Hello,

As I said in the previous email, we were able to confirm him providing access to staff-only information.  That's why we acted.  Again, let me be clear so that you don't paraphrase me... we acted on what we know, not what somebody told us.

I don't wish to be rude, but I feel that it would be beneficial to both of us if this is stated categorically.  Whatever goes on between two members off-site is their concern.  We are not here for the drama that ensues.  We are not here to take sides.  We are not here to weigh up two very sketchy accounts of an event.  We are not here to act as an arbiter.  We are not here to make a judgement in lieu of (or dependant on the progress of) a Police investigation.

We are here with quite a clear purpose and the above does not fall into that remit.

Best wishes for the future and I hope that your road to recovery proceeds well.

Regards,
TM

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:38 PM,  wrote:

so that part of my version of events was believed but none of the rest was, putting other members of bluelight in further danger, what about a ban until the police case is over with, then it will be innocent until proven guilty with him being denied bail. You all know what happened and it's fucked me up a lot, I feel disgraced at the way it's been handled by the senior staff to be honest as permabans have been issued for far less that what happened in paris.

---

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:32:26 +0000

Subject: Re: debaser
From: bluelight.admin@gmail.com
To:

Hi,

Debaser was removed for providing access to staff only information - based on your tip-off and what we were able to confirm.

There isn't a contradiction.

Regards,
TM

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:27 PM,  wrote:

Seems a bit contradictory to me considering you did POLICE the user DEBASER by removing him from the staff but that is all you were willing to do, so you kind of accepted that it most likely(it fucking did) happen but are not willing to take it any further. Just a massive pisstake in my opinion.