Console Ban 3-9-11 (Mod Warning Post #755)

Jelle1880

Good to see you get personal again, it sure helps to bring your point across :rolleyes:

1. Microsoft maintained their standpoint because until a certain time they were unaware of the issue. After that they confirmed there was an error and made the necessary steps. I honestly don't see your issue with that, mistakes happen, they apologised for it, it happens.
The reason why they maintain their stance that you can't do anything about it has also been mentioned before: You get hundreds of people who 'haven't done anything wrong', while they have.
You should not have been told that you definitely did anything wrong, though.

2. Doesn't matter, they don't 'get away with it' and they also don't try.

3. Erm, no I'm not ignoring anything. It's a simple fact which you choose to bypass.

4. Stuff like that is done as a gesture of courtesy. Some people were banned unfairly and Microsoft are doing their best to either undo it, or to compensate the customers affected.
PR stunt ? Probably.
Bad or evil ? Don't see why.

robinph

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Good to see you get personal again, it sure helps to bring your point across :rolleyes:

1. Microsoft maintained their standpoint because until a certain time they were unaware of the issue. After that they confirmed there was an error and made the necessary steps. I honestly don't see your issue with that, mistakes happen, they apologised for it, it happens.
The reason why they maintain their stance that you can't do anything about it has also been mentioned before: You get hundreds of people who 'haven't done anything wrong', while they have.
You should not have been told that you definitely did anything wrong, though.

When do you think it is that they knew something was wrong?

The 9th when they changed whatever it was that was causing the problem?
The 18th(?) when North1 was told his console would be collected and investigated the next day?
Some point that week when Watchdog called them posing as a customer?
Half an hour after that call when they got a call from Watchdog who this time admitting to being Watchdog?
A couple of hours later when they released a statement that there was a problem and they were doing various things to fix it?

Jelle1880

So you honestly believe they did all this because of one call by Watchdog ?

NORTH1

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you honestly believe they did all this because of one call by Watchdog ?

Wow.

Well it makes more sense then the comment it was Microsoft and Microsoft alone that admitted to making an error.

I think the fact that they first called posing as a customer, then confronted Microsoft with what the support people were tell its loyal customers definitely makes more sense then your version of the events.

robinph

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you honestly believe they did all this because of one call by Watchdog ?

Until a couple of hours after the call from Watchdog the only line that had been given to anyone was that Microsoft are always 100% correct, buy a new console.

So that says that Watchdog forced their hand.

Is there anything to suggest that anyone other than North1, and the prospect of the console being picked up for a special investigation as long as he kept schtum about it all, had received anything other that "MS are right, you are a modder/ thief and the console ban cannot be reversed anyway" line?

If nothing else then this all proves that the previous claims that console bans are impossible to reverse was a lie from their support people. That is now going to cause them issues in the future, but don't think you can criticise that line being given too much actually.

Jelle1880

robinph wrote: »

Until a couple of hours after the call from Watchdog the only line that had been given to anyone was that Microsoft are always 100% correct, buy a new console.

So that says that Watchdog forced their hand.

Is there anything to suggest that anyone other than North1, and the prospect of the console being picked up for a special investigation as long as he kept schtum about it all, had received anything other that "MS are right, you are a modder/ thief and the console ban cannot be reversed anyway" line?

If nothing else then this all proves that the previous claims that console bans are impossible to reverse was a lie from their support people. That is now going to cause them issues in the future, but don't think you can criticise that line being given too much actually.

All that has been said is that the support agents can't undo bans, which is correct.

Again: Watchdog can call up and say that they believe several customers are banned unfairly, but they have no way to back that up as they have no access to the system that is responsible for bans or have no view of the total number of bans.
Therefore Microsoft don't have to comply with Watchdog, the fact they released a statement a few hours later could, for all you or me know, be pure coincidence.

NORTH1

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Good to see you get personal again, it sure helps to bring your point across

Sorry Jelle this was not meant as personal attack on you just my general view of the defence. I find your views interest and good for the debate. Again sorry if you took it as a personal attack on you.

robinph

Jelle1880 wrote: »

All that has been said is that the support agents can't undo bans, which is correct.

