Forum Topic

Colm Costello

Possibly as a result of his unfamiliarity with the areaand its history Cllr. Costello made a big mistake in tryingto play the Irish Card, in this particular part of London.All through from the 30's to the 60's at least, WestLondon in terms of the Great West Road Factories,The Western Avenue, Greenford with Lyons Rockwareand Glaxo etc, London Transport and others provided thousands of welcome jobs managerial, clerical,and manual  for Irish people wanting to avoid poverty and joblessness back home. Those thousands settled in Ealing, bought homes, and raised families many of whom still live in the Borough.And for all anyone can tell without ever being laughed at on account of being Irish , or of being "thick". And for the information of Cllr Costello the claim that there ever were " No Dogs No Irish" signs appears to be a fabrication.And of course this is hardly a recent phenomenon.the London Docks were mainly built by Irishlabourers who then settled in the area andwhose families were a foundation of the docklabour force.So scratch many Londoners and you won't need togo very deep to find some Irish blood.But of course the likes of a recent arrivalsuch as Colm Costello couldn't be expected to know that.Hence his surprise to discover that Cllr. Wall was in fact part Irish himself. Which apparently Cllr. Costellostill doesn't fully accept.Thus to many people of Irish descent, if not othersCllr Costello's ready resort to accusations of bigotry onthe part of Cllr Wall when this is totally unwarrented isdeeply offensive. One somehow suspects that Colm Costellohas led a relatively soft life, where prejudice andbigotry are things he's mainly read about in thebooks of his favourite author, Frank McCourt.Please don't forget that the only person on this forumwho has ever referred to the possibility of Irish peoplebeing described as "thick" is Colm Costello himself, postingas Mark Stevens. Nobody else. Everything else is a productof Costello's fevered imagination in posting bogusconversations between Mark Stevens and himself on thisforumSo that if there is any apologising to do to Irish people in general - as Costello was demanding of Cllr Wall, in the now sickening exchanges between Costelloand himself - then it is in fact Colm Costellowho needs to do the apologising.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 4875d23 Comments

> Most IP addresses for private individuals are > dynamically allocated which means they are > changed regularly No they are not changed regularly.  They can be, but they are typically not.In this day of ubiquitous broadband the IP address allocated to an individual subscriber may remain unchanged for months or even years at a time - especially given that many DHCP servers are set to serve the same IP address to a subscriber when the IP address lease is renewed or after relogging on after a period of time away.  And of course most people's routers are on 24/7, so the latter rarely occurs - usually only when there is a fault in their equipment or at the exchange / ISP.> Even if a person was using a static IP address > this could not be used to an identify an > individual - only their broadband provider.Again, not quite.  It is true that there is no universal lookup table that will allow Google to serve you up an individual's name against a supplied IP address.However the ISP that owns the IP address can, should they be inclined, tell you.And, subject only to the ISP's interpretation of the DPA (your comments on which I completely agree BTW) they may very well do so.  Generally, when information like this is refused and the DPA quoted, it is, as you say, down to a complete misunderstanding of the provisons of the act.It infuriates me when an organisation refuses to supply information and uses the excuse of the DPA when they really mean it is not company policy.  (In fact, what I think they really mean is that they have misunderstood the DPA and have adjusted 'company policy' to match their error in understanding.  Company policy I can live with, but unreasonable restriction as a result of running scared due to not understanding the DPA correctly annoys me enormously.)

Tony Colliver ● 4867d

Firstly, it should be pointed out that the primary purpose of the Data Protection Act is to reduce the amount of third party marketing that we receive. It was not intended to and does not provide any protection to individuals who stand accused of wrong-doing. The Information Commissioner's Office is unambiguous on this point. You can see the relevant exemptions given to organisations holding data on this page:http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/exemptions.aspxThe most relevant section is quoted at length below:"Personal data is exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure of the data is necessary:•for or in connection with any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings); •for obtaining legal advice; or •for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights. You do not have to disclose personal data in response to a request from a third party simply because this exemption applies. You can choose whether or not to apply the exemption to make a disclosure, and you should do so only if you are satisfied that the disclosure falls within the scope of the exemption. In other words: •it is necessary for one of the above purposes; and •applying the non-disclosure provision would be inconsistent with the disclosure. "This makes it clear that the data holder has the discretion to act as they see fit if a request is related in some way to a legal issue. How this would be defined is not specified which gives the data holder leeway to act in a way they deem appropriate. This is why so many Twitter 'trolls' have been outed - the Data Protection Act does not give them any right not to have their information released to a complainant. It is entirely at the discretion of Twitter who seem to have adopted a policy of cooperation with injured parties.This means that any data held including address, phone number and e-mail can be released in certain circumstance so the question of whether an IP address is protected data is moot. There have been complaints made to the ICO about the release of BULK lists of IP addresses in relation to the illegal downloading of music but these appear not to have been upheld. Releasing an individual IP address is almost certainly not a breach of the Act even if the exemption outlined above did not apply. In practical terms it cannot be used to identify an individual. Most IP addresses for private individuals are dynamically allocated which means they are changed regularly and may subsequently be used by a different individual. Even if a person was using a static IP address this could not be used to an identify an individual - only their broadband provider.The important point about the above is that if you ever feel you have been abused online you can request further information on your abuser from the web site provider. They do have the discretion to decline your request but if they claim that they are doing so because the Data Protection Act does not allow them to do so, this would be false.

