- The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors

Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (8): « First < Previous 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next > Last »
What Chris Beach Did Next
Author Message

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #121
06-09-2020 10:19 PM

Mr Beach's hyperbole reaches new lows.

Lewisham is staunchly political, and my political worldview doesn’t seem to “fit” here (more aligned with the rest of the U.K. outside SE London). I didn’t want my child to go to schools that were politicised, and for my political views to be unpleasantly gossiped about by other parents and maybe even teaching staff.

It’s been lovely moving to Kent, where I feel I’m surrounded by likeminded people

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 557
Joined: May 2010
Post: #122
10-10-2020 07:54 AM

And presumably less foxes?

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #123
23-10-2020 04:17 PM

Here is a bad-faith projection expressed elsewhere by the guy who promised us he was leaving town some weeks ago.

The thinking is the equivalent of the good residents of SE23 wondering what would be the chances of a guy who is always boasting about his ownership of a Tesla car being run over by that same car.

Most would conclude that the chances are small.

But this non-resident has taken to criticising Marcus Rashford and Lewisham Council's excellent actions in supporting those who need help.

Mr Beach doesn't get it that the rest of us see these support activities as being essential.

And does ForestHull as the new owner hold an opinion that matches that of the community or the bad-faith one as expressed by Mr Beach?

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 557
Joined: May 2010
Post: #124
23-10-2020 05:17 PM

Takes all sorts as we used to say and ‘let sleeping foxes lie’ might be the best policy.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #125
23-10-2020 09:50 PM

Excellent point.

A substantive Foxtrot Oscar for one Chris Beach might be another.

It would seem ForestHull has adopted the same approach as all the other ineffectual "old" Mods, Owners and Owners' best buddies and victim bashers.

In short order ForestHull has demonstrated how his nascent forum ownership is to be conducted in the shadow of the old.

And that is to hide Mr Beach's indiscretions after he has made his compunction-free divisive and prejudicial comments about those who can defend themselves least. And in this case he chooses to attack every family who deserves and needs our community's support.

Without critical or effective censure of Mr Beach's unacceptable conduct or its offensive off-topic impact on the forum and its community and families.

For every family who have been supported by our community's essential actions and have been targeted by Chris's venal attacks, it is essential that his bile is rebutted whenever and wherever he - and his wingmen - project this categoric nonsense.

This post was last modified: 23-10-2020 09:55 PM by jgdoherty.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #126
24-10-2020 01:36 PM

Another explanatory pronouncement from the new owner of the .life entities.

At risk of interpreting ForestHull’s latest post in an overly harsh light, this is how most people will view it.

No. But.

Yes. But

Chris Beach cannot be excluded from the forum and can do as he chooses.

No. But.

The master of this domain’s posts cannot be censured and Mr Beach is permitted to regale the (mugs/stiffs) forum members with the ordure that is his right wing dogma.

Yes. But.

Just as he has done over many years.

Yes. But.

There is no concerns arising from the fact that Mr Beach’s doctrine is out of step with the community and is rejected by it.

No. But.

There are no concerns about those he attacks also being forum members who find themselves in the position of observing Mr Beach being given a platform to unilaterally and singularly condemn them.

Yes. But.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #127
24-10-2020 03:00 PM

ForestHull's closing paragraphs are confusing on two key areas.

"In this case the edited post had some redundant part of the message owing to the split so was cleaned up. I think that was probably unnecessary, but I don’t think there was anything nefarious about this,.
@ChrisBeach may have jumped the gun with the edit rather than recuse himself. He was helping out in the in the capacity of a Trust Level 4 member in this case.

As for the admin role itself, and as noted in the banner at the top of the site, we are looking to hand over ownership of the sites on 1st November. We have to wait to give fair notice of the transfer to members, and are currently co-admins."

What did he intend to impart about what was edited and why? Was it necessary for Mr Beach to make those edits at all?

Who are "We" and why do we have to wait and for what do we have to wait?

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #128
25-10-2020 11:50 AM

Oh dear.

It would seems we have evidence that at least some Mods on .life cannot stand up to Mr Chris Beach's bullish behaviour and censorship.

