Living Vision - Police Case?

[Lavmum 0]

Yes. It is the one at Balestiar Point.

Thank to all for the support. An update, the Boss Steven called me last night confirming that he will loan a set of dining chairs to me for a maximum period of 5 months while waiting for the dining chairs that I want. He also agreed that I have the right to refund the whole dining set if he is unable to produce my dining chair within this 5 months period. We shall wait and see.. I seriously doubt that he can keep his words.

As for the police case, it was settled with an apology by Johnny to me.

[jonjon 0]

Yes. It is the one at Balestiar Point.

Thank to all for the support. An update, the Boss Steven called me last night confirming that he will loan a set of dining chairs to me for a maximum period of 5 months while waiting for the dining chairs that I want. He also agreed that I have the right to refund the whole dining set if he is unable to produce my dining chair within this 5 months period. We shall wait and see.. I seriously doubt that he can keep his words.

As for the police case, it was settled with an apology by Johnny to me.

Please note that they do monitor the forum and threads closely, during my saga with them, every time after i come to a compromise situation with them, Mr. Johnny will try to ask me to delete my thread in renotalk but every time i told him if its the truth why should i remove it?

Which i think is why they went to the forum administrator or owner to ask them to remove it.

[bepgof 20]

Hi. I was at Balestier Point's Lighting.com.sg when I saw that there was a commotion **** Vision. There were a couple of Police Officers who were interviewing a customer and subsequently the staff of the shop.

Read a thread that Living Vision had some bad reputaion. Has it gotten so bad that now the Police is involved???

Any buddies know?

Police can't help, unless someone bleeds. Complaining is like shooting, need to get evidence(target, arm, leg or head), study background (situation in yr favour?, into wind or anti wind), aim and pull the trigger, object down. No point getting machine gun with sound & no bullets, make oneself thirsty & hungry, object remains and laughing loud. A hungry man is always an angry man. Anyway, practice makes perfect.

Edited August 25, 2010 by bepgof

[foursprings 0]

Police can't help, unless someone bleeds. Complaining is like shooting, need to get evidence(target, arm, leg or head), study background (situation in yr favour?, into wind or anti wind), aim and pull the trigger, object down. No point getting machine gun with sound & no bullets, make oneself thirsty & hungry, object remains and laughing loud. A hungry man is always an angry man. Anyway, practice makes perfect.

i think in this case, the salesman johnny is a male and he used vulgar words on forummer lavmum, whom should be a female.

can report to police, they will come and can be escalated if she wants.

[cannonsiao 0]

Abusive language ie vulgarities can be further pursue when the victim lodge a Magistrate's complaint at subordinates court. U call police first, police arrive, police take down the other party particulars, u take down the report number given by police then go lodge the complaint at sub court. After that pursue all the way, the defendant will have to meet u in court and then fined by court.

I did that before. But remember to record down what the other party says. if possible video it down. that way, he got no means to deny it when the police arrive. that fella sure wont admit he use vulgarities wat. Who will admit he do wrong one?

[dankoo 0]

The furniture industry for sure will not move forward with this level of service....sigh...

[chronograph 0]

Thanks for information.

No wonder Singapore service still need improvement and as a man bullying women is a no no, please pick on someone his own size?????

[Lavmum 0]

To add on, he shouted the vulgularity at me in front of my 2.5y old toddler and 11mth of baby. I initially wanted to pursue all the way... but the police told me.. even go till court.. the eventually result is an apology.. he advised me to let go..

[bearlyn2406 0]

nah, tat's beyond poor service. It's cheating..

[foursprings 0]

To add on, he shouted the vulgularity at me in front of my 2.5y old toddler and 11mth of baby. I initially wanted to pursue all the way... but the police told me.. even go till court.. the eventually result is an apology.. he advised me to let go..

just an apology. the police told u that? i think they just want to get this case over with.

I remember that one of the neighbours in the everit road saga got fined for using vulgarities at the notorious lady doctor who filed a magistrates complaint.

[bepgof 20]

just an apology. the police told u that? i think they just want to get this case over with.

I remember that one of the neighbours in the everit road saga got fined for using vulgarities at the notorious lady doctor who filed a magistrates complaint.

The neighbours took many yrs to learn the simple lesson- aimed sharp and ACTION! - got photos, video & audio. Joo Chiat Chan LL couldn't escape. Anyway, think again, the fine$ went to whose's pocket? Want to "catch" Johnny? Bring all the recording devices there, standby, catch him in action. Can even post in utube. Why "waste" water & strength and make oneself thirty, hungry & angry?

Edited August 25, 2010 by bepgof

[SGK 0]

Yes. It is the one at Balestiar Point.

Thank to all for the support. An update, the Boss Steven called me last night confirming that he will loan a set of dining chairs to me for a maximum period of 5 months while waiting for the dining chairs that I want. He also agreed that I have the right to refund the whole dining set if he is unable to produce my dining chair within this 5 months period. We shall wait and see.. I seriously doubt that he can keep his words.

As for the police case, it was settled with an apology by Johnny to me.

From my experience with them, you must hold back as much payment as possible. They are likely to use tactics like " we have placed at deposit to order your furniture, hence we need you to make your payment first.' Once you have made most of your payment, their attitude will become worse. So pay only when you have received all the items and you are happy with the quality. Hope you get all your furniture eventually and no more hiccups.