Gareth Taylor ● 4867d

Chris Veasey wrote as follows "Well it's unfortunate you turned out to be new to this forum"...Sorry Mr Veasey. Where exactly did I say I was new to this forum ? Why are you putting words in my mouth ?All I ever said Mr Veasey, was that I "assumed" that Mr Colliver was a regular poster. You see Mr Veasey on the main page of this forum only the posters who initiate threads, are identified. And so in order to discover whether Mr Colliver was a "regular" or not I would have had to open every thread. Whereas I only ever read threads which look as though they may prove of interest. Mr Veasey went on to write -"You sound as if you could potentially benefit - and benefit from - the forum".Now there's a surprise ! You have an opinion on this topic as well. And you are speaking here, on behalf of who exactly Mr Veasey ?Tell me Mr Veasey are you naturally patronising, or did you have to pay to have lessons ? Because if you paid more than £30 you were done.And yes Mr Veasey, I have been an Ealing resident since 1946, and yes I do take my cod-liver-oil tablet every morning (Asda own brand - a doddle on the tube to Hounslow using the Freedom Pass ). Chris Veasey then went on to writeAs for expecting me to research the basis (if any) for your sweeping assertion about the place of the Irish in London's history and makeup, and your churlish refusal to come up with it yourself as the originator, be assured that such time as I have for such research is more than fully taken up with much more important ongoing research into various aspects of the history of my native Northern England. So I aren't doing it, got more than enough on my plate - it's up to you to prove it - if you can. Hold on a minute there. One minute you're "welcoming" me to the group, and the next minute you're calling me a liar. As someone who is given to "churlishly" refusing to provideevidence for what I say. You do see the incongruity of those two statements, I take Mr Veasey ?I've been on-line a long time Mr Veasey, a lot longer than you have, I suspect. Posting mainly on Usenet. So to be called a liar to my face, by some anonymous no-mark, as somebody who would knowingly and deliberately post false information on line, is no big deal for me. But it does mark you out as a rather sad and lonely person Mr Veasey. Certainly if you behave in real life as you do on here, always doubting people's word, and asking them to prove things. Taking things on trust is the basis of social discourse Mr Veasey or maybe you have yet to realise this, even this late in life. Perhaps that explains why they  always walk away ? Maybe it wasn't the fish-breath after all ?There you go Mr Veasey. At least this exchange has given you an excuse to tell the group all about yourself  and your opinions (now there's a surprise) and how -Chris Veasey wrote (together with the relentless materialism, consumerism and anti-intellectualism that seems to be hard-wired into the mentality of the typical west Londoner, or certainly the typical Ealing forumer).In other words, you don't really seem to fit in. (Now I wonder why that is ?)And judging by your performance in this exchange I'd go easy when it comes to bandying around terms such as "anti-intellectualism if I were you.and how Chris Veasey wrote -"is more than fully taken up with much more important ongoing research into various aspects of the history of my native Northern England"Have you never thought of moving back up there then ?I've heard that houses up there are very cheap.Possibly this seething resentment at having to live among all of us consumerist anti-intellectualistWest Londoners is at the root of all your problems Mr Veasey. As you clearly do have problems.Move back up there. Mr Veasey. And do it now before it's too late.You know it makes sense.As I said Mr Veasey I post a lot on UseNet where a person would need an IQ in single figures to post claims they couldn't back up, and where you personally Mr Veasey  would get a rather more robust response to your nonsense than I'm prepared to provide on a polite forum such as this. michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 4873d