Again: Watchdog can call up and say that they believe several customers are banned unfairly, but they have no way to back that up as they have no access to the system that is responsible for bans or have no view of the total number of bans.
Therefore Microsoft don't have to comply with Watchdog, the fact they released a statement a few hours later could, for all you or me know, be pure coincidence.

Could be a coincidence, somewhat unlikely though.

MS certainly didn't start their investigation after Watchdogs phone call though and then manage to come up with a statement and compensation within the next couple of hours. They therefore knew it was their fault long before Watchdog were told to buy their "son" a new console for Christmas.

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

they stopped using the software due to there being a problem on september 9th. they denied that there was any kind of problem as far up as september 15th when they issued me a statement through edelman in seattle. at this point, they clearly knew there was an issue, since they ceased using the software that caused the problem almost a full week prior

No, that is not what has appeared to have happened and I'm quite surprised you seem to misunderstood what was said.

Banwaves such as these generally occur over a fixed period of time, in Stepto's post he makes reference to the duration of this ban not the date at which the problem was discovered. It is thus perfectly reasonable to assume that as of September 15th they still had no idea there was a problem on their end. On top of that, given the severe implications of the there actually being a problem they would have been quite right to take their time in investigating the issue fully. Of course, they shouldn't be telling people to specifically buy new consoles in that time but then again, they shouldn't really be doing that anyway.

Helix wrote: »

The email North1 later links makes it quite clear

The email he linked to has the wrong part highlighted..

I need your assistance on this issue – to close out. Mike / Rob can you please see what transpired with this customer via CS. Anouska/Sinead can you share any prior incidences with us on anything that happened in EMEA

That is the relevant part, not the media coverage part. A quick look at LinkedIn shows the person who wrote that mail is the Interactive Entertainment Marketing Manager for MS Ireland. If there was a problem within MS with regards incorrect bans then you can be damn sure the Marketing Managers across EMEA would know about it. The last part of that email shows they didn't.

One final note, with regards the software they were using which has since been discontinued. You can be sure that is internally developed software so licencing isn't an issue.

NORTH1

gizmo wrote: »

Banwaves such as these generally occur over a fixed period of time, in Stepto's post he makes reference to the duration of this ban not the date at which the problem was discovered. It is thus perfectly reasonable to assume that as of September 15th they still had no idea there was a problem on their end. On top of that, given the severe implications of the there actually being a problem they would have been quite right to take their time in investigating the issue fully. Of course, they shouldn't be telling people to specifically buy new consoles in that time but then again, they shouldn't really be doing that anyway.

But Microsoft say they take their security for consoles very seriously but they have ban wave once or twice a year, weeks before major releases. So they get swamped by consumers claiming rightly or wrongly they have been banned. The sheer number of complaints made make it unmanageable. If they took this seriously it should be an on-going process and not done in waves. At what stage does their actions go from been incompetent to been just wrong? I say incompetent as they claimed thoroughly investigated many times.

Hello Mr. Boyle, Sept 13
I am sending this email to you as requested in our telephone conversation.
Your console was banned as we found it was in violation of the Terms of Use.
Consoles are only ever banned after a thorough investigation and when we are certain that it was used to violate the Terms of Use.
Kind regards,
G B
Xbox Global Escalations

gizmo wrote: »

That is the relevant part, not the media coverage part. A quick look at LinkedIn shows the person who wrote that mail is the Interactive Entertainment Marketing Manager for MS Ireland. If there was a problem within MS with regards incorrect bans then you can be damn sure the Marketing Managers across EMEA would know about it. The last part of that email shows they didn't.

I doubt Marketing would know what Xbox Live security was doing. But it does show the thought of been asked about console banns did frighten and panicked them into send me the e-mail above by accident.

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

But Microsoft say they take their security for consoles very seriously but they have ban wave once or twice a year, weeks before major releases. So they get swamped by consumers claiming rightly or wrongly they have been banned. The sheer number of complaints made make it unmanageable. If they took this seriously it should be an on-going process and not done in waves. At what stage does their actions go from been incompetent to been just wrong? I say incompetent as they claimed thoroughly investigated many times.

From what I've seen online the general banning process is an on-going one but there also seems to be the biannual waves which, I assume, target specific issues they come across. This year's seems to be Marketplace Theft, something I had not, until now, even thought possible bar the issue earlier in the year which allowed people to give themselves loads of MS Points.