The poster LEJ's response post was altered by Chris Beach who, it would seem, was abusing either his Admin privileges or his alleged Tier 4 permissions.

"Chris Beach 1 Day - Removed redundant content now posts have been split

Hi Chris,

I set up the thread to find out if there were ways to help locally, not to debate whether or not people more generally should be. I’d be most grateful if we could keep opinions separate and maintain the original intention of the thread - to give the SE23 community information on how they can get involved or donate, if they wish to do so.

Thanks so much for the details above for those that have made suggestions, I really appreciate it and will spread the word."

Chris Beach's censorship leaves only the last paragraph in place and removes all reference to Chris Beach's activities. This edit can be viewed by looking at LEJ's post at approximately position 8 and by clicking on the "Pencil" icon and the edit and who made it is displayed.

oakr (Moderator) asserts that there is no editing which he can find.

"Hi @LEJ

I think as per your request, topics that were not discussing the original issue you raised have been moved out of this thread, and into the Ethikos sub-category (it’s opt-in, I don’t actually have access myself and you may not also) I think yours, Chris’ and mine have been moved there to keep this thread clean.

Do you believe a post was edited, I couldn’t see anything (in the remaining posts in this thread anyway)? Let us know if we need to look into anything else, but I hope this answers your question."

Another poster in the very next post highlights that there is clear evidence present about what Chris Beach censored.

"The post was edited as can be seen by pencil mark where can see the original comment. Think post 8 or 9. Ok the post didn’t make as much sense now other posts were moved but I think other people’s comments don’t need to be changed. It is clearly visible to all that posts have been moved. Seems a bit of unnecessary sanitising."

So oakr first of all peddles a line that he cannot see the evidence, adopts a very Chris Beach-type approach and invites LEJ to raise the matter once more if she can see anything.

And despite a poster then demonstrating where the evidence is present, oakr has done nothing.

When is our community to be assured that Chris Beach's malevolence and duplicity is removed from this site?

How is it that a moderator cannot see that the integrity of the site is diminished by his partial denial that any Chris Beach self-serving censorship event took place and when it is pointed out that it has occurred, fails to correct the position.

As always we find no assurance that the "old" mods ever had the capacity or will to stand up to Mr Beach.

This is not a good optic in this time of transition.

It appears in the new regime that Mr Beach still has a free hand.

Perhaps it will ever be thus and the .life entities will wither and die.

This post was last modified: 25-10-2020 11:56 AM by jgdoherty.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 372
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #129
25-10-2020 01:18 PM

Yes, I'd happily see both .life entities and CB wither and die.
Had hoped that following completion of the transition in about a week we will then no longer hear any more from or about non resident CB and his environmentally unfriendly Tesla.
If he doesn't step away from .life after then, we'll all know that he has reneged on what he previously said.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 879
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #130
28-10-2020 12:29 AM

What it appears Chris is doing is warehousing the forum to Forest Hull, which allows him to carry on as normal over there, while no longer in ownership of the forum.

Presumably the agreement is that Chris can't be removed as a forum member while still having senior forum privileges.

In layman's terms, it's business as usual.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 10
Joined: Jul 2019
Post: #131
02-12-2020 12:37 PM

Disgusting of Tunbridge Wells has been at it again ........

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 879
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #132
11-01-2021 12:58 PM

Cllr Leo Gibbons is bang on the money here.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #133
12-01-2021 12:03 PM

A debate that is entirely unexpected - especially on the part of Chris Beach and his wingman from Norfolk, londondrz.

You may remember londondrz - a man who made the public post that if Chris was found to have lied or acted the way he was being accused of in the Flava Baker fiasco - "Chris was on his own".

Unfortunately for londondrz, Chris Beach confessed publicly to having done just that - deceived everyone, set up a sock-puppet account and lied prolifically about why he felt justified in doing it and re-stated his biggest untruth - that Chris Beach had been attacked by a woman and that he had reported her to the police.

Falsified police documents were shown to key players - many perceived them as being forged and no one ever got to see a valid Report Number from any police service that could be checked. An independent witness averred that the MPS had confirmed no report had ever been logged with them or with Kent Police.

