I never thought I'd have a problem with this (ie, I never thought that people would want to comment on my grumblings) but it's become necessary to clarify a few points following several messages over the last few days.
The comments on this blog are moderated. This means that I approve them before they become visible. Before you complain about an Orwellian police state, etc. etc., my policy is that all comments will be posted unless they:
* Contain excessive bad language
* Are hugely offensive to anyone including me and other local or national politicians.
* Are moderately offensive to anyone other than me and other local or national politicians.
* Are completely off topic
* Are link fodder to your own website with no useful comment made
It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your point or not.
If something breaks these rules but is highly funny or entertaining then it's still likely to get posted. It's all a bit of common sense really. Anonymous comments are no more or less likely to get published, however I am less likely to reply to anonymous comments.
And if you're the chap from the last few days that keeps complaining that your comments are not getting posted, please be aware that they are defamatory towards someone other than me, they link to your site, and are completely off topic. Fail x3. Make your point in another way and it'll get posted. I hope you understand.
Friday 27 February 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Free speech is not allowed, just like the Macclesfield Forum which has a link, run from the USA. That is not defamatory it is the truth.
As the links showed.
For everyone trying to catch up, this chap is dreadfully upset that I wouldn't print one of his previous comments because, in my view, it was off topic and made accusations about certain individuals.
****
What does free speech mean?
Does it mean you should be able to shout "fire" in a crowded, public, place?
Does it mean that you can talk loudly in a public library?
Does it mean you can tell lies about someone?
I put time, effort and resources into this site to create an area for people to use for a specific purpose: the discussion of politics, specifically local politics, and more specifically what I have, haven't, should and shouldn't have done.
I have no shame in ensuring that it remains so and preventing it from being hijacked for other purposes.
free speach does mean being able to say anything you like
liable and slander laws are there to recompense for any loss that is incurred via careless and derogatory speach
the problem with it on a website is that the anonymous poster is not the one to have to put his hand in his pocket rather the blog owner who publishes it has to fork out
if you want to launch a tirade, which i often would like to (and do) myself
either
1 grab a crate and stand in the town square
2 write your own blog possibly entitled hate filled rant about people i hate
end of
"I never thought that people would want to comment on my grumblings"
If that is a true statement, why did you enable comments?
Doh!!
Why are you now NOT approving comments, just a bit PC isn't it.
Doh, Doh!!
Enabled because I liked the idea the they could, but didn't believe that they would.
Beckford you can shout "Fire" in a public placeif there is a fire.
Have you been in a Public Library recently?
You would not publish the comment which showed links to the evidence.
The fact that you wish to to allow yourself to be used as a vehicle just shows how gullible you are.
It is very easy to check the source of that web site. I would send you the information, but will allow you to find it for yourself.
Send them an email and check the properties of the site.
Like your blog it does not allow free speech.
So now that they have, why not let us all*see the comments.
Don't keep them to yourself.
*[I'm assuming there are more than two of us here]
It was not off topic. It commented on a nafarious link published by yourself.
This blog is just an ego trip.
Anonymous, but another one, not the original.
Depends what you mean by recent - was in the library a couple weeks back. Very quiet it was too, except when I fell up the stairs.
I know you feel that you've got a scoop - but the very first time I contacted the forum about the town centre development it was the first thing they told me. So I'm afraid it's more olds than news.
So lets get back the topic in hand...
By sumoking's definition I don't allow free speech. But I've set out my stall of what I think is and isn't acceptable, and but that rationale I think that this site *does* allow free speech.
Wouldn't most people's definition of free speech be pretty similar to mine? Or am I out of touch? Should we have the right to lie, or to cause panic when there is no such emergency?
If you posted the content of your original comment as a letter to the Macc Express would they print it? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't and I wouldn't consider that a violation of free speech.
Then it's worth taking this a step further and thinking about the concept of causing offence, and what is and isn't inciting hatred. I think this is a very grey area at the moment and open to far too much speculation.
Anon@18:12 - If by "ego trip" you mean an well meaning attempt to keep people up to date with what I'm doing as a Councillor after they elected me and I was paid £5000 of their council tax to do it - then yes, you're right.
Although I prefer to refer to this as openness, honesty and accountability. I didn't think there was enough of this around and therefore it'd be appreciated - but obviously I'm wrong.
Are you suggesting that you're not the same Anon who posted the original message? It's all getting too confusing....don't you have a name? And if you didn't post it, then how do you know what's in it?
Probably because he/she can read. I do, however, agree with his sentiments. At £5,000 you are overpaid, and you want to get more by being co-opted onto a committee.
From what I have read you think that the new Town Cnter would be rubbish. Strange that it was the Tory council who commissioned it. Toe the party line or stand as an independent as some others have done.
David
For the record, a Councillor receives no extra allowance for being a committee member.
The Macclesfield masterplan was put together by a commercial developer and a cross-party group of MB Councillors. You will find that there is no "party line" no the issue.
If you'd rather that I didn't have an opinion and didn't pay attention to the views of my ward constituents then I agree, we are overpaid.
In fact - why are we even here at all?
You get paid for each committee meeting you attend.
@ Anon 15:23
No, that's not correct.
There is a basic allowance for all members and then a system of "special responsibility allowances" (SRA's) for positions such as leader of council, whip, or chairman of committees. Only one SRA may be claimed per member.
I claim no SRA's.
Details here (although this isn't the latest version, just the easiest one to find):
http://onlineservices.congleton.gov.uk/ecminutes/Published/C00000242/M00002306/$$$Minutes.doc.pdf
Post a Comment