I really don't understand these incompetent comments by the way. The investigations which took place revolved around the feedback from the software they were running. That software, as far as the XBLPET were concerned, functioned correctly and they had no reason to think otherwise. Given the length of your complaint process, I'm sure this output was re-examined a number of times and in each case, the result was the same, it was reporting that you were banned correctly. Now, save you sending your console in to them and them examining it physically, they had no other way of checking the legitimacy of your denial. What they did do, however, was re-check the software that was giving them said information about your ban which was subsequently found to be flawed.

True incompetence, in this instance, would have been insisting their software was correct and asking you and others appealing their bans to send in your console for examination and lifting the bans on a case by case basis. The action they did take, on the other hand, allowed them to correct all the mistaken bans in one go and I would hope ensure the software was free from any other related defects along the way. That sounds like the most sensible approach in this case, don't you agree?

NORTH1 wrote: »

I doubt Marketing would know what Xbox Live security was doing. But it does show the thought of been asked about console banns did frighten and panicked them into send me the e-mail above by accident.

Not directly no, but that kind of information would filter down quite rapidly to them since, outside of some of the higher profile public faces of MS such as Stephen Toulouse and Larry Hyrb (Stepto and Major Nelson), it would be Marketing and PR that would have to deal with the most severe fallout from incorrect bans, namely the negative press and the associated effect on sales. As you can see from that email, that was the primary concern of that individual.

NORTH1

I agree with your point but the e-mails make it sound like there was eyes on checking not not just going over the same data again and saying its correct.

I offered several time to send in the console to them and this was refused until the 23th of September.

Robert Warwick (Brook Street) to me
show details Sep 23 (8 days ago)
Hi Brian,

I have arranged for your console to be picked up, this will be handled by DHL.

As this is outside of our normal process, I can’t control pick up dates/times as normal.

So they may be with you today, or it may be over the next few days, they should be in contact either way.

Thanks for your patience.

Regards

Rob Warwick
Xbox Global Escalations - EMEA

Then something changed and Microsoft released the statement that evening


Do you think they were trying to completely automate the mod checking of the console ban system?

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

I agree with your point but the e-mails make it sound like there was eyes on checking not not just going over the same data again and saying its correct.

On the surface yes, that's what it appears like they were doing. Look at it this way though, they have no way of getting that information from your console unless you're connected to Live which, once you were banned initially, couldn't happen.

NORTH1 wrote: »

I offered several time to send in the console to them and this was refused until the 23th of September.

Yup, I would have done the same thing myself, or at least offered to send in pictures or video. As I've discussed in other posts though, I do understand their reluctance to offer this kind of service for everyone console banned.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Then something changed and Microsoft released the statement that evening

I would imagine what changed was that they discovered the cause of the problem in their software, fixed it and were then able to search through those banned for that particular reason and issue the unbans.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Do you think they were trying to completely automate the mod checking of the console ban system?

Not completely, no. I think they know it's always useful to have a set of human eyes on the process but in terms of the bans triggering, that would have to be automated. Remember back in 2009 when the first massive banwave hit? Over one million consoles were hit, that would be completely unfeasible to do manually.

NORTH1

gizmo wrote: »

I would imagine what changed was that they discovered the cause of the problem in their software, fixed it and were then able to search through those banned for that particular reason and issue the unbans.

Our opinions will have to differ on this one I'm afraid.

gizmo wrote: »

Not completely, no. I think they know it's always useful to have a set of human eyes on the process but in terms of the bans triggering, that would have to be automated. Remember back in 2009 when the first massive banwave hit? Over one million consoles were hit, that would be completely unfeasible to do manually.

I wasn't even aware of console banning up till Four weeks ago, I did see the Hitler video when it came out and wasn't sure what that was about.

I wonder did someone get an ass kicking over this in Microsoft.... as my son was in the firing line here...

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

I wasn't even aware of console banning up till Four weeks ago, I did see the Hitler video when it came out and wasn't sure what that was about.

I wonder did someone get an ass kicking over this in Microsoft.... as my son was in the firing line here...

Ah, well as you can see it's far more prevalent than you think which should go someway to explaining why so many people were so quick to dismiss your original post.