Well it's unfortunate you turned out to be new to this forum, but trust you now realise why some of us are so sick to the back teeth of such topics ss the Costello saga being flogged to death and dominating the forum (together with the relentless materialism, consumerism and anti-intellectualism that seems to be hard-wired into the mentality of the typical west Londoner, or certainly the typical Ealing forumer).You sound as if you could potentially benefit - and benefit from - the forum, so hope you don't take your bat home - having said which I post on here as seldom as possible nowadays - life's quite a few orders of magnitude too short. I first came on here some years ago because this forum allowed a public voice to opponents of the crackpot Uxbridge Road tram scheme which the monopolistic local rag denied us - I've called it the Gagette ever since.As for expecting me to research the basis (if any) for your sweeping assertion about the place of the Irish in London's history and makeup, and your churlish refusal to come up with it yourself as the originator, be assured that such time as I have for such research is more than fully taken up with much more important ongoing research into various aspects of the history of my native Northern England. So I aren't doing it, got more than enough on my plate - it's up to you to prove it - if you can.ChrisVEaling resident since c1981W/NW London resident since 1973East Berkshire resident 1972-73South Essex resident 1964-67Southern Yorkshire resident 1949-64 and 1967-72

Chris Veasey ● 4873d

Re  Ealing resident since 1946Tony Price wrote as follows              just stumbled across this thread and found the quality of the posts very high. Anyone who has been living in Ealing since the end of the end of WW2 is someone who could be of great benefit to the forums, therefore I hope the comment re leaving will not be carried out.Just the 6 Points  1)The complaints of political nit-picking dominating this forum made by Messrs Colliver & Veasey were in fact largely accurate. It's just unfortunate they were directed at myself who is totally blameless in this regard, but such is life on-line.The problem with allowing elected politicians to post on forums IMO is that argument is already  their stock in trade. And so a forum merely allows them to rehearse and test out arguments to be possibly used in a wider context.  Without naming names so as not to start an argument, a thread was started on here recently concerning the lopaction of road building programmes in the Borough along with charts. All that I know on this topic is that all the roads leading West off of Northfield Avenue were all resurfaced within the last few years. I only remember this because the equipment being used was akin to a road-mending combine harvester insamuch as it appeared to combine at least two or three road-making operations all in one. Which was interesting to pause and watch in operation. Whether these Northfields Avenue resurfacing operations would confound the thesis being proposed, as might say ten year statistics, isn't something that I'm particularlyminded to pursue. 2) While I've lived in Ealing since 1946, I've not been short of opportunities to move. But have chosen not to. What I take exception to, are posts especially emanating from certain individuals claiming that certain parts of the Borough are run-down, have been reduced to shanty towns and the like. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't take pride in their area, but times change. While many of usmight like to move back to the 1950's, and the way things were back then, how many of us could make do without the computers or the flat screen TV's to say nothing of the convenience of being able to shop at all hours ? I'm sure I can't be the only one to remember the "special" shops, the ones  who would bring out the "forbidden goods" from under the counter for you on a Sunday afternoon. You know the stuff - like a quarter pound of tea or a bag of sugar. Again no point arguing with people who are determined to run the place down whatever you say.3) In my original post in this thread I made a point about Irish labourers, among others, building the docks and their descendants forming the basis of many of the dockworkers families. I was challenged on this by Chis Veasey and asked for evidence. There's plenty of on-line evidence in support of both propositions but I see no reason why I should be required to spoonfeed Mr Veasey with information he's clearly unwilling to provide for himself.         4) On at least two occasions, and quite possibly more threads have been started on this forum featuring unsubstantiated allegations which if taken seriously might well threaten the viability of those businesses. Those being the dog walker and the Oxfam Bookshop. In my opinion such posts shouldn't be allowed, free forum or not. As their inclusion undermines either the credibility of the businesses cited or of the forum itself. The assumption being presumably that nobody take anything posted on the forum seriously in the first place.To say nothing of the legal implications of publishing unsubstantiated defamatory statements. 5) When I said I'm picky about where I choose to be insulted, what I meant was that I'm a regular participant on UseNet Newsgroups. Which while they may appear to be an online madhouse to  outsiders, do at least provide the facility of  automatic quoting should the poster so choose. So that even in protracted exchanges, its immediately apparent to the reader, whose remarks exactly, each poster is reponding to. In addition there are fewer formatting problems in my experience, at least..6) To reiterate my original point, when Colm  Costello visits the W.H.Smith in the Greenford Retail Park or whatever it's called, there's no  particular reason why he should know that he's standing on the site of the former Rockware factory which at one time employed over 12,000 people quite possibly many of them Irish. And why should he ? Or that the children of many of those people will have inherited their houses and will still be living in the Borough.  Just as he's unlikely to be aware that the car park of the retail park was formerly a golf driving range which featured in an episode of "Minder" - the one in which Terry McCann recognised the other guy's  minder as one of his old boxing mates. Not that this latter observation is of any real relevance other than as a reminder that another benefit of living in Ealing is being able to recognisefilm locations from films and latterly TV programmes from the 1940's right up to the present day. Or even going back to 1902 on Youtube  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmEcxE0MPgM michael adams...   

