View Single Post
Old 21st February 2019, 14:25   #493
clf
This is my second home
 
clf's Avatar
 
MG ZT CDTi

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: carrick
Posts: 7,859
Thanks: 3,494
Thanked 2,657 Times in 1,973 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl52krz View Post
The ‘inference’ comes from the total posts on this subject on here. People are trying to find out where the person who is supposed to be involved in taking money, of whatever form, from customers for goods that were never delivered. If I lived at that address, and read these posts, I would have been sending a lawyers notification that I have no knowledge of any person residing at said address who is/was involved in any dealings with anyone mentioned in said posts. And demand that the address mentioned should be removed, and subsequently not used again in any form. Perhaps it might be a good idea if addresses are not used on the forum, and used only in P.M. to each other, perhaps to those who were concerned with losses only. Although I agree with the sentiments of trying to help those people who have losses, I think we are starting to tread on broken bottles The above first paragraphs assume that the person mentioned does not live there..
But it is information already in the public domain with regards to business/website registration addresses. As an example, my old boss's address, and his parents address is listed on the company's house website for all to see. But then the due diligence of the reader of such info, should note the dates involved. If you buy the house from one of them, that info is still present and relevant. However you as the new owner are not, because of the dates.

With regards to 'Sean's ' address, and the current resident addresses such a complaint, one could enquire if they had a forwarding address. Elimination from enquiry springs to mind. But the fact remains that the details are in the public domain. Search for white pages and you will find another source.

Your argument reminds me of the one when photographers are accosted for taking pictures in a public place, with people of all ages appearing in them. (For non commercial use). Those people do not have a right to delete because 'they did not give permission'. I think it is bad form to keep the image if requested to delete in most situations but have and will refuse should their inclusion be relevant or the chance has since passed. As in this case I refuse to delete the address and links as it is relevant to the information at the time and still publicly available. There is no inference to anyone other than the website owner's address at the times it was registered.

Incidentally you would be out of pocket with your lawyers letter and disappointed.


Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk
__________________


It is not gloss primer .............. it is duct tape silver!

Last edited by clf; 21st February 2019 at 15:06..
clf is offline   Reply With Quote