somehow my power user membership was taken twice and it wasnt until last week when I asked for a full refund was this notices, quite shocking when it was back in March that this money was taken. For all those people who have been banned whilst not breaking any of the published rules, get in touch and demand a refund, I did and I not only got the legit fee back but also a second one that had been "missed", good to know the accounting is so tight.

As some of you may know that the Real World has now been made accessable to Power Users, way back when it was actualy my idea to start the area, there were some mods at the time who were against it as they said it was a Police Site so should only have police stuff on it, if that is the case why have the Locker Room or Market Place, but in a very rare show of acceptence of others views the Real World was created and as I was told in a recent email as it has become one of the most popular it has now been moved and made accessable to Power Users only, the same as the reference Libary, it was for that reason that I deleted the reference files that I put in the Libary as I was not going t0 be used to drum up business.

This latest ploy is just a means to drum up more business, sad thing is, I can see it dying off, the Real World was a good place to have mature discussions, although the same old moderator would crawl out from under his stone every now and again and make a belitteling comment. On a side not I have been informed that there is also a "private" moderator area on the forum that has an AtoZ of members and also a thread "Ones to Watch", both these threads are in breach of his own Data Protection Statement which states that the only information that he will store will be the information that the user provides on joining. On the Libel Front, after my response has been posted on here there has been no further progress as of yet, I have my suspicions as to who his Legal Advice was that worded the letter for him.

I know of a FOI reqest that has been sent to Surrey, it will be interesting what comes back, because as has been stated on here if Surrey have allowed Police time to be used in any way for the running/maintainence of the site the HRA applies making the relevent people liable of any breaches of that Act.

If anyone wants to contact me about anything on this blog or to share views/experiences they do not want published on here, plese use the email address at the top of the blog.

Live Long and Prosper..

16 July 2006

An interesting quote

I was browsing "that place" when I saw an interesting quote by one of the Moderators who is a serving regular officer.

Now before I show you the quote, you all know of the problems suffered by people for expressing their views on there, and that we have been lectured repeatedly that Police Officers can not have an on duty and off duty opinion, so if a person shows such disregard for the ideals behind their oath, code of practice, the HRA & ECHR, then what regard is shown when whilst on duty.

I'm afraid you don't have a freedom of speech on this forum, it's a commerical concern. As moderators we have a responsibility to keep the forum 'tidy' and repeated threads on the same topic are contrary to this.

So straight from the horses mouth so to speak, a commercial concern run by police officers, using official insignia. Will be interesting to read the response from the FOIA Request when it comes back.

For all those people who have read this thread and thought people were making it up about the lack of free speech I hope this comment validates what we have all been saying.

13 July 2006

An interesting point.

Fernando said...

Supply of Goods and Services Act won't apply;

No goods are involved and how do you prove the services were, or were not provided;

with reasonable care and skill.
in a reasonable time, if you haven't specified a completion date.
for a reasonable price, if this hasn't been agreed in advance.

Legally they're not entitled to a penny, especially if they've lost the service by breaking the sites rules.

Anonymous said...
"The fact is it is a private run site which means if you dare to disagree you WILL be banned."
Sounds reasonable to me.

Fernando, I am not sure if you even know ps.com, but allow me to explain, there is freely available a list of rules which could be interpreted as terms and conditions. When pay either £12 for a years of £50 for lifetime membership, the site owner LV agrees to provide you with services which are freely listed on the site. These services are not available to people unless you pay the subrictoption.

No one is questioning the practice of people being banned for breaking the rules, thats fine, what other people and I object to is being banned for having a view that is different to that of the moderators.

Moderators are allowed to breach their own rules by making personal attacks on people and attack their charcter, a favourite activity of some moderators is that when a thread is locked they continue to post messages goading people knowing they cant respond.

I am not a Civil Law Buff so dont know about the Supply of Services and Goods Act, but by providing the site owner with a fee, they agree to provide you with services in accordance with their "T&C's", you can not then change the goal posts because it suits you.

Another interesting point that has been made is the financial side of all this and the revenue that is going in.

11 July 2006

To answer a question

I was sent a comment on the censorship entry which said:

Fernando said...

No idea what all this ps.com stuff is about but one thing I couldn't help noticing.
You talk about the censorship on there as a bad thing but have the blog comments on here set so they need to be approved. How do you reconcile that, and how do we know how many negative comments you've been getting?

The reason that it is set so that I have to approve it, is to stop the blog getting bombarded with spam as reccomended by the site. I will publicly state that if anyone has a differnt view and wishes to express it in a grown up manner withouht refering to names, profanity and is in accordance with the Law then I am more than willing to approve it. If the person does havea differnt view to mine that is fine, after all I took an oath to protect that right, but they should at least back up why they think I am wrong. So feel free to post any mature comments.

Hope that clears that up.

My Response to the Demands sent to me

When I went offline last night there was 949 hits on here and over night that has shot up to 1025. Please accept my appology for providing the wrong emaila ddress is should be tacticalthinking2006@yahoo.co.uk As I said I understand why people would want to post anonymously, but if you do please drop me an email at this address to say hi, unlike some this information will bot be provided to any 3rd party withouht your express permission.

Well today my loyal readers I announces the demise of “Dogs of Blackpool” from Policespecials.com. I have been banned for comments on this blog. Now you may ask why, well here is the notification I received:

Dear Rob,

My attention has been drawn to your blog, located at http://tactical-


I refer in particular to the following comments made in your entry of

15 May 2006:

1. You refer to me with the comment "delusions of grandeur? or

narcissistic personality disorder?)" .

