So pleased to announce that our hacker decided to bolt so soon.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Today we remain locked out of our own forum following the ongoing restriction connected to StopForumSpam.com.

Despite attempts to resolve the matter directly, the situation has not been corrected and our forum remains inaccessible to us for normal administration and operation. This has caused disruption, loss of time, and continuing concern about the power private anti-spam systems can have over independent websites and forum owners.

We have now taken formal steps to pursue the matter through the civil courts. The purpose of the claim is to seek compensation for the losses caused by the restriction, including the time and costs involved in investigating the issue, attempting to resolve it, and preparing legal action.

We are also reviewing whether the conduct complained of should be reported to the relevant criminal authorities for investigation. Any such matter will be for the proper authorities to assess.

Our position is simple: a forum owner should not be locked out of their own website without clear evidence, a proper explanation, and a fair opportunity to challenge the decision.

Further updates will follow as the case progresses.

As part of our investigation, we also conducted an audit of Metabunk. During our enquiries, we identified that Metabunk uses spam protection measures, and we are investigating whether any third-party anti-spam or reputation services may have been involved in the events affecting our forum.

We have contacted Metabunk to invite them to comment on the matters raised by our audit. We are making no allegations against Metabunk and welcome any response they wish to provide.

............................................................

The question the General Public need to ask themselves is, who were the ones doing journalistic investigating, which could also lead to great free reviews for websites? And who conducted in malicious Spamming and Hacking attacks? Was it us? Or was it the people that claim they are fighting Malicious Spammers?

Anyway, here is free advertising for Metabunk, just to show there are no hard feelings on our part.

Also, why, do private companies on the internet that do not have court authorisation to carry out legal decisions, such as who can view their own forum, and who can't? Have the power to do this? Well, legally, they actually neither do, nor don't. The truth is, very few people actually realise that this is going on. It is about time the general public became educated on just want goes in beneath the surface in deep web. Our government, and our Police forces also need to become savvy, and we the people of a democratic society need to be aware of how it all operates. Also, Courts, need to update their case filing procedures to facilitate the fact that in 2026, we are no longer taking actions against businesses with public street addresses, but with online businesses with nothing other than Deep web addresses, sometimes hidden in jurisdictions hard to trace.

..........................................................................

Help us regain access to our Forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should Anti-Spam Services Be Held to Higher Standards of Due Process?

Today, our website was blocked as a result of being listed by an anti-spam service. As a consequence, I was unable to access my own forum, and our business suffered disruption, costing us time and potentially money.

This experience has raised several questions that I believe deserve discussion.

Should organisations that maintain spam blacklists be expected to follow principles of procedural fairness before taking action that can significantly affect an individual or business?

For example:

• Should the person or organisation concerned be contacted before being listed, allowing them an opportunity to respond?
• Is it appropriate to label someone a "spammer" before they have had an opportunity to challenge the allegation?
• Does describing someone as a "spammer" risk being unnecessarily pejorative or prejudicial if the underlying issue is disputed?
• What standard of evidence should be required before an account, domain, email address or IP address is added to a blacklist?
• Should independent appeals be available before or immediately after a listing?
• Where a business suffers financial loss because of an incorrect listing, should there be a mechanism for accountability or compensation?

I recognise that anti-spam organisations perform an important role in protecting websites from abuse, and I support effective measures against genuine spam. However, systems designed to protect the internet should also strive to be fair, transparent and proportionate.

This thread is intended to discuss the ethical, legal and practical balance between preventing abuse and protecting the rights of legitimate users and businesses.

I welcome reasoned opinions from all sides.

...................................................................................

Spam is a personal opinion. Perhaps an arrogant personal opinion.

Being called a Spammer is offensive.

Also, should private companies be allowed to act in an authoritarian manner that would be deemed unacceptable in a Court of Law? Should private companies be taught to respect the Law? 

We can't even reach the Public on their own Forum, because they want us to first make a donation.

Join our mission to stop people being called "Spammers", and educate them that if they do not like an opinion, they can simply move on and get on with their day.

We also know who made the report.

The report comes from very high up.

But we will say no more.