As for ass kicking in Microsoft, I guess someone on their software dev team or possibly QA for the software may get a bollocking. Outside of that, everyone else was just going by the book on this one so I'd be more interested in seeing if their processes get an ass kicking rather than any individuals.

panevthe3rd

Hey I was just wondering if you went back to Xbox360achievements.org forums to let them know that they were wrong? Coz those guys were really arseholes about the whole thing.

NORTH1

panevthe3rd wrote: »

Hey I was just wondering if you went back to Xbox360achievements.org forums to let them know that they were wrong? Coz those guys were really arseholes about the whole thing.

Yep I went looking for an apology from Covert dog a moderator of the site for calling me a thief. I was told I couldn't prove that the console was unmanned and that I could be anyone then told to fook off by a senior moderator of the site and the thread was locked again.

It was like I walked into some sort of extreme right wing group that stuck together..


I Did look into a libel action against the site but it would be too messy.

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

Yep I went looking for an apology from Covert dog a moderator of the site for calling me a thief. I was told I couldn't prove that the console was unmanned and that I could be anyone then told to fook off by a senior moderator of the site and the thread was locked again.

It was like I walked into some sort of extreme right wing group that stuck together..


I Did look into a libel action against the site but it would be too messy.

He probably would have apoligied if you had done the same for your condescending and insulting post which prompted his response. While he should have worded it a little differently, at least he explained why he did it.

You then came back on the site and threatened legal action here and here. If you behaved in this manner on Boards you'd have been banned almost straight away.

I also assume the other reason you decided not to pursue libel action was because you realised how utterly ****ing ridiculous it would be?

NORTH1

gizmo wrote: »

He probably would have apoligied if you had done the same for your condescending and insulting post which prompted his response. While he should have worded it a little differently, at least he explained why he did it.

That was the middle of my discussion there, and there was nothing wrong with those facts in respect to numbers, the fact that he admits that the comment were meant to hurt me only helps a legal case as I have posted below.

gizmo wrote: »

You then came back on the site and threatened legal action here and here. If you behaved in this manner on Boards you'd have been banned almost straight away.

And I didn't mention legal action I said appropriate action from them.

In their reports procedures section I asked for an apology from Cover dog for been called a thief this was ignored.

I also assume the other reason you decided not to pursue libel action was because you realised how utterly ****ing ridiculous it would be?

I think its pretty clear here I would have a case.

I didn't get treated here the way I was treated over their the Fanboy mentality was extreme ...

But that group is like when you join a game full of mouthy kids your just better of leaving

I find it funny (not haha) that you feel the need to defend them Gizmo?!

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

That was the middle of my discussion there, and there was nothing wrong with those facts in respect to numbers, the fact that he admits that the comment were meant to hurt me only helps a legal case as I have posted below.

Your numbers may have been correct but as I said, the language used in that post was condescending and insulting. He didn't say he called you a thief to piss you off, he said he "went off on you" with regards the tone of his post and the fact that stating bluntly why you were banned would annoy you.

NORTH1 wrote: »

And I didn't mention legal action I said appropriate action from them.

In their reports procedures section I asked for an apology from Cover dog for been called a thief this was ignored.

In your second post you quite clearly said "I will be looking into the legal ramification of the comments above.... " which, as a follow up to "My attention is now here and I will be seeking appropriate action be taken in this case..." was hard to misunderstand.

NORTH1 wrote: »

I think its pretty clear here I would have a case.

I'm not a lawyer but I do wonder whether that's valid when it's against an anonymous username rather than a person?

NORTH1 wrote: »

I didn't get treated here the way I was treated over their the Fanboy mentality was extreme ...

But that group is like when you join a game full of mouthy kids your just better of leaving

I find it funny (not haha) that you feel the need to defend them Gizmo?!

You got treated better here for a couple of reasons:

• You were far more polite here and hence didn't do anything to warrant any backlash.
• The mods here handled the situation better and diffused any possible thread derailment or baiting.
• I doubt this forum sees a fraction of the number of "omgz I'm banned!" threads than the other one does. As a result I'd imagine they're far more cynical over there and less receptive to "but I'm really innocent" type posts.

I'm not defending them in the slightest, I'm simply pointing out the situation could have been handled better by all involved, most notably you given the fact you're clearly older and should have known better than to resort to the type of language you used in that post I linked. It's also another example of the staggering levels of double standards being displayed here. You do realise you basically admitted (in a delightfully round about way) to illegally downloading pirate moves for your kids earlier in this thread? Yet you feel the need to threaten to initiate legal proceedings because some "mouthy kid" on a random internet forum reiterated Microsoft's findings that "North12" stole marketplace content?

