postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Interesting the 'fake abduction' thread has been pulled from the site after the latest update. Who is protecting who??
Archiesgrandad Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I think mine was the last update, makes you think doesn't it? I wonder if references to David Evans provoke the same reaction?,.if so the common link could be Mr A Blair. AGD
Daniel the editor Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 It was pulled because there were libellous accusations posted in the thread. This is illegal and we cannot - and will not - allow it to remain. Can I remind everyone that this is a forum for chatting, not for posting libellous, racist or sexist comments. So please keep your posts within the law. We take a very hands-off approach to moderation but some recent posts have overstepped the boundaries. So please think before you post, if it is libellous, racist, sexist or contains an explicit threat of violence (as one post did yesterday), then the thread or individual post will be pulled, the poster will be warned and, if he/she persists, then a ban will follow. So in answer to the very naive question on this thread, we are protecting you, as forum users, us, as forum moderators and publishers, and the parents of a missing child.
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 Daniel the editor - 2013-05-30 11:09 AM It was pulled because there were libellous accusations posted in the thread. This is illegal and we cannot - and will not - allow it to remain. Can I remind everyone that this is a forum for chatting, not for posting libellous, racist or sexist comments. So please keep your posts within the law. We take a very hands-off approach to moderation but some recent posts have overstepped the boundaries. So please think before you post, if it is libellous, racist, sexist or contains an explicit threat of violence (as one post did yesterday), then the thread or individual post will be pulled, the poster will be warned and, if he/she persists, then a ban will follow. So in answer to the very naive question on this thread, we are protecting you, as forum users, us, as forum moderators and publishers, and the parents of a missing child. Not sure how you came to this decision as there were no names mentioned and what was quoted has now been reported by Met police. I assume you are basing this on what you have read in the UK newspapers. I suggest you read the book first, then analyse the 48 questions one of the accused as two are still official suspects, but expect you didn’t know that. I hope this response is constructive and not offensive, although I don’t think I’m the naive one.
antony1969 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Its a shame the one thread on here that has caused serious offence after the recent cowardly murder of one of our armed forces has not been pulled .
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Daniel the editor - 2013-05-30 11:09 AM It was pulled because there were libellous accusations posted in the thread. This is illegal and we cannot - and will not - allow it to remain. Can I remind everyone that this is a forum for chatting, not for posting libellous, racist or sexist comments. So please keep your posts within the law. We take a very hands-off approach to moderation but some recent posts have overstepped the boundaries. So please think before you post, if it is libellous, racist, sexist or contains an explicit threat of violence (as one post did yesterday), then the thread or individual post will be pulled, the poster will be warned and, if he/she persists, then a ban will follow. So in answer to the very naive question on this thread, we are protecting you, as forum users, us, as forum moderators and publishers, and the parents of a missing child. Thank you Daniel, for that. It has been evident, for some time, that the 'light touch' moderation on here (which I applaud) has been abused by some (often inadvertently in the heat of the moment it has to be said) and, quite frankly, taken severe advantage of by the odd 'troll' or two! No-one wants to inhibit free speech, but it was all getting a bit 'past it' and needed curbing. Some of us ( i.e. speaking purely personally!) were on the verge of 'pulling out' altogether ( and, I suspect, several others already have) because of the steep dive in the level of debate -- i.e.( no names. no pack drill!) the overstepping of the boundaries that you describe. Thanks again, more 'power to your elbow'. Let's have some friendly/humourous/interesting debate/discussion/banter and less of the 'aggro' folks! :-) Cheers, Colin.
Guest pelmetman Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Symbol Owner - 2013-05-30 12:10 PM Daniel the editor - 2013-05-30 11:09 AM It was pulled because there were libellous accusations posted in the thread. This is illegal and we cannot - and will not - allow it to remain. Can I remind everyone that this is a forum for chatting, not for posting libellous, racist or sexist comments. So please keep your posts within the law. We take a very hands-off approach to moderation but some recent posts have overstepped the boundaries. So please think before you post, if it is libellous, racist, sexist or contains an explicit threat of violence (as one post did yesterday), then the thread or individual post will be pulled, the poster will be warned and, if he/she persists, then a ban will follow. So in answer to the very naive question on this thread, we are protecting you, as forum users, us, as forum moderators and publishers, and the parents of a missing child. Thank you Daniel, for that. It has been evident, for some time, that the 'light touch' moderation on here (which I applaud) has been abused by some (often inadvertently in the heat of the moment it has to be said) and, quite frankly, taken severe advantage of by the odd 'troll' or two! No-one wants to inhibit free speech, but it was all getting a bit 'past it' and needed curbing. Some of us ( i.e. speaking purely personally!) were on the verge of 'pulling out' altogether ( and, I suspect, several others already have) because of the steep dive in the level of debate -- i.e.( no names. no pack drill!) the overstepping of the boundaries that you describe. Thanks again, more 'power to your elbow'. Let's have some friendly/humourous/interesting debate/discussion/banter and less of the 'aggro' folks! :-) Cheers, Colin. Yeah I agree ;-)..................stop being such a trouble maker Colin :D
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 You only think that I am a 'trouble-maker' because you don't always agree with my ( Guardianista?) views, Dave! :D Too many like that on here -- only want to chat amongst themseves and think, ( like Roger C) that if challenging views are expressed, that they should somehow be supressed.>:-) Cheers, Colin.