2. You suggest that I am in some way less competent as a police

officer because of the way the PoliceSpecials.com forum is moderated.

I am prepared to overlook all the other comments where you have

vented your frustration with the moderation on PoliceSpecials.com,

because you are of course entitled to your view, and to publish it

wherever you like. However the comments about me I find personally

extremely offensive and potentially libelous.

Please remove these comments and publish an apology, within 7 days of

receipt of this email. If you are unwilling to do this then I will

be forced to consider legal action, because such comments are harmful

to me and to my business.

Finally, please take this as notice that you are hereby banned from

using the PoliceSpecials.com forum. Your user account 'Dogs of

Blackpool' has been blocked. Do not try to re-register under a

different name. I have taken this action because your views about

the moderation, and your comments about me on your blog, are clearly

in conflict with our wish to keep the PoliceSpecials.com forum a well

run, well moderated forum.

I look forward to your reply.

Now despite paying a subscription fee for a service in accordance with their published conditions I have been banned for comments which were not even on the forum.

Now to answer these points in turn.

Point one,

The statement does not refer to a specific person, no one is named, it was a rhetorical question posed to the readers, you have chosen to apply the comments to yourself, which is of course your right, however the comments could equally apply to my posts as well, it is your choice to apply them to you.

As for the comments about your suitability as a police officer, if you perform your duties diligently in accordance with the Law, oath of office and codes of practice then there should be no problem.

The comment was not aimed at you, but the people who engaged in the practice of disregarding the vital elements of the standards the police are supposed to abide by and a vital piece of UK Legislation. You have stated publicly on the forum that a police officer can not have an off duty and on duty opinion and they are one and the same as well as calling in to question other people ability to be police officers when they have not agreed with certain points of view on the forum, if you feel this refers to you then again that is your right, but my comments were based on the behaviour exhibited by several people rather than a specific person.

Now according to the police oath and code of practice (which was deleted from my signature by a moderator) they strive to foster a climate of treating people fairly and impartially. This is hardly the case when you are told that regardless of the fact you may be right, the Moderator is always right. Is it fair when a persons posts are censored purely because they have a difference of opinion, when one moderator approves a post to then have another arbitrarily remove it, seems to be contradictory to the principles of fairness and impartiality. Despite repeated comments that this is unfair by several prominent members/forum users this behaviour is allowed to happen and is condoned.

Fact is the forum is just that, its not a cherished institution of the Police Service, in fact it is now something that many officers have been advised to avoid by their supervisors, because comments are edited and spun out of context to make the author appear in a bad light. For the exact reason that as you know I save copies of the posts I make and pm’s I receive to substantiate the comments I have made about treatment and moderation on the forum.

However to the moderator who has printed a copy of my blog, if you have chosen to take offence at a rhetorical question and feel that it applies to your conduct, then for that I appologise on your behalf.

There have been countless cases when you have been contacted by other members and myself with concerns with regards to comments and in some cases bullying they have encountered on the forum when they are sent pm’s threatening action based on their legally held views. You were contacted as the host in the hope that the ideals of the code of practice and Oath of Office would be applied, however this was not the case, in fact the person raising the concern has on occasions been blamed by you for causing the whole incident.

There was a thread with over 13 pages of comments made my forum members many of them paying members who made legitimate comments about the unfair treatment they have suffered by your chosen moderators, the response was for the entire thread to be swept under the carpet.

Now I have never known a Police Constable to refer to the Service as their “business”, rather an interesting choice of words, to which legitmate disclosed and officaly sanctiond business interest are you referring to?

To use a quote of yours from a pm you sent me:

“you could try listening to other people's points of view and be a bit more grown up about the fact that not everyone agrees with you”.

Rather than blocking people, censoring their legitimate views, tracing their ISP’s and reporting people to their forces.

As for the demand of a retraction, whilst public opinion and criticism may be censored on ps.cpm on the standards of moderation and behaviour, that same censoring policy does not reach here.

What now my loyal readers may ask, well thanks to the benefit of saving pages the appropriate Statutory Organisations and Police Forces will be notified.

10 July 2006


Well folks, seems like I have stirred a right hornets nest, 9 comments from my last post and over 100 hits in just over 24 hours.

It would seem that I am not alone in my experiences, but I digress, one my response has been prepared I will post it in full on here along with the email of complaint I received.

But to Sinbad, welcome and hope you find my rants on life interesting. I was not in the Military, I was a Civilian Contractor working with the Coalition, mostly with the Americans, but I did get some normality working with the British.

I take it from the bluntness of your post that you are a Squaddie, lol.

I have set up an email you can email me at tacticalthinking2006@yahoo.co.uk, I understand why people would post anonymously in light of some of the comments have been made, feel free to continue to post anonymously if you wish, just say hi via email.

Whilst all the comments so far have been one sided, I am more than willing to approve any comments as long as they are relevant, do not mention and real names or breach any Law. If you have a different point of view to me that’s fine, just back up your comments and they will be approved.

09 July 2006


Hi to my loyal readers. Just to upadte you, I have received a letter from someone from policespecials.com demanding I make a retraction for some comments on this blog and that if I dont they will seek legal advice.

As I am involved in several differnt organisations in the UK, US and other places, I am having my response prepared, so rest assured I will reply soon.