NORTH1

gizmo wrote: »

Your numbers may have been correct but as I said, the language used in that post was condescending and insulting. He didn't say he called you a thief to piss you off, he said he "went off on you" with regards the tone of his post and the fact that stating bluntly why you were banned would annoy you.

But he was wrong and just wanted to piss me off.

gizmo wrote: »

In your second post you quite clearly said "I will be looking into the legal ramification of the comments above.... " which, as a follow up to "My attention is now here and I will be seeking appropriate action be taken in this case..." was hard to misunderstand.

Which I did as I'm entitled to do I also informed them I was doing this and I was seeking them to do the right thing. The guy that libeled me is an employee of the site as listed in the staff section with his real name, this in itself opens the site up for action.

gizmo wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer but I do wonder whether that's valid when it's against an anonymous username rather than a person?

gizmo wrote: »

You got treated better here for a couple of reasons:

• You were far more polite here and hence didn't do anything to warrant any backlash.
• The mods here handled the situation better and diffused any possible thread derailment or baiting.
• I doubt this forum sees a fraction of the number of "omgz I'm banned!" threads than the other one does. As a result I'd imagine they're far more cynical over there and less receptive to "but I'm really innocent" type posts.

Agreed on the first couple of points the last one Just because they see a lot of claims mean they should buy into Microsofts Guilt until proven innocent stance this should lead to libel action just to show people that there is consequence for their action.

gizmo wrote: »

I'm not defending them in the slightest, I'm simply pointing out the situation could have been handled better by all involved, most notably you given the fact you're clearly older and should have known better than to resort to the type of language you used in that post I linked. It's also another example of the staggering levels of double standards being displayed here. You do realise you basically admitted (in a delightfully round about way) to illegally downloading pirate moves for your kids earlier in this thread? Yet you feel the need to threaten to initiate legal proceedings because some "mouthy kid" on a random internet forum reiterated Microsoft's findings that "North12" stole marketplace content?

This is the second time you brought this up its complete off topic in my opinion, but for you I will explain...

I go to the cinema at least twice a month. To bring the full family two adults two teenagers and two small kids cost me between 60-70 euros a trip. I am a fan of the films and I have a collection of dvds that was at the last count which was over a year ago plus 300 movie's all these have been bought from main street shops though I do pick up a few from Xtra vision previously viewed. If a friend of mine gives me access to the odd movie before its released I figure I spend enough money each month to support the industry anyway.

and I usual buy the movie it it is any good when it come out anyway. If this is a double standard I'm sorry.

Have I lied anywhere through this thread that you doubt I would do the right thing?

I missed your comment about been older and should know better and it is 100% correct, but in my defence I was tired at the time I was posting there and took it bad the comments I was receiving.

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

But he was wrong and just wanted to piss me off.

He didn't think he was wrong when he made the post though. What was wrong was the fact that he, as a moderator, took that tone with you in the first place and deliberately tried to annoy you.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Which I did as I'm entitled to do I also informed them I was doing this and I was seeking them to do the right thing. The guy that libeled me is an employee of the site as listed in the staff section with his real name, this in itself opens the site up for action.

Quite simply, you should have known threatening legal action over such a matter would rub people up the wrong way. The policy here on Boards is to simply ban users who do that, perhaps that other forum should adopt a similar approach to avoid the backlash such a threat would invoke.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Agreed on the first couple of points the last one Just because they see a lot of claims mean they should buy into Microsofts Guilt until proven innocent stance this should lead to libel action just to show people that there is consequence for their action.

I'd say it's more to do with the number of people who are discovered to have been banned legitimately despite protesting their innocence than the other way around.

NORTH1 wrote: »

This is the second time you brought this up its complete off topic in my opinion, but for you I will explain...

I go to the cinema at least twice a month. To bring the full family two adults two teenagers and two small kids cost me between 60-70 euros a trip. I am a fan of the films and I have a collection of dvds that was at the last count which was over a year ago plus 300 movie's all these have been bought from main street shops though I do pick up a few from Xtra vision previously viewed. If a friend of mine gives me access to the odd movie before its released I figure I spend enough money each month to support the industry anyway.

and I usual buy the movie it it is any good when it come out anyway. If this is a double standard I'm sorry.

