Now Mark hasn’t got BHF as a soapbox, he is getting bored and doesn’t know what to do with his time. One has only to look at last weekend’s rants to see how he used to spend his time. Perhaps his employer decided to put an end to the rants and told him to stop posting, full stop, as opposed to just changing usernames, especially since his posting style identifies him in five seconds.

Not being able to let off steam in the usual way, he decided to approach Peter directly, with some rather long, rambling emails that achieve very little. Mark is not the owner of BHF, in fact, he doesn’t even have admin rights, so has no control over what gets posted. He then tells Peter: “I did not think that you were currently owner of the blog.” What would be the point of a non site owner contacting another non site owner?

He then goes on to make a rather serious reference to “serious mental issues”, yet is happy to defend David Lindley for that same reason. There was no reason whatsoever to make reference to him, unless he was behind his decision to send the email in the first place. Once more, we have a number of imprecise statements where you can’t tell who he is representing: himself, Jason/BHF or David. In fact, he shouldn’t be representing anyone. If he really stopped posting, he would no longer be mentioned as he is not a part of BHF as such, so there would be no need for him to get involved.

Of his own admission, he doesn’t agree with Jason’s advice, so it begs the question: “What is he doing there?”

Below are the emails.

Dear Peter
 

I am contacting you because I believe that in the past, you have expressed a genuine desire to end all of this nonsense. If I am correct and that really is the case, then perhapswe should discuss what options are available in order to achieve this?

 

I am personally at a stage where I am bored to death with it all. I do not read your blog at all and whilst I log onto BHF, I am not even bothering to read what is written. As see it, somebody has to make the first move or
alternatively, this nonsense will just continue indefinitely. I am happy to speak with you, if you genuinely believe that there is a way to put a stop to all of this. I am also happy to let you have my number if you
wish.

 

If you want things to stop (as you have previously claimed to), then this is an opportunity to set wheels in motion. I have not mentioned to anyone else that I have contacted you and I suggest that you do the same until we speak. If nothing comes of that conversation, you will then be at liberty to do what you want with this email. My feeling is that everyone concerned would be happy to draw a line under all of this, other than Sheila (who I think we both know has serious mental health issues) and Sue Oddy, who seems to thrive on slanging matches. I envisage that everyone from the other side (BHF) would be happy to draw a line under it. Certainly Amy would and Jason appears to be wound up by something that has been posted recently (although I’m notentirely sure what).
 

The ball is in your court. There is a genuine opportunity to at least explore the possibility to put an end to all of this if you really want to put an end to it.

Hi Mark
 

The blogg no longer belongs to me, that’s the first thing to get out of the way, when the previous host said we were not welcome, i was going to walk away. Someone wanted to keep it going and had purchase a new name. Shortly after 123 contacted me to see what i was doing with the domain name, i then passed that on also.I do however have some influence on what happens with it.
 

The blogg will not be shut down because it is somewhere i can discuss an interest of mine and challenge what i consider to be wrong advice. The abusive silly posts, from all parties, including me, can go, and good riddance.
I am no ones lacky, and i will not continue abuse if there is none offered.
 

My recent attempt to join your forum, and also my attempts to encourage an easing of posting after the threads were removed last month were attempts to do this, despite i must say severe criticism. This was even in the face of knowing it was to facilitate some idea of court action against me.
 

Having got that off my chest. Yes certainly i am interested in what you say. As for talking on the phone, you must understand my reluctance, as the practice of recording seems to be endemic little progress can be made if there is a fear of some carless phrase being replayed on a forum to the delight of others.
 

So for now at least probably best by email. Perhaps you have an idea on how best to proceed just to get the ball rolling. I will not take offense at any idea offered. The existence content or intention of any email sent by you within the purpose expressed, will not be shared unless ordinary considerations of good faith are breached.
 

