I have given ECMan every opportunity to explain this discrepancy off line, but he has not responded.
I have spoken to several members of the EC about the BBS issue, including two face-to-face meetings. I was told;
1 There had been a meeting, which had expressed very considerable annoyance at what was going on with the BBS, particularly on the Adams issue. This meeting decided to make the BBS members only, (which I disagree with), and to arrange strong independent moderation, which is a good idea.
2 The person who had originally worked on the BBS was no longer involved and there was a disagreement with this person. As a result of this the PFA did not have the passwords to make the necessary changes and were having the board re-done from scratch. It was not implied that the parting of the ways was recent. The above also explains the length of time the BBS was down for.
This info seems similar to the information supplied by GCHQ. Would he like to comment on the passwords info?
Now ECMAN has fiercely defended his anonymity. He claims to be a member of the EC, but has not provided any proof of this in terms of knowledge of events, or identity. If he is a member of the EC he is one of eight people ( I can exclude three myself). ECMan has seriously damaged PFA credibility, but what if he is not on the EC? Puts a very different completion on things.
Rod1
Not on the EC and not anonymous.