[manutd1972 1]

If u are writing about true experiences, then u have to state yr name and NRIC in the open, so the forum can legally attribute the remarks to a legal entity

I'm quite sure that is incorrect.

to be held legally responsible for one's comments online, one need not reveal one's name and NRIC in the open. if this is necessary, den the SPF wld not have been able to arrest the Facebook bloke who is using his FB profile to incite violence. do not confuse this legal responsibility with his act of inciting violence. cos ultimately, if the argument of stating one's name and NRIC in the open holds true, den the SPF wld not be able to attribute his online actions to him and thus, be unable to prosecute him even if the crime was to incite violence. remember, we do not even have to provide our NRIC nos when making a profile at Facebook.

the basis of all such legal actions against online comments is that one's online profile is a representation of oneself. and as such, any written comments online by oneself, is in itself legally binding to oneself. therefore, even if one's name and NRIC is not revealed in the open, one is still open to legal action against oneself for comments made online, in a written form, or verbal if it is recorded and independently verified.

so long as the medium used requires one to register oneself, and one's identity can be traced in any way, any medium owner/moderator is not obliged to provide the member's particulars to anyone requesting it for legal purposes unless the requesting party is the police, or has a valid court order requesting for the release of personal information.

but if one's personal experience can be validated or backed up, den one should not be afraid to share one's bad experience online as the offending party will not want to bring the case to the courts, even if they did threaten legal action initially. the legal threat is typically used as a 1st tactic to "scare" people into submission and retraction. however, if one stands firmly on one's grounds which are valid, den on further thought and perhaps legal consultation, the offending party will usually not follow-through on their threat of legal action.

[jonjon 0]

I'm quite sure that is incorrect.

to be held legally responsible for one's comments online, one need not reveal one's name and NRIC in the open. if this is necessary, den the SPF wld not have been able to arrest the Facebook bloke who is using his FB profile to incite violence. do not confuse this legal responsibility with his act of inciting violence. cos ultimately, if the argument of stating one's name and NRIC in the open holds true, den the SPF wld not be able to attribute his online actions to him and thus, be unable to prosecute him even if the crime was to incite violence. remember, we do not even have to provide our NRIC nos when making a profile at Facebook.

the basis of all such legal actions against online comments is that one's online profile is a representation of oneself. and as such, any written comments online by oneself, is in itself legally binding to oneself. therefore, even if one's name and NRIC is not revealed in the open, one is still open to legal action against oneself for comments made online, in a written form, or verbal if it is recorded and independently verified.

so long as the medium used requires one to register oneself, and one's identity can be traced in any way, any medium owner/moderator is not obliged to provide the member's particulars to anyone requesting it for legal purposes unless the requesting party is the police, or has a valid court order requesting for the release of personal information.

but if one's personal experience can be validated or backed up, den one should not be afraid to share one's bad experience online as the offending party will not want to bring the case to the courts, even if they did threaten legal action initially. the legal threat is typically used as a 1st tactic to "scare" people into submission and retraction. however, if one stands firmly on one's grounds which are valid, den on further thought and perhaps legal consultation, the offending party will usually not follow-through on their threat of legal action.

wow that was a mouthful but real helpful, anyway from the way things are going they properly do not dare to delete this thread after it has garner so much attention already. Frankly, i have already let all this thing go but when i saw what happened to another fellow home builder it just got my fire burning again. I hope things turn out alright for her, Bro SGK has a point about holding back any payment till they have delivered the furniture.

Keep us updated if they cock it up again i will back you up in small claim or any action you want to pursue.

[yoongf 11]

The facebook bloke incident is a criminal act, as opposed to this issue which is a civil case.

U are correct about not requiring upfront disclosure of legal entity. However, if u are using a third party medium such as this forum, then at least respect the wishes of the forum owner, who has made it a T&C of no badmouthing.

If u want to badmouth someone, then state the legal entity, which will give the respondant direct access to the plaintiff.

Save the hassle of getting the forum owner involved.

Even ST forum page require name and NRIC upfront before allowing any publication. The practices of this forum is no different from most other online forums.

If u still think u are right, so be it.

I'm quite sure that is incorrect.

to be held legally responsible for one's comments online, one need not reveal one's name and NRIC in the open. if this is necessary, den the SPF wld not have been able to arrest the Facebook bloke who is using his FB profile to incite violence. do not confuse this legal responsibility with his act of inciting violence. cos ultimately, if the argument of stating one's name and NRIC in the open holds true, den the SPF wld not be able to attribute his online actions to him and thus, be unable to prosecute him even if the crime was to incite violence. remember, we do not even have to provide our NRIC nos when making a profile at Facebook.

the basis of all such legal actions against online comments is that one's online profile is a representation of oneself. and as such, any written comments online by oneself, is in itself legally binding to oneself. therefore, even if one's name and NRIC is not revealed in the open, one is still open to legal action against oneself for comments made online, in a written form, or verbal if it is recorded and independently verified.

so long as the medium used requires one to register oneself, and one's identity can be traced in any way, any medium owner/moderator is not obliged to provide the member's particulars to anyone requesting it for legal purposes unless the requesting party is the police, or has a valid court order requesting for the release of personal information.

but if one's personal experience can be validated or backed up, den one should not be afraid to share one's bad experience online as the offending party will not want to bring the case to the courts, even if they did threaten legal action initially. the legal threat is typically used as a 1st tactic to "scare" people into submission and retraction. however, if one stands firmly on one's grounds which are valid, den on further thought and perhaps legal consultation, the offending party will usually not follow-through on their threat of legal action.