Tracker Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I too feel that the level of moderation on this forum is pretty well balanced and fair. Any form of litigation would probably mean Warners closing the forum completely and better a bit of moderation than the loss of so much valuable information - and the loss of the ego trip for a few narrow minded and pompous individuals - and that would never do!
Guest pelmetman Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I'll admit it does get a bit heavy at times 8-).............although some of us enjoy being grumpy old men more than others I suspect :D........ Wait ti'll I'm a proper pensioner..........then I can be grumpy to >:-)
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-05-30 12:02 PM Its a shame the one thread on here that has caused serious offence after the recent cowardly murder of one of our armed forces has not been pulled . Maybe we no longer live in a free society that our for fathers fought for, where we the majority are no longer able to speak freely in fear of upsetting the minority that appear did not fight to keep our wonderful country a country of free speech
malc d Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 postnote - 2013-05-30 12:49 PM ................ the minority that appear did not fight to keep our wonderful country a country of free speech Not sure who you are referring to but I doubt if many of the " minority that appear did not fight " are still around. You are of course quite free to say whatever you like, at your own risk, but other people don't have to publish it.
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 malc d - 2013-05-30 12:59 PM postnote - 2013-05-30 12:49 PM ................ the minority that appear did not fight to keep our wonderful country a country of free speech Not sure who you are referring to but I doubt if many of the " minority that appear did not fight " are still around. You are of course quite free to say whatever you like, at your own risk, but other people don't have to publish it. Ahh, see what you mean an great example of free speech and unteathered publishing...
John 47 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-05-30 12:02 PM Its a shame the one thread on here that has caused serious offence after the recent cowardly murder of one of our armed forces has not been pulled . On the contrary, there have been SEVERAL threads that have caused many of us offence - although I have to say that I do not approve of censorship and would never ask for a thread to be removed. I believe that if people do not like a thread, newspaper, whatever, they don't have to read it. I can, however, appreciate admin's desire not to fall foul of the law and on the two threads that have been removed, some of the comments came pretty close to crossing that line.
Tracker Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 postnote - 2013-05-30 12:49 PM Maybe we no longer live in a free society that our for fathers fought for, where we the majority are no longer able to speak freely in fear of upsetting the minority that appear did not fight to keep our wonderful country a country of free speech That is a load of rubbish either designed to offend and antagonise, or simply written in haste and without thought. Shall we give you the benefit of the doubt? My father along with pretty much all of our fathers fought in WW2 and right up to his dying day in 1992, like so very many of his generation, he was very proud to be British, very proud of his country and, whilst respecting your rights and freedom to hold such a view, he would have been saddened by your attitude. There are aspects of modern Britain of which he would have been so proud, but also aspects which he would not have liked. Chief amongst them is the selfishness and lack of tolerance and consideration for others which now seems to pervade so much of this nation with it's 'sod you - I'm all right Jack' arrogance, greed and 'I can do and say whatever I like because I'm free' attitudes. Freedom, which includes free speech, carries it's own responsibilities. In order that everyone enjoys equal 'freedoms' there need to be rules of common decency and respect for others regardless of their views - and there are hordes of hungry lawyers just waiting to make their fortune by pursuing those who appear to transgress.
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Richard, I have had my differences of opinion with you in the past (and no doubt, will do so again!) but, this time, I am in total agreement with every word that you say -- except perhaps your first sentence, where I would be unlikely to be so forgiving and not give our resident 'troll' the: 'benefit of any doubt' at all! I was born while the war in Europe was still being fought, my mother being moved out of London to avoid the 'doodle bugs' to a maternity unit in the former 'stately home' of a British Fascist ( and follower of Oswold Mosely) who had been interned ( for the duration of the war) for his beliefs, and proclaiming of them, in the interests of national security. Now, in those circumstances curtailing his freedom of speech ( a much-lauded British virtue, which is why those in conflict with their own state's political/security systems often found it useful to seek refuge in this country -- e.g Karl Marx) was probably just and proper, but my late and good working-class London-born mother, who had been there right through the 'blitz' ( my father was a fire warden, as he was too old for miliatary service) was still sorry that Lord Brocket ( for it was he) had been deprived of his home! She too was proud to be British, and, like Tracker's Dad, would have been extremely saddened by the culture of intolerance that seems to have crept into British life. Colin.
