What's going on?

[DRiddle]

I know we're under new stewardship in terms of admin, and it's a thankless task, but seriously.

Why are we blocking threads such as the one on the locked yesterday? Why is it virtually impossible to say anything which is anti-hartlepool brexit party without getting your wrist slapped?

Why is criticising Shane Moore suddenly off the table?

Why is there suddenly a witch hunt against MK1? He's been consistent with his approach and behaviour on this forum for ten years plus. He's doing nothing different now to previously.

As a long standing member (with admin rights which i've had for years but i don't use) and a key 'breaker of news', i'm losing faith in the forum.

I feel if it continues in it's current direction it will lose any credibility which may remain.

It'll also undo a lot of good work by the late Steve Latimer and others.

Locking the thread about the incident in Westbooke Ave was this forums 'Jump the shark' moment.

[fred c]

The Admin hasn't changed since it was taken over after the sad demise of SteveL.

I don't know why the no criticism of the Brexit Party has been brought up, very few people bring the Brexit issue onto the forum apart from mk1.

Similarly I don't see evidence of Admin stopping people posting critcism of Shane Moore, what I do see is derogatory comments on a personel level, in my opinion it's because Shane Moore allowed CAB a chair and became a BP member.

There have been positive moves by the council under Shane Moore and those who criticise him don't have the good grace to give credit where credit is due.

As a long standing member of the Forum I have realised that times and circumstances have moved on from the SCAB / Labour regime to a Labour party v Brexit party or a Leave v Remain issue.

The credibility of The Post depends on the credibility of the posters, so because my views might be diffent to other posters I have lost credibility.

I don't consider there is a "witch hunt" against mk1, there are long standing posters who have different views, but which hunt is a tad paranoid.

[akarjl2]

I think admin had no other option and did hint that comments were inappropriate...

The story is

Escalated to

The facts.
 Xxx and a relative went to a mans house because they wanted to settle a dispute  that man had with another of their relatives.

Unless the poster witnessed the incident the "report" provided did not amount to fact.....and could potentially compromise any criminal case resulting from the alleged incident.

Posts should be considered on a case by case basis

I think on this occasion it was a good call.....

[pensionater]

Wasn't the original idea for the Forum built round "high tax Hartlepool"? Funny how the council tax is still going up but no blame is now being laid at the feet of the present Ruling party.

[Inspector Knacker]

Nowt's changed, it's just opinions that have.

[mk1]

]

Unless the poster witnessed the incident the "report" provided did not amount to fact.....and could potentially compromise any criminal case resulting from the alleged incident.
.

Sorry but that is not how it works. Until such time as charges are laid any man (or his dog) can say anything he wants about it. There is no convention that no one can discuss an incident in case it becomes a criminal matter. It is an absurd claim and if adhered to no one would ever be able to say anything about anything.
I can well understand how it could be embarrassing if it does not match the version one person would like us to believe, like say for instance I bunk of school for a jolly but tell the headmaster my Grandad had died and I went to his funeral. I bet if something like that happened today and the funeral turned out to be a lie and I got expelled from school and was waiting a Tribunal (I.E another word for a court) to decide my fate the mods here would lock down the thread and prevent any discussion of the matter (that is sarcasm by the way)

[mk1]

orum apart from mk1.

Similarly I don't see evidence of Admin stopping people posting critcism of Shane Moore, what I do see is derogatory comments on a personel level,

Where are these personal comments. If you imply I made them then you are mistaken. Please  link these personal remarks so we can make our own judgements. Note that calling someone a liar is not derogatory if you can show the person did lie. Then it is an embarrassing fact.

[mk1]

Why is it virtually impossible to say anything which is anti-hartlepool brexit party without getting your wrist slapped?

You do not just get your wrists slapped but the offended snowflakes grab pitchforks and torches and march on your castle. They whine that they are not given the respect they deserve and insist anyone who does not see it there way be removed forthwith. I think it is because they hate seeing their arguments destroyed and they would like a safe-space where they can share their silly   Diane Abbott and Corbyn  memes without being fact-checked.

Why is criticising Shane Moore suddenly off the table?

Same reason why the turnips still like Trump. If you have a political aim that you consider the most important thing  ever in the history of mankind then you will ignore any fault in  the politician you think will deliver your dream.  You then stop caring about fairness and simply want to 'win' at all costs.  It only matters if a politician is a liar if he holds political views opposite to you. Rules only apply to others not you.