Interestingly Mr Beach has revisited this incident in recent days and is once more grandstanding on his version of events.

So no signs yesterday that londondrz is following his own decree - no evidence that Chris is on his own.

Not only has londondrz removed the Flava Baker thread to hide the degree of villainy that Chris Beach's artifice had created, against a 90+% majority of forum members voting to retain its presence, he feels he can demand that posters provide evidence of where he has hurt or damaged the community.

He alleges he knows of only one banning from the forum.

A woefully poor memory or a wilful misstatement in the face of the number of bans that have happened and are well into double figures against a backdrop of assaults on innocent forum members exceeding the mid-30's in number and added to that are unprincipled attacks on former moderators and founder members of

In a deliberative and repetitive fashion.

Ordinary decent members on being aware of this degree of mendacity from anyone would undoubtedly move to a foxtrot oscar standpoint.

So why are these aggressive actions of recent days tolerated by the new owner @foresthull2 ?

It is not as if Chris Beach and londondrz can point any finger at the "old-guard" of alleged malcontents - they have either been banned speciously or walked away from a forum who's integrity is being trashed daily now. Chris Beach and londondrz are warring with a whole new generation of posters with whom they disagree and elect to treat them as enemies and thereby feel justified in acting aggressively toward the new innocents.

It would be well understood if most ordinary decent members of our community - and who really care about our community's wellbeing, will see this juncture as the turning point for the continued existence of - or whether they are watching its destruction at the hands of two malicious outsiders intent upon acting aggressively towards posters with whom the have differences of opinion.

It is risible that a defence is mounted for Chris Beach on the grounds of his hard work for the forums. There were many others who put honest hard work into the setup on a greater scale than his.

This post was last modified: 12-01-2021 12:04 PM by jgdoherty.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 68
Joined: Apr 2011
Post: #134
13-01-2021 12:12 PM

Yes JGD. I was shocked that in a difficult thread where a moderator should be doing just that Londondrz would come out with such a brazen lie. We, JGD, are just two of an unknown number who have been banned. Oh and not because of anything on - 'cos I hadn't posted there in yonks - but because Chris doesn't like me and is also prepared to lie through his teeth to try and get others to join his personal crusade.

I'll be clear - I don't want either of them banned from I find their posts insightful and instructive of their worldview. But neither can be trusted. They are both 'strangers to truth' even if they are unable to realise that themselves.

Forums should be for vigorous debate. Moderation can be challenging. But if you can't trust the ref - if he is ignoring blatant penalties on one side but is party to red-carding other folks while still on the bench - then there is a problem. I don't want to go down (sorry to this Admin) and I hope the new Admin thinks this through. It isn't the rules/guidelines that are the problem. Its the way they have been refereed.

I hope when they have reflected on what many of the existing users have said - a new leaf can be turned and all the mod team can all seen to be open, fair and honest. I know many are doing their best and putting in thankless hours for the community. It's a shame their good work should be undermined by any who are not.

They may also reflect on why this is being posted here and not there.


Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 372
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #135
13-01-2021 03:25 PM

Beach, Londondrz et al are the Outsiders. (Tunbridge Wells and Norfolk). They are not wanted, needed or welcome here, yet they believe they have some sort of prerogative to comment on our community and what happens here.

The .life sites replicate each other, are messy, disorganised and not user friendly.

Help support by using it and contributing to make this Forest Hill and Honor Oak's number one local forum.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 24
Joined: Nov 2014
Post: #136
15-01-2021 03:09 PM

I'll try and put this constructively - for it to become popular this forum needs a significant amount of work in terms both the interface and the permitted user actions.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 372
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #137
15-01-2021 06:15 PM

IMO this forum is much easier to use and navigate. T'other I find to be disorganised and not user friendly.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #138
16-01-2021 01:40 PM

Ease of use on the .life comes with a very heavy price.

Risk of personal attack and deliberative and unjustifiable abuse on innocent posters including not infrequent and wicked accusations of mental ill health both in pvt messages from the former owner and in any one of the 25+ Twitter accounts that he uses to conduct his personal crusades.

