I just wrote a long post telling people here that I have this evening been called personally by Ailsa Beaton, the Met's Director of Information, to tell me that after reading my earlier posts complaining that it was not fair to pass the buck on to Pito there has now apparently been a road to Damascus style change of heart over at the Met.

Miss Beaton has promised me that by midnight tonight all relevant sources will now also show a geographic phone number as well as the existing 0870 number.

I do find it more than a little worrying that someone who is the Met's Director of Information and on the board of Pito should previously have been, on her own admission, totally unaware of the high costs of calling these numbers from BT Payphones and mobile phobes and also the impossibility of calling them from overseas.  But perhaps these days one only makes it to director level in such a large organisation if one accepts the politically correct version of the universe rather than the nasty gritty reality of life which those of us who are slightly more cynical are only too well aware of.

Whatever may be the case it is certainly good to know that the action of this site has managed to change the situation while most of those at Ofcom have apparently been snoozing once again after using the excuse of the bombing for another day's extra annual holiday.

However rather more worryingly someone appears to have blasted our original thread off this website suggesting either that we have been hacked or that Daniel has been sent a fearsome message threatening a libel action by a party or parties unknown?

Please tell us Daniel which of these two possibilities is in fact reality?

 

NGN see the posting below this one in the forum re the missing info,and the Geographical no which is now available.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 7:51pm:

However rather more worryingly someone appears to have blasted our original thread off this website suggesting either that we have been hacked or that Daniel has been sent a fearsome message threatening a libel action by a party or parties unknown? Please tell us Daniel which of these two possibilities is in fact reality?

Thanks for your post - Unfortunately the thread was accidentally deleted by one of the moderators.  He was meaning to delete one post, but unfortunately the entire thread was deleted.

I am currently trying to find anyone who has a 'cached' copy of some or all the pages of that thread - so I can try and get it rebuilt.

Thanks
Daniel

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 7:58pm:

Thanks for your post - Unfortunately the thread was accidentally deleted by one of the moderators.

:-[  :-[

Quote:

I am currently trying to find anyone who has a 'cached' copy of some or all the pages of that thread - so I can try and get it rebuilt.

I have pages 1, 2 , 4 and 5. Does anyone have page 3?

If you work offline and look through your history for the thread.

Sorry. :-[

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 7:58pm:

Thanks for your post - Unfortunately the thread was accidentally deleted by one of the moderators.  He was meaning to delete one post, but unfortunately the entire thread was deleted.

Why did he need to delete anything.  This was our most important ever thread and Dave deleted it.  Words fail me.

If we abandoned censorship then this wouldn't have happened.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 8:06pm:

Why did he need to delete anything.  This was our most important ever thread and Dave deleted it.  Words fail me. If we abandoned censorship then this wouldn't have happened.

A post was made which for some reason was not showing on the forum.  After making a test post the original message then showed up.  The test message was the message that was being removed.

Daniel

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 8:06pm:

Why did he need to delete anything.  This was our most important ever thread and Dave deleted it.  Words fail me. If we abandoned censorship then this wouldn't have happened.

NGM is right - this is the most important discussion ever to take place within this forum. It has to be created in its entirety. I've checked my cache, but can't help.

We now have most of the pages back from cache, and I will get them rebuilt into the original thread asap.

Apologies again for the disruption.

Daniel

NGM & idb (and everyone else),

What Dave did was an accident and he was helping me sort a problem I had with a post not appearing.

I have posted all relevant info in the other thread here.

As Daniel has said hopefully he can rebuild the thread to as near as possible as the original before this unfortunate accident occured.

I'm not sticking up for anyone here but accidents do happen and no-one is perfect.

Possibly after this Daniel will look into increasing the frequency of backups to the site but remember this thing could have happened on MSE because at the end of the day I even doubt MSE backs up their forum after every post.  They possibly do it daily or something along the same lines.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 8:14pm:

We now have most of the pages back from cache, and I will get them rebuilt into the original thread asap.

And how will you also get everyone resubscribed to that thread for updates on any new posts and how will you also incorporate any posts on the Police contact centre number issue in this thread?

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 8:12pm:

A post was made which for some reason was not showing on the forum.  After making a test post the original message then showed up.  The test message was the message that was being removed.

I have experienced a problem a couple of times during the day when I made a post that should have started a new page but my message didn't appear.

I knew I had posted it so I then made a blank post with two spaces in it and my missing message and the blank post appeared.  Then when another forum member had made a subsequent post I deleted the blank message and the message I had trouble with getting to appear at the top of the page remained.