[fred c]

orum apart from mk1.

Similarly I don't see evidence of Admin stopping people posting critcism of Shane Moore, what I do see is derogatory comments on a personel level,

Where are these personal comments. If you imply I made them then you are mistaken. Please  link these personal remarks so we can make our own judgements. Note that calling someone a liar is not derogatory if you can show the person did lie. Then it is an embarrassing fact.

What on earth are you talking about I wasn't mistaken because I never mentioned you.

As for "links" you make your own judgements on whatever anyone else has an opinion on anyway.

[mk1]

What on earth are you talking about I wasn't mistaken because I never mentioned you.

If you bother checking you will see my actual words were:

If you imply I made them then you are mistaken.

Note the very first word. 


I saw one  mention of a personal nature about Shane and to be honest given the torrent of abuse heaped on Labour  councillors it was pretty tame stuff.

[mk1]

Wasn't the original idea for the Forum built round "high tax Hartlepool"? Funny how the council tax is still going up but no blame is now being laid at the feet of the present Ruling party.

I brought it up twice and  it was completely ignored.  Not exactly censorship but an unwillingness to hold Shane to the same standards that applied to the Labour Mob.
Shane has been a poster here for over a decade. His  formative years were spent defending Ray Wells against every accusation. He would never admit Ray could do any wrong.  For his pains he got shafted when he forgot the Hartlepool Conservative Party was the personal property of the Well's family. He does not seem to have learned from his mistake and is now in a Political Party that is the personal property of one N. Farage. I guess he just likes one-man-bands-likes them so much he formed his own!

Another thing I noticed is the complete end to all mention of how awful a CE Gill is. It seems  that opinion 'has changed' as well.

[Inspector Knacker]

Why is it virtually impossible to say anything which is anti-hartlepool brexit party without getting your wrist slapped?

You do not just get your wrists slapped but the offended snowflakes grab pitchforks and torches and march on your castle. They whine that they are not given the respect they deserve and insist anyone who does not see it there way be removed forthwith. I think it is because they hate seeing their arguments destroyed and they would like a safe-space where they can share their silly   Diane Abbott and Corbyn  memes without being fact-checked.

Looks like you've joined the Bullingdon Set if you're looking down on the 'mob' outside your 'castle'.
Sadly, your 'answer' does not 'destroy' every argument unless of course you're claiming you're right every time..... or are guided by the hand of divine intervention, which is a tad unlikely. 
Coincidentally, you're going on a bit about Hartlepool Brexit Party, but it looks like no one's stopping you. Take it you'll be supporting Labour then, because no one goes to this much bother over politics for nothing.

As the great man said.......'There are some ideas so wrong ... that only a 'very intelligent person' could believe in them'.

It's a lovely cold night in the Irish Sea with a light easterly.

[akarjl2]

]

Unless the poster witnessed the incident the "report" provided did not amount to fact.....and could potentially compromise any criminal case resulting from the alleged incident.
.

Sorry but that is not how it works. Until such time as charges are laid any man (or his dog) can say anything he wants about it.

I agree- but reporting something you did not personally witness, based on reports of others to be a a FACT is actually incorrect, it is known as

Hearsay, in Anglo-American law, testimony that consists of what the witness has heard others say.

If, of course you actually witnessed the incident then you will I assume be asked to provide a witness statement and potentially be called as a witness in any proceedings associated with the incident.

So if it was not a FACT then it is speculation.

If it was a FACT then you are a witness and as a concerned citizen should offer to provide a statement.

In both cases I still think it was prudent to close comments down regarding what may or may not have happened on this occasion.

[mk1]

Unless the poster witnessed the incident the "report" provided did not amount to fact.....and could potentially compromise any criminal case resulting from the alleged incident.


Hearsay, in Anglo-American law, testimony that consists of what the witness has heard others say.

It depends who I am quoting.  See if you can work out why I said it was fact. The rest is still bollocks because rules that only  apply in a courthouse  have no bearing in normal conversation.  I say what I say and you can believe or dismiss it at your leisure. I do not care in the least. I am amazed so many bogus 'legal' restriction on free speech are being advanced. I think you watched too much Perry Mason as a child.

[Topcat]

I surely can't be the only one who added "So There" and stamped my foot at the end of Mk1s statement.