[Oakley Windows]

The van is mine Bob

Your word, thats all it is, so I therefore say to you that you should prove it.

Unquestionably, irrevocably, without a shadow of doubt, without question.

Go on, prove it.

[Simon Brannon]

The proofs in the back of my van Matt - and Andrew knows that but if YOU really want proof I suppose you could ask Adepta yourself .

Personally I dont need to prove it to anybody - I would just like Andrew to take off the pictures - he knows whose van it is so as soon as he gets better I'm sure he will contact me.

But if he doesn't then I will let you all know in good time that he hasn't responded.

The van is mine Bob

Your word, thats all it is, so I therefore say to you that you should prove it.

Unquestionably, irrevocably, without a shadow of doubt, without question.

Go on, prove it.

[Oakley Windows]

Your word against his, no irrefutable evidence its yours, its just ANOTHER van.

Save it for the Judge!

[DASERVICES]

Quote:-


The proofs in the back of my van Matt - and Andrew knows that but if YOU really want proof I suppose you could ask Adepta yourself .


Bingo , sorry mate but you have just blown the issue. It is not you and Andrew but Adepta who are so called Pure Freedom.

Mods please delete this as this is not an issue between Simon though he is playing the part. Pure Freedom are playing dirty in getting others to air their dirty laundry. I have thought this all the time and you have hit the nail on the head with the above statement.

Simon nothing against you but have a think you are playing the role Pure Freedom should be playing. You don't have the copyright to that photo nor Pure Freedom so this case needs to be dropped for legal reasons and trying to drag someones reputation who is well respected in this Industry.

Do all of us a favour please and lock this subject.

Many Thanks

[john tomkins]

1st one to post a picture of the back of the same van with sundays paper on view wins

[matt]

The point is that someone  could accuse you of using proper kit instead of DIY stuff, a grave accusation i'm sure you'll agree   

indeed, i would do my rep no good at all  :

and on a par with the alleged innapropiate use pics.You think he's fair game because of what you've said, i don't, and i don't think you'd care for it if it was you.

no, the pics should NOT have been used without the owner of the van being asked first, my example of the van was that nothing can be done and it goes on all the time, even to the degree of a national advert campain using some pics that were taken at a show and the owner didnt know a thing about them, intill 1 day he drove past a billboard with his van on ( that same day he got a few text from mates saying about it aswell




The camper van is interesting because it seems to have entered the main stream. It's sort of our eqivalent of the harley davidson.

to be honest, most in the VW scene ( who have been in it for a while, would like it to be not " in vogue " i blame jamie oliver 

The third thing of course is that because i don't agree that the thread is fair i have been trying to take it off topic.As regards your question i think dave deleted it.It was similar to this, true or not, just an attempt to cause ill feeling.

[Pittmonkey]

I can’t believe this topic is still on here.

There are accusations being made by somebody who, Quote! “Personally I don’t need to prove it to anybody”

So that means we can all come on the forum discredit other members, suppliers etc and we don’t need to prove it.

If I decided to post a topic warning other members not to use the forums sponsor for their supplies or their directory for whatever discrediting reason I decided upon I would be OK, and I wouldn’t need to prove it. Or, would the goalpost be moved to suit. (I suspect a permanent ban would be the outcome )

The mods/admin must have read this topic and received email complaints regarding its unfair advantage with the accused not being able to reply. If they still see fit to let this topic run then to me this shows lack of professionalism on their part.

Simon, if you had any decency, now knowing the probable reason your email/telephone calls didn’t get a reply you would have deleted your first post and locked this topic until both parties are able to communicate with each other. You have shown a complete lack of professionalism by airing this on the forum in the first place and cowardly behaviour by perusing it in absents of your accused.

A few suspect there’s a third party involved and if like me believe this has totally backfired and has only discredited the third party (If One).

[Paul Coleman]

I can’t believe this topic is still on here.

There are accusations being made by somebody who, Quote! “Personally I don’t need to prove it to anybody”

So that means we can all come on the forum discredit other members, suppliers etc and we don’t need to prove it.

If I decided to post a topic warning other members not to use the forums sponsor for their supplies or their directory for whatever discrediting reason I decided upon I would be OK, and I wouldn’t need to prove it. Or, would the goalpost be moved to suit. (I suspect a permanent ban would be the outcome )

The mods/admin must have read this topic and received email complaints regarding its unfair advantage with the accused not being able to reply. If they still see fit to let this topic run then to me this shows lack of professionalism on their part.

Simon, if you had any decency, now knowing the probable reason your email/telephone calls didn’t get a reply you would have deleted your first post and locked this topic until both parties are able to communicate with each other. You have shown a complete lack of professionalism by airing this on the forum in the first place and cowardly behaviour by perusing it in absents of your accused.

A few suspect there’s a third party involved and if like me believe this has totally backfired and has only discredited the third party (If One).

Agreed.  This has certainly been a case of someone shooting themself in the foot - whether that be Simon or Adepta.  Although I probably wouldn't have done so anyway (due to location), I couldn't see me availing myself of Adepta's services after this just in case they are involved.
Whatever you might think of the way Andrew does business, quite simply, you don't kick a guy when he's ill in hospital.

[Londoner]

Lets get one thing absolutely clear and this is something I do know about. The rights to any photo belongs to the person who takes it and not to the owner of the subject who has no rights at all.

Thats how newspapers get away with publishing the sort of embarrassing pictures of people that they do.

Now can we cut the character assasination and let Andrew get on with his business?

[Moderator David@stives]

I have not read through all this but i get the impression a guy isnt here to defend himself as he is in hospital, so until the guy reappears on the forum this thread is locked.