RogerC Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Symbol Owner - 2013-05-30 12:29 PMYou only think that I am a 'trouble-maker' because you don't always agree with my ( Guardianista?) views, Dave! :D Too many like that on here -- only want to chat amongst themseves and think, ( like Roger C) that if challenging views are expressed, that they should somehow be supressed.>:-) Cheers,Colin. I did say I had reported that particular topic for one reason and one reason only. Given the horrific attack that had only very recently been carried out in London I felt it was the wrong time to start another Muslim/Islam/Christian...who's at fault confrontation at that time. I was not wanting to suppress anything. All I was asking the OP to do was show some respect and give the 'argument' a rest. It was in meant in terms of 'respect' not to 'suppress'. Challenging views is healthy, it makes us what we are ...God forbid we were all of the same mindset.....so Symbol you couldn't be more wrong about me.
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 RogerC - 2013-05-30 3:14 PMSymbol Owner - 2013-05-30 12:29 PMYou only think that I am a 'trouble-maker' because you don't always agree with my ( Guardianista?) views, Dave! :D Too many like that on here -- only want to chat amongst themseves and think, ( like Roger C) that if challenging views are expressed, that they should somehow be supressed.>:-) Cheers,Colin. I did say I had reported that particular topic for one reason and one reason only. Given the horrific attack that had only very recently been carried out in London I felt it was the wrong time to start another Muslim/Islam/Christian...who's at fault confrontation at that time. I was not wanting to suppress anything. All I was asking the OP to do was show some respect and give the 'argument' a rest. It was in meant in terms of 'respect' not to 'suppress'. Challenging views is healthy, it makes us what we are ...God forbid we were all of the same mindset.....so Symbol you couldn't be more wrong about me.Amazing you can quote Muslim/Islam/Christian’s, but there again as we have seen in the past from some of the guys above they can say anything. However when a statement is made that does not refer to someone but has been reported for example in News of the World on Sunday, July 22, 2012 how can it be slander. I would post the website link to the article but think the thread would be pulled again.In closing I am English and proud of it, luckily I was born just after the war, but my father was one of those that experienced fragments from a hand grenade have an adverse effect on your life. I am patriotic and hate to see what is happening to MY country!! The day is soon approaching when we are stopped by those wanting to suppress our views but not those of our immigrants who have come to our country to change it and our ways, to the ways of countries they fled from.. >:-(
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I am very glad,Roger, to find that I: 'couldn't be more wrong' and apologise -- but -- you did ( as far as I remember, as the thread has now been 'pulled') express your self with some force, ( and capital letters - not for the first time!) so I'm very glad to see that you accept contrary views to your own -- something that some other posters on here ( and I'll mention no names this time!) seem to have great difficulty with. Colin.
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 postnote - 2013-05-30 3:48 PM Amazing you can quote Muslim/Islam/Christian’s, but there again as we have seen in the past from some of the guys above they can say anything. However when a statement is made that does not refer to someone but has been reported for example in News of the World on Sunday, July 22, 2012 how can it be slander. I would post the website link to the article but think the thread would be pulled again. Sorry Postnote -- I don't understand what you are getting at -- the 'News of the World' Newspaper was closed down in July 2011 because of the 'hacking' scandal --something that 'Guardianistas' are rather proud of, as their campaigning newspaper was instrumental in bringing that about! Colin.
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 Symbol Owner - 2013-05-30 4:08 PM postnote - 2013-05-30 3:48 PM Amazing you can quote Muslim/Islam/Christian’s, but there again as we have seen in the past from some of the guys above they can say anything. However when a statement is made that does not refer to someone but has been reported for example in News of the World on Sunday, July 22, 2012 how can it be slander. I would post the website link to the article but think the thread would be pulled again. Sorry Postnote -- I don't understand what you are getting at -- the 'News of the World' Newspaper was closed down in July 2011 because of the 'hacking' scandal --something that 'Guardianistas' are rather proud of, as their campaigning newspaper was instrumental in bringing that about! Colin.As far as I can research, listing a public accessible site is neither Slander or libellous to if interested check this link. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/david-payne-may-hold-key-to-maddies.html
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Thanks -- O.K., now I see what you are getting at -- it doesn't seem to have any thing to do with the (defunct) 'News of the World' though! C.
postnote Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 Symbol Owner - 2013-05-30 4:30 PM Thanks -- O.K., now I see what you are getting at -- it doesn't seem to have any thing to do with the (defunct) 'News of the World' though! C. a typing error, never said I was perfect (lol)
Symbol Owner Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 No. neither did I (lol) In fact, I have somtimes made some fairly disparaging remarks about you (!) Cheers, Colin.
Tracker Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Symbol Owner - 2013-05-30 4:45 PM No. neither did I (lol) In fact, I have sometimes made some fairly disparaging remarks about you (!) Amongst others!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.