But I only deleted the blank post and not the one with the message in it. ::)

I would be a bit more sympathetic with Dave if the progress on adding numbers in the unverified list had not recently slowed to seemingly non existent.

I have now managed to get most of the posts back - Pages 1,2,4,5 are back - just missing page 3.

Please post all new posts related to 'London Bombing 0870 emergency number' to the original thread:

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1120745205

I have to manual copy/paste each post, to convert it from a cached website into a readable format for the forum.

Apologies for the inconvenience,

Daniel

Thanks for all your hard work in getting this thread back as close as possible to the original.

I even noticed you have used the same topic number so all links would still remain valid.

For those wishing to re-subscribe for new post notifications (I'm not sure if that is still necessary) then this can be done by clicking on 'Notify of Replies' at the top right-hand side of the OP.

Thanks again

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:17pm:

Thanks for all your hard work in getting this thread back as close as possible to the original. I even noticed you have used the same topic number so all links would still remain valid.

No problem - It took a lot of manual work, and I have pains now in both wrists/arms (RSI), but got back as much as possible, as quickly as possible  8)

Yes, I made sure it got the same topic number, for existing links.

Thanks
Daniel

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:17pm:

Thanks for all your hard work in getting this thread back as close as possible to the original. [...]

Agreed. This was an important topic to reinstate.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:39pm:

Agreed. This was an important topic to reinstate.

Shame about the lost page though.

Perhaps we could consider the installation of some form of restore software like Norton Go Back to avoid this kind of thing happening in the future.

Or is there any way to disable the feature that lets the moderator delete a whole thread rather than just a single post?

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:51pm:

Or is there any way to disable the feature that lets the moderator delete a whole thread rather than just a single post?

It would be useful to have the equivalent of the Recycle Bin in Windows. That is threads can be deleted and restored if necessary. Only admin can empty the Recycle Bin.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:54pm:

It would be useful to have the equivalent of the Recycle Bin in Windows. That is threads can be deleted and restored if necessary. Only admin can empty the Recycle Bin.

Dave,

It was probably fortunate that it was you that this happened to.

I have a feeling that had it been DaveM people would have been rather less forgiving about it all.

I'm not quite sure whether the words "I apologise" are necessarily in DaveM's personal dictionary? ::) ;D

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:59pm:

Dave, It was probably fortunate that it was you that this happened to. I have a feeling that had it been DaveM people would have been rather less forgiving about it all. I'm not quite sure whether the words "I apologise" are necessarily in DaveM's personal dictionary? ::) ;D

Does that mean you forgive me? You said in the other thread that it would be a long time before you forgave me.

Do you not have the words "It was an accident Dave, I forgive you" in your vocabulary? ::)

For you NGM, you may know "vocabulary" is "personal dictionary", whatever that is.  ;D

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:10am:

Does that mean you forgive me? You said in the other thread that it would be a long time before you forgave me. Do you not have the words "It was an accident Dave, I forgive you" in your vocabulary? ::)

It was an accident Dave.  I have almost forgiven you ;) ;D

Now may be if you could add that number for Five Tv to the Verified list I would forgive you altogether ;)  Except that those other few thousand numbers in the unverified list would still worry me a bit.

There seem to be about 10 active, regular and fairly trusted members of this forum (apart from Dave, DaveM and Daniel).  So if you gave us 300 numbers each to do it could surely all be fixed in less than a month?

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:22am:

Now may be if you could add that number for Five Tv to the Verified list I would forgive you altogether ;)

Five number is in verified list.


Quote:

Except that those other few thousand numbers in the unverified list would still worry me a bit.

"Worry" seems a bit strong. Is it keeping you awake at night? Have spoken to your doctor about this? ;D

I've said before, it's not down to me, it's down to Daniel.

Yeah I started that thread and a power happy moderator goes and deletes it!
Now my name has been replaced by "admin"

Almost as bad as C&W :-p

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:06am:

Now my name has been replaced by "admin"

What do you mean by that exactly? ??? :o

NonGeoMan.

On the initial page there is a column which has a "Started by" heading.

mc661 had originally been the 'starter', but when the topic was 'regurgitated following the 'nuking' his name is now replaced by 'admin' as the 'starter' - history is being cruel to mc661 ;)
But I understand his chagrin - starting the most popular thread in a long time and losing your 'credit'.
Don't worry mc661 WE know!!