It's not off topic in the slightest, you're complaining about people damaging your character with accusations that you stole content despite the fact that you admitted to stealing other content in a related media. And yes, despite the circumstances you've described above it's still stealing.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Have I lied anywhere through this thread that you doubt I would do the right thing?

Nope, I didn't think you were guilty at all, my money was on one of your kids having done something.

NORTH1

gizmo wrote: »

He didn't think he was wrong when he made the post though. What was wrong was the fact that he, as a moderator, took that tone with you in the first place and deliberately tried to annoy you.


Quite simply, you should have known threatening legal action over such a matter would rub people up the wrong way. The policy here on Boards is to simply ban users who do that, perhaps that other forum should adopt a similar approach to avoid the backlash such a threat would invoke.


I'd say it's more to do with the number of people who are discovered to have been banned legitimately despite protesting their innocence than the other way around.



It's not off topic in the slightest, you're complaining about people damaging your character with accusations that you stole content despite the fact that you admitted to stealing other content in a related media. And yes, despite the circumstances you've described above it's still stealing.


Nope, I didn't think you were guilty at all, my money was on one of your kids having done something.

And you were wrong too. Don't bet against me or my son its a losing strategy.

and I didn't steal content ever, but that is for another forum discussion, we can take it there if you want?

You see what you have done there the actions of Microsoft banning my console and refusing to deal with me has brought my good character into doubt even to this day. Even though they have admitted their error my efforts to find what "I" had done wrong at the start is been now thrown back in my face.

A thing as trivial as this is ruining my name on here.....

I should not have let my kids watch those movies? true.

Those this mean I have a bad reputation? Now it does!

But I wanted to know was it the reason for the console ban as Microsofts tactic of telling you nothing raises every doubt in your mind. I wanted to know the truth. This is not an inconvenience this is torture.

gizmo

NORTH1 wrote: »

And you were wrong too. Don't bet against me or my son its a losing strategy.

Indeed I was, I stood corrected and said congrats for sticking with it and getting unbanned. As for betting against you and your son, well people were just playing the odds in fairness, given the number of similar cases so far it was the safest bet.

NORTH1 wrote: »

and I didn't steal content ever, but that is for another forum discussion, we can take it there if you want?

God no, my opinions on this matter are of no consequence to you I imagine. For the purposes of this conversation though I'd simply point to the existing laws on the matter.

NORTH1 wrote: »

You see what you have done there the actions of Microsoft banning my console and refusing to deal with me has brought my good character into doubt even to this day. Even though they have admitted their error my efforts to find what "I" had done wrong at the start is been now thrown back in my face.

Actually no, you bringing the matter into the public domain brought your character into doubt. You've since been vindicated so I don't see what's being thrown back in your face now?

With regard to the current thread of conversation, whether or not you had a case for libel, I think I've made it quite clear why I disagree. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like we're going to see eye to eye on that one so I'm just interested to see what others think of it now.

NORTH1

That's it for me I'm banning myself of Boards.ie for admitting I let my kids watch illegally gained movies on my console, I will dropin to see how the discussion is going but I won't be logging in again. I feel it is the only right thing to do.

Again thanks for helping me over the last couple of week.

FutureGuy

Right guys, no posting regarding the illegal use of a console. I'm deleting/editing relevant threads.

Given the fact that the OP has decided not to post again, and we now know the outcome, the thread will probably be wrapped up if it strays off topic again.

Going forward, please restrict posts to news relevant to the case in hand.

neacy69

FutureGuy wrote: »

Right guys, no posting regarding the illegal use of a console. I'm deleting/editing relevant threads.

Given the fact that the OP has decided not to post again, and we now know the outcome, the thread will probably be wrapped up if it strays off topic again.

Going forward, please restrict posts to news relevant to the case in hand.

Why is this thread still open?

The OP has had his issue resolved and the thread has descended into bitchiness and pointless retorts to pointless questions...I think this should be locked...

FutureGuy

neacy69 wrote: »

I think this should be locked...

Thanks for your opinion.

Meesared

FutureGuy wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion.

FWIW I agree