Follow-ups – Shop Oldham – Short Notes

by Rupert Insider

It would not be proper or even smart to publish all thats’ going on, but as far as we can, we will keep you posted.

Domain Violations and Squatting detective2.gif

A good way to bring an end to Koptalk would be to go straight for the heart – the domains. Without them Koptalk is nothing. At the very least it will cause Oldham considerable effort to put his house in order.

This is an email (printed with permission but with name deleted) that one of the blog participants has sent to pipex-net hosting services.

This is not a pure squatting issue – it is about violations of terms of service pertaining to domains on the named hosting service.

But if you want another look at the sites Oldham has squatted on look again at

If you want to support this effort you could also write using this email as a model.




Date: Oct 17, 2006 10:35 AM

Subject: Major Terms Of Service violations

Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?

It is with regret that I have to inform you of the following domains,,,, and , which all appear to be registered with Pipex, either directly using your 123-reg domain operations arm, or through what appears to be your TUCOWS reseller account, violate numerous parts of your Terms Of Service agreement ( ).I feel the above domains breach at least the following parts of your TOS;

Client’s Obligations
5.1.2 and 5.1.6 which can lead to suspension and or termination of clients services according to 5.5.

Domain Services Service Provision
27.2.1, 27.2.2 and 27.7.

Please may I draw your attention to the following web address which lead to my suspicions of TOS violations:

I understand that some of these accusations may merit further investigation by Pipex Communications PLC before any action can be taken and I would be more than happy to help assist, if required. Can I also request that my name and email address be kept private at all times.

Thank you for your time.


Trading Standards – The Bookdetectiveinglasses3.gif

We have reason to believe the Trading Standards file on Oldham is active. If anyone has any complaint this would be a good time to report it. To review what issues the TradingStandards cover look again at

A good example of a genuine complaint is provided by a contributor Nico.

nico Says:

  1. October 16th, 2006 at 2:11 pm eI unfortunately gave oldam a deposit on his book and I would now like to get it back, should i report him to trading standards? surely they must be able to establish that this book does not exist?

My understanding is that he asked for the money back and was told it was not a priority. I recommend Nico write to Trading Standards giving the details of his order and method of payment, any receipt, any correspondence with Koptalk. He could add that the book was promised 2 years ago and then 1 year ago and now next year. In June-July 2006 Oldham admitted, as reported verbatim on this blog, that he had not begun to write it but when he did it would take a few minutes.

Send a copy to Oldham. It has been shown he is much more likely to pay if threatened with the small claims court or Trading Standards.

Alan Burnett

Senior Trading Standards Officer
Environment, Regeneration & Housing
The Killingworth Site
PO Box 113
NE12 6WJ

Tel:0191-2192634 Fax:0191

e-mail :

LFC News

See the blog article Koptalk News – an Honest Alternative

I received correspondence and several individuals and groups expressed an interest . There have been ongoing consultations about different models – some of which are now under development. I believe that it will all result in something definite and will report it then.

I assume that there may have been other efforts to which I was not privy and which were not part of those consultations. Indeed, one of them appeared on the net the other day:

The person who created the site has subsequently informed me that it was prompted by the blog article. He wants to remain private. But he has identified himself as a long-standing contributor to the blog. He tells me his aim was to create an honest news service for LFC supporters free of Koptalk and free of a lot of the irrelevant and repetitious material that spoils News Now.

There are several news-type sites relevant to LFC and I will make a list of them all, noting which of them are free of links to Koptalk.


5 Responses to “Follow-ups – Shop Oldham – Short Notes”

  1. LSM Says:

    internet archive:*/

    stops at 2005, I wonder why?

  2. zedd Says:

    Who do I contact regarding Dung’s illegal selling of (banned) members’ contact details to spamming companies? I’m getting about 10 spam emails a day at the mo, it’s pissing me off as it’s like having the bastard’s obese arse shoved in my face every time I open my email. I’ve been forwarding every bit of spam to the fat one himself as a bit of revenge and would advise every other victim to do the same, but I really would like to shop him for this.

  3. Andy Says:

    “I’ve been forwarding every bit of spam to the fat one himself as a bit of revenge” Great stuff

  4. rupertinsider Says:

    zedd. There was quite a bit of discussion of the Data Protecton Act on here and EST1892. He was obliged to register but argued he was not because he did not keep hard copies. I don’t know if he has registered by now. Nor do I treally know what the procedures are for reporting a breach of the Act. He will probably argue there is no proof that he is selling on details, or passing them on out of spite, but many people report the same experience – a conflict with him (cancelled membership or farewell statement to his site) followed immediately by a flood of spam often to addresses that were previosuly free of it. It happened to me. I posted the spam address and others said they were getting the same.

  5. Chris Says:

    oooh, found something juicy you may want to pursue.

    footballdfataco link on koptalk goes to this page:
    if the guy is registered with footballdataco he’d have fixtures plastered all over the place cause it costs a fair whack, not a lame excuse for not wanting to publish them.

    the ‘supposed’ footballdataco licence is an email link to go to and you get the netresult website – a company that protects against misuse of data, logos, content etc. take a look at this page on their site:

    in particular the last two sections which i’ll paste here:

    Unofficial websites
    Traffic diverted away from a sport’s official site is potentially commercially damaging. While some fan sites are harmless or even helpful, those sites making a profit from official brands or harming the reputation of the original site can cause significant financial loss.

    For example, unofficial team, sport or event sites can divert traffic away from the official sites, decreasing the value for the team, sport or event and associated sponsors and partners.

    NetResult can help you increase the traffic to your official website.

    Domain Name abuse
    Domain Name squatters can divert traffic away from official sites, deterring fans, consumers and the press from seeking out the official site. In addition, they can impede the ability to reach your fans and customers effectively, by holding your natural domain name to ransom.

    Advanced site auditing and evidence from NetResult can assist you in having the site closed down and having the domain name registration handed back to you.

    NetResult can help you ensure your domain names are not being abused.

    is dunk asking for us to report him or what??????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: