Election Year or Fear!

[SithHappens]

I see Farage has claimed today migrants are eating swans.

Hes also tacitly supported Trumps claims about paracetamol and autism.

[SithHappens]

Farage also claims Trump is right about Sharia law in London cause he heard it from a taxi driver

[Andy_Faber]

Lol?you don?t cover for each other! Really? That?ll be why you used your moderator?s ?power? to correct GP?s spelling only the other day so that his post made some sort of sense.
Never, ever seen you do that before with any other forum member.

.

Now it?s interesting you should mention that, and it shows you up in terms of both your bias and your poor observation. The first comment made here regarding the Charlie Kirk issue was made by MA, who regrettably misnamed him ?Chris?. I changed MA?s post, and the subsequent response, to read ?Charlie?, and made no issue of it other than an uncontroversial comment on the original post. I doubt MA even noticed. In that case I used my mod ?powers? to clarify, the same in GP?s post

I know you struggle with apologies and there?s no private messages so I?ll just assume it

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sorry GP, but that is a quite laughable response. You and AF alike throw in these claims time and time again and then run off chuckling, ?that?s put a spanner in the works?.

You, and only you, cited Khan as a likely unifying factor amongst the Unite the Kingdom participants. Likewise AF chucks in some half baked notion about an anonymous area of Derby representing what he means by ?we want our country back?, but when asked to qualify/substantiate your contributions you both duck out, quite unable to do so and, in your case, babbling on about a Monty Python joke from fifty odd years ago.

I admit I know little about Khan - Swale seems to know more - but I know plenty about various areas of Derby. So instead of running away, why not back up your suggestions. You may be right or you and AF might just be spouting those ?alternative facts? ie?more falsehoods.

Did you read my posts or simply take from them what you wanted to read?

I didn't go on march but spoke to people who did. MA I think but it may have been you asked what issues were being protested about. AF speculated several and I asked the guys who went what they felt was the vox pop. Hence I added "wokeness and Khan" in response.

I don't know why Khan was identified as a reason to protest. I was simply relaying what I was told. I know little of him myself apart from instigating ULEZ that many oppose but actually I favour.

At this point various people weighed in with Khan must be good/popular as he's been reelected. An utterly fallacious argument unless you accept the Tories and Trump are good/popular as they too have been reelected.

I've never expressed a view on whether I think Khan has been good for London. I have no idea. I merely answered a question by asking people who marched what their issues were and reported back.

I didn't enter a great conversation as to what they felt his failings were. So I'm ****ed of I'm going to research the matter further to satisfy Swale who would in any event simply dismiss other people's (the marchers) opinions anyway as that is his style.

Next time I won't bother to try to make enquiries

[ramAnag]

Now it?s interesting you should mention that, and it shows you up in terms of both your bias and your poor observation. The first comment made here regarding the Charlie Kirk issue was made by MA, who regrettably misnamed him ?Chris?. I changed MA?s post, and the subsequent response, to read ?Charlie?, and made no issue of it other than an uncontroversial comment on the original post. I doubt MA even noticed. In that case I used my mod ?powers? to clarify, the same in GP?s post

I know you struggle with apologies and there?s no private messages so I?ll just assume it

Don’t have a problem apologising when I’m in the wrong, AF - never have done - and if I missed your editing of MA’s mistake then I’ll happily apologise for that.
Doesn’t actually alter the fact that, imo, it’s a dangerous precedent for you, as mod, to start interfering with the posts of others and nor does it alter the fact that you habitually and invariably avoid answering questions which challenge your statements and view of the world, imo.

[swaledale]

Did you read my posts or simply take from them what you wanted to read?

I didn't go on march but spoke to people who did. MA I think but it may have been you asked what issues were being protested about. AF speculated several and I asked the guys who went what they felt was the vox pop. Hence I added "wokeness and Khan" in response.

I don't know why Khan was identified as a reason to protest. I was simply relaying what I was told. I know little of him myself apart from instigating ULEZ that many oppose but actually I favour.

At this point various people weighed in with Khan must be good/popular as he's been reelected. An utterly fallacious argument unless you accept the Tories and Trump are good/popular as they too have been reelected.

I've never expressed a view on whether I think Khan has been good for London. I have no idea. I merely answered a question by asking people who marched what their issues were and reported back.

I didn't enter a great conversation as to what they felt his failings were. So I'm ****ed of I'm going to research the matter further to satisfy Swale who would in any event simply dismiss other people's (the marchers) opinions anyway as that is his style.

Next time I won't bother to try to make enquiries

Ok, but you didn't actually make it clear that you were expressing marchers opinions! You stated Khan had failed as mayor.

As for dismissing other people's opinions, well if they are based on falsehoods, then yes of course I do, as would any other reasonable person.

It is a simple fact though, that whatever those who went on the march thought they were protesting about, it was organised by a many times convicted, right wing agitator and funded by an opaque billionaire who is not resident in the UK and culminated in a speakers who were as I pointed out far right agitators from other countries who were spouting far right propaganda.

Now, if one goes on a march which is undeniably held on the above premise, then you are by association if nothing else, aligning oneself with the stated aims of the organisers. I mean come on, whatever they might think or say, it was absolutely clear who organised the march and what it was about. However, I guess some people either don't care or perhaps dim enough to think their presence isn't showing support for some very dangerous and unsavoury characters.

Rather like those charming "pink ladies" who claim that they are not racist but merely concerned about the supposed threat that asylum seekers or immigrants posed to women and children. This despite the FACT, that there is no evidence that such persons are more likely to commit such offences than a white person.

[swaledale]

Ok, but you didn't actually make it clear that you were expressing marchers opinions! You stated Khan had failed as mayor.

As for dismissing other people's opinions, well if they are based on falsehoods, then yes of course I do, as would any other reasonable person.

It is a simple fact though, that whatever those who went on the march thought they were protesting about, it was organised by a many times convicted, right wing agitator and funded by an opaque billionaire who is not resident in the UK and culminated in a speakers who were as I pointed out far right agitators from other countries who were spouting far right propaganda.

Now, if one goes on a march which is undeniably held on the above premise, then you are by association if nothing else, aligning oneself with the stated aims of the organisers. I mean come on, whatever they might think or say, it was absolutely clear who organised the march and what it was about. However, I guess some people either don't care or perhaps dim enough to think their presence isn't showing support for some very dangerous and unsavoury characters.

Rather like those charming "pink ladies" who claim that they are not racist but merely concerned about the supposed threat that asylum seekers or immigrants posed to women and children. This despite the FACT, that there is no evidence that such persons are more likely to commit such offences than a white person.

[swaledale]

I won’t speak for GP because unlike Swale and yourself we don’t cover for each other, but I suspect he’s adopted the same approach as I, and that’s to state an opinion/view that I believe to be fact, after research/experience, and let those with an open mind come back and reinforce the opinion or rebutt it with fact-based arguments. As GP said, do your own research. NB those with an open mind not dogma-dominated…

Oh come on please! Dogma dominated? The only dogma on here is pushed by you ad quite often GP, based on opinion with little or no facts to back it up!

I did respond to you when you described your anecdote about your family members affected by knife crime, by relating the experiences of my daughter who has lived in London for 10 years which were different from what you described. Hardly dogma dominated just a different point of view.

I often post actual facts, you and often GP's response is to is to criticise supposed plagiarism or "cut and paste", rather than respond to the subject posted! So before you start claiming an open mid, maybe address the fact that your very often respond with petty, points, sarcasm, insults and waffle or when your opinion has been challenged, don't respond at all.

I really do have to laugh at your complete failure to understand that opinion is just a point of view and an anecdote is just an experience that one person has had and what the media you seem to gets your views from spews out, is very often fake news aimed at fostering a certain response.

[MadAmster]

Now it?s interesting you should mention that, and it shows you up in terms of both your bias and your poor observation. The first comment made here regarding the Charlie Kirk issue was made by MA, who regrettably misnamed him ?Chris?. I changed MA?s post, and the subsequent response, to read ?Charlie?, and made no issue of it other than an uncontroversial comment on the original post. I doubt MA even noticed. In that case I used my mod ?powers? to clarify, the same in GP?s post

I know you struggle with apologies and there?s no private messages so I?ll just assume it

Ta for the correction. I can only presume it came through my music interests. Chris King, producer, DJ, Musician. Friend of many a friend of mine although we've never met. I'd been doing some sorting of my Soul collection...

https://soulstrutter.blogspot.com/2023/03/rip-chris-king-nov-1956-21-mar-2023.html

[swaledale]

Ta for the correction. I can only presume it came through my music interests. Chris King, producer, DJ, Musician. Friend of many a friend of mine although we've never met. I'd been doing some sorting of my Soul collection...

https://soulstrutter.blogspot.com/20...-mar-2023.html

Should the Mod be editing posts, unless there is a potential legal issue for the Forum? I also suspect that on occasion he has done more than just edit a post, though I can't prove it, could just be the sites current issues, but I'm watching very carefully what is happening.

[ramAnag]

Should the Mod be editing posts, unless there is a potential legal issue for the Forum? I also suspect that on occasion he has done more than just edit a post, though I can't prove it, could just be the sites current issues, but I'm watching very carefully what is happening.

At the risk of further ludicrous accusations of ‘covering for each other’ (aka agreeing), I would say that the mod absolutely should not be editing posts. If there is a legal issue for the forum then the relevant post should be deleted. Beyond that the moderator has no business altering/editing/interfering with other people’s posts.

Would be nice if any of the recent questions put to him could be answered though. That is, after all, the purpose of an alleged ‘forum’…to exchange views and opinions.

[Andy_Faber]

Should the Mod be editing posts, unless there is a potential legal issue for the Forum? I also suspect that on occasion he has done more than just edit a post, though I can't prove it, could just be the sites current issues, but I'm watching very carefully what is happening.

lol

[Geoff Parkstone]

For the peace of mind of those who feel the mod is overstepping the mark, my post was edited as I had mistakenly spelled the word Swale as Seale. Not because I know he likes balancing balls on his nose, but because w and e are adjacent on the keyboard.

Hope that makes you feel less paranoid

[ramAnag]

For the peace of mind of those who feel the mod is overstepping the mark, my post was edited as I had mistakenly spelled the word Swale as Seale. Not because I know he likes balancing balls on his nose, but because w and e are adjacent on the keyboard.

Hope that makes you feel less paranoid

Nothing to do with being paranoid, Rog.

The precedent is set. The ability to edit posts identified. It simply shouldn’t happen. Can’t remember any other mod doing it and this site is littered with errors. Why correct this one in particular. Why, on this occasion, go out of his way to identify Swale?
Okay, this time it isn’t particularly serious or wilful. What if the next time someone writes, ‘I think Farage should be monitored’ and our moderator playfully decides to change it to, ‘I think Farage should be murdered’…because you think that’s ok?
You see the problem? We’re into apparent Charlie Kirk territory then. Who said/meant what? If your spelling/grammar fails you, so be it. The moderator’s role is not to correct.

[MadAmster]

If a Moderator thinks a post should be edited or deleted, IMO, (and it's what I did when being Admin/Mod on a couple of sites) they should message the poster, explaining why they believe it should be amended, for instance, the post opens both the poster and the site to possible lawsuits for the content. If the poster refuses to delete/edit, the Mod should then take the necessary action.

Apparently PMs are not currently working so that's not an option but AF could easily post "please amend/delete because....." in a reply to the offending post.