Michael Adams ● 4874d

Chris Veasey wrote -" Tony Colliver is right on the money re this - the Costello saga, like certain other obsessions of a few on here, has been thoroughly flogged to death"...Mr Veasey I'm not really interested in the opinions of either Mr Colliver or yourself on the general standard of postings on this forum. Although I somehow suspect the two of you you lose no opportunity toavail everyone possible with these. along with your opinions on just about any topic under the sun, at every available opportunity.Just to clear up some misunderstandings.Nothing of what I posted can be shown to be partisan. Or to constitute political point scoring. I can easily demonstrate this.a) I believe two party democracy to be the least worst system of government possible.In the UK at least based on history cultureand precedent.However for this to operate its necessary for an effective opposition to offer constant scrutiny of those in power. However there happens to be a big difference between scrutiny and habitually accusing the opposing party of corruption, and in essence buying votes. And this applies to both sides. b) Far from "wishing a plague on both their houses" I in no way envy politicians at either national or local level, who assume the unenviable task of reconciling Britain's ( and the West's) declining role in the world while trying to satisfy the rising expectations of their electorates and the increasing demands being placed on their budgets. i.e. there's no magic wand, the money simply isn't there.c) There is seemingly very little role nowadaysfor ideology to play any part in politics at either national or local level. In other words in the present context I see very little scope for ideology to play any part in arguments say over refuse collection arrangements. Which as I understand it is among Cllr Costello's special interests.In other words Mr Veasey I have absolutely no interest in engaging in the political point scoring of which both yourself and Mr Colliver complain, and its totally immaterial to me as towhichever Party either Cllr Costello or Cll Wall actually represent.The fact remains however Mr Veasey that Cllr Costello is an elected representative to Ealing Council. Without knowing anything of Colm Costelloor which party he represented if any, on my first visit to this forum, I understood Cllr Costello to be accusing another Cllr of corrupt behavior while in Office, a charge which if proven should rightly land that person in prison. Or if thrown out land Cllr Costello with a judgement for substantiallibel damages against him. The fact that no such thing happened leads to the inescapable conclusion I'm afraid that Cllr Costello is immune from action for damages on account of his presumed inability to pay. Unlike Mr Colliver or yourself Mr Veasey I don't happen to regard such behaviour in an elected representative of any party in this Borough as a trivial matter. While understanding of their problems I take no real interest in localpolitics but I very much doubt that accusingothers of corrupt practice in taking part in votes without declaring an interest is that commonplace, wherever you go. Yet that is what Cllr  Costello appeared to do and yet he still apparently has the full support of his party. And to repeat the point yet again - ad nauseam the actual party is totally irrelevant.Chris Veasey then wrote -"The likes of the Oxfam bookshop thread, whatever its merits, at least provided a brief welcome change."...Well there I have to disagree with you you see. The original poster was exhorting readers of this forum to avoid donating books to the Oxfam bookshop on the Green which if applied generally would efectively put that branch out of business. All this was allowed to transpire without any representative from Oxfam  or this particular branch being invited to put their side of the story. There then followed the usual string of unsubstantiated anecdotes many seeminglyfrom people who are unable to understand that in order to run a successful charity its necessaryto employ professional managers at the commensurate rate for the job. My own postion on Charities in general is very simple Mr Veasey. When I myself as an individualam doing more to help the poor and disadvantaged of this world, than any particular Charity is seen to be doing then and only then will I feel free to criticise them in any way, never mind exhort others to try and close down a branch of that Charity.  Chris Veasey further wrote -"Re the prevalent myth that 'The Irish' built everything and staffed all the factories here"...Indeed so it seems you have an opinion about this "prevalent myth" as well Mr Veasey. Asyou seem to have an opinion on just abouteverything else.Had you read and understood what I actually wrote Mr Veasey you would have realised that the material about the Irish presence in West London was intended to provide some context to Cllr Costello's surprisein discovering that Cllr Wall was part Irish.In a way it was supportive of Cllr Costello. Exceptthat Clr Costello then unfortunately reverted to type - whether as himself or in the guise of his alter ego Mark Stevens I can't quite remember by casting doubt on Cllr Wall's claim. Or to put it more bluntly he accused him of lying. On a public forum.So just to re-iterate this point one final timeMr Veasey  - such conduct should be shown to be unacceptable whichever party Cllr Costello happened to represent  michael adams

Michael Adams ● 4874d