| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
In message , at 10:43:46 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, tim... remarked: Don't flatter yourself. If you put your home address in a public repository that can be accessed by anyone with half a clue then more fool you. Anyone with any sense registers their domain at their accountants address or failing that a P.O Box. I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government Some stalking prevention measures can be very effective, but hiding where you've been living for years (rather than where you moved to last week to avoid the stalker) is extremely low on the list, and in our modern big-data[3] world virtually impossible anyway. Yes, I'd like to see people thinking more seriously about whether people's names and addresses should be scrapeable from Companies House, electoral roll, planning permission applications[1], and various other places[2] plus DVLA, Nominet, Verisign and so on. But that's a lost cause at the moment because the law says it's preferable for the public to be able to check up on who you really are, than to protect these persons on the registers from stalkers. [1] yes Mr Hayter, that's you. [2] all which then turn up at 192.com [3] Leaking location via social media too. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
In message , at 10:04:52 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, d remarked: I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government I don't think he really gets irony. Odd when that's what my post was ps Did I miss your guess at my car's colour? -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
In message , at 11:22:00
on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Paul Cummins remarked: I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government I have to agree. My company is registered several hundred miles from me, and mail is forwarded, specifically beause of stalking. That's an understandable move once you have become a victim. I presume the previous registered address of your company isn't where you are living now, but before the stalking started, because that would be a dead give-away. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:31:23 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:04:52 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government I don't think he really gets irony. Odd when that's what my post was ps Did I miss your guess at my car's colour? No idea given the blue saab is the only one in the picture, but sometimes a bluff produces results. Ask a poker player ;) My guess is you no longer have a car - probably an organic meat free rickshaw with the seat padded with old copies of The Guardian or something. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:33:20 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:22:00 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Paul Cummins remarked: I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government I have to agree. My company is registered several hundred miles from me, and mail is forwarded, specifically beause of stalking. That's an understandable move once you have become a victim. I presume Its an understandable move before you become a victim, specifically to prevent it. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
In message , at 10:39:34 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, d remarked: ps Did I miss your guess at my car's colour? No idea given the blue saab is the only one in the picture, but sometimes a bluff produces results. Ask a poker player ;) My guess is you no longer have a car - probably an organic meat free rickshaw with the seat padded with old copies of The Guardian or something. I have only one car a a time, including now. Keep struggling. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:58:38 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:44:07 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: My company is registered several hundred miles from me, and mail is forwarded, specifically beause of stalking. That's an understandable move once you have become a victim. I presume Its an understandable move before you become a victim, specifically to prevent it. Not unless you expect loads of outraged customers coming to beating on your door. And you don't "prevent yourself being stalked", like catching a cold it 'just happens'. Hiding your address is only going to thwart a Stalking doesn't "just happen". Even nutters don't pick a random person to stalk, there's always a reason. And if they can't find your address or where you work then there's really not a lot they can do other than bother you online which unless you're a 13 year old girl or some hopeless bedwetter is an irrelevance. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:39:48 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:39:34 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:31:23 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:04:52 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government I don't think he really gets irony. Odd when that's what my post was ps Did I miss your guess at my car's colour? No idea given the blue saab is the only one in the picture, but sometimes a bluff produces results. Ask a poker player ;) My guess is you no longer have a car - probably an organic meat free rickshaw with the seat padded with old copies of The Guardian or something. We already know from Roland's postings here what his current car is, including what kind of transmission it has. If I actually gave anything approaching a damn about what car he drives I'd spend some time in google finding out. But I don't. My original point was I found out his home address from his usenet post in literally 10 seconds flat. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
In message , at 12:39:48 on
Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Recliner remarked: No idea given the blue saab is the only one in the picture, but sometimes a bluff produces results. Ask a poker player ;) My guess is you no longer have a car - probably an organic meat free rickshaw with the seat padded with old copies of The Guardian or something. We already know from Roland's postings here what his current car is, including what kind of transmission it has. Don't confuse the Boltar-troll with information like that. It's beyond his comprehension. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