On the sole grounds that a poster may have expressed an opinion of which the former owner personally does not approve and wrongly believes the post gives him the right to villainously abuse the poster. And conduct attacks on the selected victim outside the forum. In a total vacuum of compunction on the former owner's part.

There is an added bonus albeit not a positive one. The former owner's wingman, now also an out-of-towner resident in Norfolk, co-joins in a double-handed attacks on these innocent victims. In the vernacular these are referred to as a twofer.

Often applied with a rubber-truncheon like zealotry, attacks have also been publicly inflicted on co-founders and ex-moderators of .life. And then hidden from the sight of forum members by the perpetrators. By abusing their admin, moderator and TL4 privileges.

You simply have to make your mind up. Where do your preference lie - take the risk, engage on the forum without protection from an ineffective moderation regime or play safe and do not engage?

In the last 18 months or more Chris Beach has announced his departure more than once. On each occasion there has been a short-lived return of some members only for the bubble to burst with a return to malicious attacks from CB and NK on posters.

The current discussion on change will have to deliver much more than just talk.

It will necessarily need to end with a conclusive expunging of these behaviours and not just be another temporary pause until CB and his wingman feel they will not be encumbered by rules that they view as inconvenient and not applicable to them.

The alternative is absolute failure which will prove terminal with .life dying and leaving the only need that it be pronounced dead.

This post was last modified: 16-01-2021 01:42 PM by jgdoherty.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #139
17-01-2021 01:39 PM

Watching the wheels go round on and the on the laptops that FHSoc is gathering up and are being upgraded for children deprived of devices for home learning. So a little time for reflection.

A history of calumny exists in the management of and it is substantial.

To ignore this history would be a failure.

A failure to learn the lessons of what happened and why and how.

There is a new owner. There is a moderation team in place, one of whom many will recognise as a protagonist in several attacks on contributing founders (and no, Chris Beach was not the sole founder) and once more after several previous and short lived periods of hiatus, members are being invited to participate in "open discussion" once more.

Except it is not. Why? Key members of the community are not engaged.

Some choose not to, borne of experience of being attacked by the known protagonists mentioned before.

Others have been banished - and our Norfolk moderator posts a huge whopper that he knows nought of the many banishments. And there is no sense emerging from the moderator "team" that whilst they tweak the rules they will not - for they are prevented from or cannot - address the history in the full.

And set solid ground for a realistic fresh start. Not the flawed ground of a poor analysis based on a partial "lessons learned" exercise that has participants involved in its conduct who have a vested interest to make sure the banned stay banned.

Not for me a return to - that engagement is history.

But there are many deserving cases who were treated badly - and perhaps maliciously - and to whom the forum should apologise, offer them a chance of return and an opportunity provided to them to fully engage in the dialogue about the future of the forum.

An abbreviated few examples of malicious and mendacious activities can be found here.

There are many more available - including a full history of the former owner's self-confessed, numerous, deceptions about his actions in the Flava Baker fiasco.

A series of events that the forum still elects hide away.


Treating forum members as if they were not mature adults and who can assimilate a few facts, distasteful as they may be.

And make their contribution on any way forward in the full knowledge of how this forum got into this current state of disrepair and ill-repute.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #140
19-01-2021 07:50 PM

Oh dear - the worst of examples, if any further example is at all required of a board managed by actors of increasing ill-repute.

An inconvenient post, containing an honestly held personal view expressed in a moderate fashion, is immediately removed to an area hidden to the majority of members.

An anonymous bad faith actor (anybody's guess) demonstrates that on and in the case of Chris Beach there is no low bar too low for the mods to stoop to and allow removal of even the slightest commentary made about the RTW correspondent. Chris Beach must have assumed the comment was an attack, made on him personally - good of him to recognise so readily the negative characteristics portrayed.

No rules for the rulers and full on censorship for the ruled.

See a copy of the censored post here - it cannot be seen on anymore.

A horrid example of a disreputable act for which the board owner and mods should apologise.

On an increasingly long list of many that are unmade but long overdue.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (8): « First < Previous 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields

Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Concerning Chris Beach StuartG 9 5,085 09-09-2020 09:21 PM
Last Post: jgdoherty