Peter

Hi Peter
 

Thank you for your reply. I did not think that you were currently owner of the blog. I contacted you for 2 reasons. Firstly, I think it pointless trying to reason with the two women,I have tried on numerous occasions over the years to try to reason with Sheila and now know that it is pointless. I have also exchanged friendly emails with Sue in the past and even then, she lied through her teeth to me, Secondly, I suspected that your reason for for posting on BHF was exactly as you have claimed, ie to try to ease the flow of stupid posting.
 

Your claim to want to discuss so called “wrong advice” is a cop out. Firstly, you never post advice of your own anywhere, so why are you so bothered what others post? Secondly, your own opinions have frequently been proven to be wrong, which in turn does not place you in the best position to chastise others. Thirdly, your target appears to be Jason, conveniently Sheila’s “rival” (yet you claim not to be her lackey?). There are bigger nutters out there than Jason yet you let their advice go.
 

For the record, I personally believe that the advice offered by Sheila AND Jason is generally poor. You have always failed to pick up just how “in the middle” I am. I am at all times objective and when Jason is wrong, I tell him. Your blog makes me laugh when it claims that I protect him (when it suits to claim this). I am his biggest critic, when he deserves it. I note that none of Sheila’s followers have ever dared challenge her over the years so forgive me in thinking that the only person who is open and transparent is my good self.
 

The lies, misconceptions, contradictions and total failures to understand what has been written/claimed that are on your blog are almost non stop. Do you not see that trying so hard to throw mud at people is desperation in its extreme? Especially given the age of the people involved.
 

Right, now I also have got something off my chest. The first thing that I would like to point out is that I do not record telephone conversations, nor do I have the facility to do so. However, if you prefer emails, that is fine. My feeling it will just take longer, that is all. Also, given the hostility here, text can often be misinterpreted.
My initial thoughts were that we could discuss possibilities of drawing a line under everything and if that was successful, get a 4 way conversation including Jason and Sheila arranged. I would take control of that conversation and ensure that there would be no talking over people, no hissy fits and no going off on tangents (which Jason & Sheila would do, if allowed) I would then propose a few days for everyone to consider what was discussed, before a return 4 way call, this time, you taking control of it.
 

As a side issue (and I know that this is not your shout) I question the reason for having a page devoted to David, knowing that it serves no purpose other than to cause him harm and distress. Doesn’t this tell what Sheila Harding is about? Is it that important to her? I can tell you that David has not revealed anything like what he could do, nor have I asked him to. Only last week, he was accused on several occasions of breaching confidentiality when he actually hadn’t. is it that important to you all to persecute him, tell me not to mention him “or else” etc, etc.
The very first thing that you need to understand about me, if we are to negotiate is that I will not accept a gun being held to my head. Claiming that it is my fault that someone else chooses to victimise David will not wash. I believe that regardless of your thoughts of me or anyone else, that David should be left alone. There are clear problems that he is enduring. Surely any kind compassionate person would think “there but the grace of God go I”. I saw the emails he sent to you not long back, calling me evil. So what? That’s what he does, how about cutting him some slack?
 

On that point, regarding your suggestions that BHF is “my” board, you are mistaken. I am my own person, I do not run in groups like you do. I tell Jason when he is wrong and I also call Adda out when she posts on your blog. I also have the same arguments with Amy regarding David. I am my own man and you need to realise that I speak for myself and nobody else.
 

I think that this email has probably come across a lot more aggressively than I had intended. You will have to bear with me for that, I am much better at putting points accross on the telephone/in person than I am in writing.
 

Mark

HI Mark
 

I think an argument about the respective accuracy of our understanding of regulations and law is probably counter productive to the exercise, so i will endeavour to try and keep my observations general in nature. Also further personal abuse is what we are trying to stop, your language in the last email is hardly conducive of that. I am therefore not going to respond to that part of your correspondence.
 

Personally i think it would be an idea to find out what it is we both want to achieve. We want the removal of all personal information, regarding the Oddies Sheila, and yours truly what you want is supposedly the same thing.also any personal abuse and childish comment to stop.
 