In message , at 13:07:52 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, d remarked: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:58:38 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:44:07 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: My company is registered several hundred miles from me, and mail is forwarded, specifically beause of stalking. That's an understandable move once you have become a victim. I presume Its an understandable move before you become a victim, specifically to prevent it. Not unless you expect loads of outraged customers coming to beating on your door. And you don't "prevent yourself being stalked", like catching a cold it 'just happens'. Hiding your address is only going to thwart a Stalking doesn't "just happen". Even nutters don't pick a random person to stalk, there's always a reason. Precisely so. If someone wants to stalk you they'll do irregardless of an accommodation address on your email domain. And if they can't find your address or where you work then there's really not a lot they can do other than bother you online which unless you're a 13 year old girl or some hopeless bedwetter is an irrelevance. They can do vastly more. Which is why knowing the address is down in the noise level. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
In message , at 12:23:00
on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Paul Cummins remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: That's an understandable move once you have become a victim. I presume the previous registered address of your company isn't where you are living now, but before the stalking started, because that would be a dead give-away. The Registered address is in a different country, the previous company was wound up and assetts transferred, and with consent of Companies House, the director is of a different name than the previous one. The only scenario that makes sense for the above is moving from E/W to Scotland (or vice versa). That doesn't erase the former registration, if that did indeed point to where you live today. Additionally, I have never posted in my legal name in any case, Posted what? and I'm not on the Electoral Roll that the public can see (even in person at the Council Offices), which doesn't stop several people from still trying to find me. Are you conflating "public can see" and "marketing companies can see"? I have a current police investigation ongoing. Into your activities? -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:26:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:39:48 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Recliner remarked: No idea given the blue saab is the only one in the picture, but sometimes a bluff produces results. Ask a poker player ;) My guess is you no longer have a car - probably an organic meat free rickshaw with the seat padded with old copies of The Guardian or something. We already know from Roland's postings here what his current car is, including what kind of transmission it has. Don't confuse the Boltar-troll with information like that. It's beyond his comprehension. As apparently most things to do with usenet is beyond yours. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:28:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:10:15 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: My original point was I found out his home address from his usenet post in literally 10 seconds flat. And my point is "why do I care". Assuming it's not the address of my accountant, of course. Whether you care is irrelevant. Just demonstrating that perhaps before accusing other people of ignorance of the ways of the internet you should take a look in the mirror first. Also you'd have to have a pretty stupid accountant for him to allow you to use his home address since that is clearly not solely a business premises. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:30:32 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:07:52 on Thu, 13 Oct Stalking doesn't "just happen". Even nutters don't pick a random person to stalk, there's always a reason. Precisely so. If someone wants to stalk you they'll do irregardless of an accommodation address on your email domain. You can't stalk someone you can't find. And if they can't find your address or where you work then there's really not a lot they can do other than bother you online which unless you're a 13 year old girl or some hopeless bedwetter is an irrelevance. They can do vastly more. Which is why knowing the address is down in the noise level. Is it? I'd be far more concerned with someone turning up on the doorstep with a knife than someone sending me nasty texts or emails or finding out my CC number and buying crap on amazon. YMMV however. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 10:43:46 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, tim... remarked: Don't flatter yourself. If you put your home address in a public repository that can be accessed by anyone with half a clue then more fool you. Anyone with any sense registers their domain at their accountants address or failing that a P.O Box. I think you misspelt "anyone with something to hide..." I think that's unfair especially from a person who spends his spare time discussing the minutiae of Stalker Protection legislation with government Some stalking prevention measures can be very effective, but hiding where you've been living for years (rather than where you moved to last week to avoid the stalker) is extremely low on the list, If I was only being stalked on the internet (as I understand some are, I guess you can supply some figures) I would damned well want to be sure that my real world address couldn't be gleaned from my online account details. and in our modern big-data[3] world virtually impossible anyway. As someone with an entirely unique name, finding me from my real name would be as easy as falling off a log. It's why I don't post using it OTOH, if you have a more common name (as you do) then people can only find you with the help of extra information that you may have posted. Unlike you I am careful not to do that either. You are right - I am paranoid. I have no reason to fear being stalked, internet or real world. But I do :-) Yes, I'd like to see people thinking more seriously about whether people's names and addresses should be scrapeable from Companies House, finding my real world address from my company's name is by far the easiest route, I agree One reason for registering it at my accountant, I suppose electoral roll, planning permission applications[1], do they have names on? and various other places[2] plus DVLA, Nominet, Verisign and so on. But that's a lost cause at the moment because the law says it's preferable for the public to be able to check up on who you really are, than to protect these persons on the registers from stalkers. I have lived/worked in a country where everyone can find out the name, address, birthday, Id card number etc with no formality (some instantly for free, some with a charge) No-one complains about this, they all think it's normal. What does annoy me is detective series from said country using the same "rest of the world" storylines about having to struggle to find out this information when it's all available to them in said database (but that's not really relevant to the topic in hand) tim |
