Jump to content

Error 400 on the fight in Sainsbury's thread


Sue

Recommended Posts

I can no longer get into page 3 at all, and whatever way I try I get this:


Error 400


We're sorry, but we could not fulfill your request for /forum/read.php?5,392355,page=3 on this server.


Your proxy server sent an invalid request. Please contact the proxy server administrator to have this problem fixed.


Your technical support key is: c35d-1261-b783-0251


You can use this key to fix this problem yourself.


If you are unable to fix the problem yourself, please contact db at eastdulwichforum.co.uk and be sure to provide the technical support key shown above.



(I tried the fix it yourself link but got a strange message. Has this page been corrupted in some way?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thread's now OK, but I just got exactly the same message when I tried to edit my first vegetable grater thread post in the Wanted section to say I'd found one - unable to edit it.


Weird. Never had this happen before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

400 errors:

"95% of the time this is because of a problem on the client system e.g. there is something unstable on your PC running the Web browser."


http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E400.html


Have a look on that website and run through their list of questions, it may well be your browser.


And try running this programme on your computer http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/ it's free and will clean things off your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks will try that, but according to the second message I get (see below) it is due to security software protecting the East Dulwich Forum website?


Is that likely? Nothing has changed at my end so far as I'm aware, and this is the only website I am getting these messages on! Thanks.


Technical Support


Your request was intercepted by Bad Behavior, security software which protects the Web site you visited from malicious activity, such as hackers, spam and viruses. We apologize for the inconvenience, but your request matched a profile of suspicious activity. This problem is usually quite easy to fix.


Your computer appears to have sent a request through a proxy server which corrupted the request. Uninstall the proxy server and try again. It is not normally enough to simply disable the proxy server. If you are required to use the proxy server, contact the proxy server administrator for assistance.


This problem may be caused by misconfigured or malfunctioning browser privacy software or personal firewall software. If you use this type of software, turn it off or reconfigure it and try again. (Example: For Norton Internet Security, you need to disable the Stealth Mode Browsing feature.)


This problem may be caused by viruses or spyware on your computer, or by malicious software that pretends to be anti-virus or anti-spyware software. Ensure that you have REAL anti-virus and anti-spyware software on your computer, that they are kept up-to-date, and that you have run a full system scan using each tool. Once your system is cleaned of viruses and spyware, please try your request again.


The free Microsoft Security Essentials provides reasonable protection against a wide variety of malicious software.


If the above suggestions fail to resolve the problem, click Back and contact the e-mail address you were given for further assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Hi


It seems out protective outer force field, known as Bad Behaviour, occasionally does not like your ISP. What happens is it gets a list of naughty IP addresses from a server, those on the naughty list are ones that have been accused of sending out spam. You both have the same ISP, AOL, which tells us that someone has been using their AOL account to send spam and AOL have not dealt with them quickly enough and therefore one of the AOL servers has been put on the list. Unfortunately we cannot take down the force field to alleviate this problem for the two of you as it would open us up to attack from many others, Bad Behaviour is something that helps keep this forum spam free.


So all we can do is wait, it is out of our hands but AOL will know how to remove their server from the blacklist. Sorry we cannot do any more to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi GUIs … I've been a cleaner for 17 years, I work punctually and responsibly, leaving  your home is clean and organized. The experience includes: *High cleaning standards. *Ironing  *Deep Cleaner  *5 star Airbnb    Send me a message and booking a  trial. And get a DISCOUNT 😀 📲07889693871 (WhatsApp Just)   Thanks  Gra
    • Ok here goes.....   Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.   Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.   The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....   2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...   https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/     No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.   3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features   So back then the 11% got their wish!   In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?
    • Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast.   
    • Not clear what point you are trying to make here Earl? A majority of those consulted wanted measures returned to their original state. Majority is the salient point. Again, if consultations are pretty irrelevent, as you seem to suggest, then why do oragnisations like Southwark Cyclists repeatedly prompt their members, whether local to the consultation area or not, to respond to consultations on CPZ or LTNs. What a waste of everyone's time if of no import in terms of local policy-making.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...