If Jason or you want some kind of immunity from comment about advice given or things in the public domain, then we are all barking up the wrong tree, Everyone has to suffer criticism and everyone is entitled to an opinion, that applies equally to anyone posting on the blog. There are intelligent ways to disagree.
 

We want to avoid future personal attacks and childish comments. The latter can be achieved through effective moderasation as it is on CAG for instance.It will not be easy to moderate certain parties(i include myself in that), who may have entrenched ideas, but i believe it is doable if the will is there.
 

Is there any agreement here ?
 

Peter

Peter
 

My language in my last email was not abusive in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, by way of example, in recent weeks, you have repeatedly dragged up my mother, wrongly claimed that I have been visited by bailiffs and wrongly claimed that I challenged a jobcentre decision, amongst no end of other incorrect things. All presumably to take cheap shots, in the absence of anything else to throw at me. By contrast, all I have ever posted about you was your spelling mistakes and/or misunderstanding of the law-Both of which are clear as daylight for anyone to see. I have not once been reduced to lying or presuming things as you have.
 

However, I agree that the purpose of these communications is not to dwell on the past.
 

From a personal point of view, I wish to stop posting completely. I have more or less done this over the past few weeks. Provided that I am left alone, I will not respond to any of you. If that is what you all really want then it is in your hands to draw a line under it moving forwards. My advice BTW has been 100% successful and the only person who tries to belittle it is you. Not once has my advice failed or cost a debtor money.
 

I am not asking for immunity for myself or Jason. As I won’t be posting moving forward then you won’t have to mention me. This will of course be to the detriment of debtors, who will be stuck with either Sheila or Jason, neither of whom really know what they are talking about.
 

By continuing a witch hunt, you are compromising the advice given to debtors. BHF has helped many, many debtors and your attempts to demonise it are exactly what the bailiff industry want you to do. Why don’t you criticise bad advice across the board if it is that important to you?
 

If you continue singling out Jason then he will continue to retaliate and things will gradually escalate, as they have done at this point. You & Sheila start on CAG, BHF respond with a “CAG wrong again” thread” I think that you are being naive if you think that some form of provocation is acceptable. As sure as night turns to day, retaliation will follow. I also think that things have moved on. Whereas you may well have wanted to use the blog as a leverage to avert abuse, the new ownership certainly have other agendas, as we both know.
 

I am stopping posting and as I saw in January, once Sue Oddy gets through her “where’s Mark?” routine, I am quickly forgotten and the focus turns to Jason. A classic example of you personally posting for the sake of it was the “Jason costs a debtor £4,000” thread. You hadn’t a clue what was going on (and probably still don’t to this day). Your posts were highly inaccurate and I cringed for you. This is not “intelligent ways to disagree”, it is confirmation that everything that I previously said (chimp, idiot etc) was true. The same with David and his so called breaches of confidence. The level of misinformatin on your blog is unbelievable. it is almost as if you think that saying something makes it automatically true. Even Quatloos require proof.
 

So what is it exactly that you are prepared to stop? Will you stop making things up and assuming things? Or will that continue? How do you envisage the blog changing? What happens to the 2 David threads?
 

As far as I am aware, all posts on BHF regarding you lot are removed. Are you asking for ancient posts to be removed?
 

Mark

I think perhaps you are a little tired.
 

Just to be clear, i am not interested in any ideas you may have, nor any comments. Please refrain from contacting me in this regard. If you continue i will post the whole conversation on the blog.
 
Peter

6 hours to provoke a hissy fit. Not bad, even by my standards. I thought that I may have been wasting my time
contacting the monkey rather than the organ grinder.
 

Post what you want, you don’t think I sent you anything that I was afraid would be reproduced do you?

No hissy fit here mark. A little disappointed.
 

But thanks for responding, you are such a child.
 
Peter