Battersea extension
On 11-Oct-16 2:05 PM, d wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:05:59 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:04:41 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016, remarked: I doubt that platform doors will be fitted. There might be passive provision but doors on just 2 Northern Line stations doesn't look likely to me. I always thought they were an expensive white elephant that served little purpose but TfL seems to like them - they're going in on crossrail - so I wouldn't put it past them to install just on 2 stations. The safety benefits are considerable and they may well improve dwell times. Also improved air flow and cooling. I fail to see how - they're only 7 foot high. If the train was completely sealed off from the platform the sure, but it isn't. Any train heat just wafts up and over. -- Spud More like 10' high. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
In message , at 13:46:17 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, d remarked: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:28:02 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:10:15 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: My original point was I found out his home address from his usenet post in literally 10 seconds flat. And my point is "why do I care". Assuming it's not the address of my accountant, of course. Whether you care is irrelevant. Just demonstrating that perhaps before accusing other people of ignorance of the ways of the internet you should take a look in the mirror first. I know perfectly well about the "ways of the Internet", which is why this particular aspect is somewhere between "doesn't worry me" and "that genie escaped the bottle long ago". Also you'd have to have a pretty stupid accountant for him to allow you to use his home address since that is clearly not solely a business premises. If I was "in hiding" he could be doing it as a favour. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
In message , at 17:31:43 on Thu, 13 Oct
2016, tim... remarked: electoral roll, planning permission applications[1], do they have names on? The former would be pretty useless without names on, and yes, the latter do, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
"Roland Perry" electoral roll, planning permission applications[1], do they have names on? The former would be pretty useless without names on, and yes, the latter do, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. I recently discovered Part-B-Entitlement-to-register-March-2010.pdf Some special category electors must be entered on the register without their qualifying address or without their name and qualifying address. Further information on such electors can be found in Part F, ‘Special category electors’. http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...March-2010.pdf -- Mike D |
Battersea extension
In message , at 21:27:39 on Fri, 14
Oct 2016, Michael R N Dolbear remarked: electoral roll, planning permission applications[1], do they have names on? The former would be pretty useless without names on, and yes, the latter do, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. I recently discovered Part-B-Entitlement-to-register-March-2010.pdf Some special category electors must be entered on the register without their qualifying address or without their name and qualifying address. Further information on such electors can be found in Part F, ‘Special category electors’. http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ral_commission _pdf_file/0011/43958/Part-F-Special-category-electors-March-2010.pdf Yes, I'm aware of that[1] and this precaution is only available after you've been at risk, and obviously can't be retrospective to previous electoral rolls and those databases which have scraped them. It's very much for the situation I mentioned earlier, of going into hiding after your safety has been compromised. [1] There was also some hiccup along the lines they forgot to make the list of special category electors immune from FOI requests. -- Roland Perry |
Battersea extension
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:18:39 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:49:22 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016, d remarked: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:30:32 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:07:52 on Thu, 13 Oct Stalking doesn't "just happen". Even nutters don't pick a random person to stalk, there's always a reason. Precisely so. If someone wants to stalk you they'll do irregardless of an accommodation address on your email domain. You can't stalk someone you can't find. Of course you can. You can stalk them at work or even drum roll over the Internet. How exactly do you "stalk" someone over a computer network? Send them nasty emails and tweets? Aww, diddums. Anyone who is bothered by that needs to grow a pair. And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too. Is it? I'd be far more concerned with someone turning up on the doorstep with a knife than someone sending me nasty texts or emails or finding out my CC number and buying crap on amazon. YMMV however. You must lead an exciting life for people to become that upset with you. It seems to bother you since you're involved in stalking. Perhaps talking from experience? -- Spud |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:24:45 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: Although of course that's trolling rather than stalking. Quite. And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too. It's not necessarily the case that every work stalker follows the victim home. You'd expect that as the obvious escalation though. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:51:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:39:50 on Tue, 18 Oct 2016, d remarked: And if you can't find someone you can't stalk them at work either can you? And if you could find them at work you could follow them home too. It's not necessarily the case that every work stalker follows the victim home. You'd expect that as the obvious escalation though. It's one possible escalation. Another might be making false complaints to the boss about the victim, which depending on their job might be quite serious for them (falsely accusing a teacher of interfering with children, for example). Thats malicious, but its not stalking as most people would interpret it though. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
|
Battersea extension
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Just curious - does anyone know what form the architecture will take, will it be like the JLE, crossrail or something completely new? Also I presume the 2 new stations will have platform doors too which I imagine will mean some new kit on the trains - unless its already installed. The stations are being designed in line with the TfL Design Idiom. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf Look at the references to "2015 palette" and this will give a clue as to what the new stns will look like in terms of their finish. They are fairly basic in their design with minimal clutter and complication and from the artists impressions I have seen look fairly unremarkable. Don't expect them to be icons of architectural brilliance. There is a project page at https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-informatio...line-extension and a link from that page to loads of documents. I can't readily find the artists impressions of the stations I've seen but they may be somewhere on the project / documents pages. We do know that the developer of BPS has changed their designs for the over station development which has caused design changes in the tube station. We also know that there is a "commercial discussion" ongoing about who pays for what. LU was previously on schedule before the developer changed their mind and the project is now umpteen weeks late. No idea about PEDs but I suspect they may not be installed at just two stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also don't know if the door spacings will be identical to existing stock or not. Even a marginal difference could present issues with PEDs but obviously LU would want to minimise any such problems. I thought that one of the requirements for the new stock was that it was externally identical to the current 95TS trains (including the cabs, so drivers didnt need special training), but that they use modern technology below the floor? |
Battersea extension
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics (I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting the contract. -- Spud |
Battersea extension
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics (I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting the contract. They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock. Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current 95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive trains than the slightly older 96 stock. |
Battersea extension
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:26:18 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: I thought that one of the requirements for the new stock was that it was externally identical to the current 95TS trains (including the cabs, so drivers didnt need special training), but that they use modern technology below the floor? It probably is but the procurement process is not yet complete and while I agree with your other post about Alstom being the front runner we must wait to see what happens. Obviously as close to identical or identical is highly desirable but I was only suggesting that there may be some small differences. A matter of millimetres here or there with door positions could cause issues about how PEDs, if they were to be fitted, would work across a mixed fleet. I also don't see PEDs being fitted at two stations with all the interfaces and changes to on board software on a large train fleet that would be necessary. I also don't see TfL tying themselves into PEDs with one door spacing that would be completely incompatible with the likely door spacing on the NTfL. I agree that PEDs are unlikely at these two new stations, but probably not because of NTfL, which isn't planned for the Northern Line, whose fleet is unlikely to be replaced for another 25 or so years. That's probably longer than the service life of PEDs. |
Battersea extension
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:46:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics (I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting the contract. They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock. Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current 95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive trains than the slightly older 96 stock. I thought Bombadier had bought Alstoms train business in the UK a while back but it seems not. But weren't they built in Brum? -- Spud |
Battersea extension
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:46:11 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:32 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: stations - quite a complication to add on a large line plus we do not yet know who will build the extra "compatible" 95 and 96 stock trains for expanded services on the Northern and Jubilee Lines. We also I wonder if the trains will be compatible but with completely new electronics (I imagine a lot changes in 20 years), or whether they'll be a carbon copy of the current trains down to the transistor level because it'll be simpler and cheaper to do that which will mean Bombardier almost certainly getting the contract. They will have modern electrics, but why would Bombardier get the contract if they were identical? It had nothing to do with the 95/96 stock. Alstom is the almost certain winner of the deal, as it built the current 95/96 fleets. Also, note that the newer 95 stock has more modern drive trains than the slightly older 96 stock. I thought Bombadier had bought Alstoms train business in the UK a while back but it seems not. But weren't they built in Brum? The original ones were assembled in Washwood Heath, in the former MetCam factory that built many previous LU fleets, including the 59, 62, 67, 72, 73, D78 and 83 fleets. That factory was subsequently closed by Alstom, so the top-up Jubilee 96TS order was built in an Alstom plant in Barcelona. Bombardier only has one train factory in the UK, in Derby, which it acquired when it took over Adtranz. That factory built the 92, 09 and S stock fleets. It had nothing to do with the 95/96 or older LU fleets. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk