# What Happened?



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

After a great three months travelling around south-east Asia (without the motorhome!) I logged in to this site again to see what people had been talking about in my absence. I replied to one of the threads and then went off-line for a couple of days over Easter. Today, I logged in again to discover that the thread in question has disappeared. Two of the countries we recently visited have Communist Governments but no-one there attempted to censor what I said in my e-mails etc, yet I return to find that free speech on here is more limited than in Vietnam. I don't always agree with what some people say |(as you may have noticed!) but that's democracy - what on earth could anyone have said on that thread to justify removing the whole thing? If it was something illegal then why not just remove the post? Why remove the whole thread?


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Some people have been getting shouty and rude lately, it's a shame really but it only seems to happen whenever we wander off MH or camping topics.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Haaamster said:


> Some people have been getting shouty and rude lately, it's a shame really but it only seems to happen whenever we wander off MH or camping topics.



True but there has always been a lot of shouting and rudeness on here (as there is currently on at least one other current thread) but I can't see that as a good reason to censor comment in a democracy. In fact, the continuing rudeness and, in some cases, downright obnoxiousness of some posters is a good demonstration of the fact that censorship doesn't work. Personally, I prefer things to be out in the open so I know who I'm dealing with.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> Bloody hell, John, you have only just come back and spotted something I have missed. What threads?



'morning ***** - the one about the death of that little girl on the campsite.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> Hi, I didn't know it was missing, just had a look under general and it is not there.
> Did not see any reason for it to go, but not really an nice subject to keep on a forum, maybe that is why?



True, but if "niceness" was a criteria for posting on here there would be very few posts!


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Didn't really read a lot of that thread but from what I did read I think a few people jumped the gun when it looked like the parents were arrested and vented their fury on them. Certain others correctly pointed out that the parents may not be guilty of anything and it kicked off from there. I may be wrong but I think thats the gist of it.


----------



## Admin (Apr 9, 2012)

Could you tell me which motorhome related / wildcamping related thread this was please?


----------



## David & Ann (Apr 9, 2012)

Even PHIL our Boss does not know which thread it was. Myself, I am just back after 3 1/2 months, at this rate I need another vacation, too old to rack my brains.
By the way, how did it go John H? Nice to know you are still around. Old Arthur too ☺☺☺


----------



## Robmac (Apr 9, 2012)

Not too sure what happened to the thread in question, but I would imagine it closed as a mark of respect (or to prevent disrespect). It was starting to develop into a row about police procedures.


----------



## Admin (Apr 9, 2012)

The thread about [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isabelle Harris the six year old girl that died after having a seizure was removed as I had many complaints about the thread as it implied that the parents were responsible for Isabelle's natural death. I felt that this thread was not really relevant to this website and decided to delete it. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I make no apologises for this deletion.
[/FONT]​


----------



## David & Ann (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> The thread about [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isabelle Harris the six year old girl that died after having a seizure was removed as I had many complaints about the thread as it implied that the parents were responsible for Isabelle's natural death. I felt that this thread was not really relevant to this website and decided to delete it. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I make no apologises for this deletion.
> [/FONT]​



Thank you for updating us. I agree, it was the right decision.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> The thread about [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isabelle Harris the six year old girl that died after having a seizure was removed as I had many complaints about the thread as it implied that the parents were responsible for Isabelle's natural death. I felt that this thread was not really relevant to this website and decided to delete it. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I make no apologises for this deletion.
> [/FONT]​



In this thread, I am not going to comment on the content of the deleted thread; simply that I am disappointed that it was deleted. Saying that it was nothing to do with wildcamping is odd, because if you only allowed threads that were directly related to wildcamping then there would be very little usage of the forum at all - and people who wildcamp do have opinions about other things. If whenever we met up we talked only about wildcamping spots we would be a pretty boring bunch! Conversations often go along lines that some people don't like and if that happens then they can leave the discussion - what I cannot accept is that they have the right to stop others talking about something just because they don't like it. There are lots of discussions I don't like but I've never asked for anything to be removed (except spam).

Anyway - as regular readers will know - this is my usual fruitless annual plea for free speech. I'll leave it for now (but I will come back to it later!).


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

David & Ann said:


> By the way, how did it go John H? Nice to know you are still around. Old Arthur too ☺☺☺



Hi David, it went very well indeed - and I trust your Australian adventure was just as good. I'd go into more detail but because our trip had nothing to do with wildcamping it cannot be discussed here (sorry about that - naughty of me but I just couldn't resist it!).


----------



## Admin (Apr 9, 2012)

John H said:


> In this thread, I am not going to comment on the content of the deleted thread; simply that I am disappointed that it was deleted. Saying that it was nothing to do with wildcamping is odd, because if you only allowed threads that were directly related to wildcamping then there would be very little usage of the forum at all - and people who wildcamp do have opinions about other things. If whenever we met up we talked only about wildcamping spots we would be a pretty boring bunch! Conversations often go along lines that some people don't like and if that happens then they can leave the discussion - what I cannot accept is that they have the right to stop others talking about something just because they don't like it. There are lots of discussions I don't like but I've never asked for anything to be removed (except spam).
> 
> Anyway - as regular readers will know - this is my usual fruitless annual plea for free speech. I'll leave it for now (but I will come back to it later!).




I understand your position on free speech, however I can not even start to understand how you can even connect this deletion with free speech.
A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child. I can not imagine the trauma that they are now going through and I honestly hope they can recover from this.

The fact that you have used this thread to drag out your anti-communism / free speech soap box really has angered me. Have some respect. Just because something is deleted it is not automatically an infringement of free speech.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> I understand your position on free speech, however I can not even start to understand how you can even connect this deletion with free speech.
> A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child. I can not imagine the trauma that they are now going through and I honestly hope they can recover from this.
> 
> The fact that you have used this thread to drag out your anti-communism / free speech soap box really has angered me. Have some respect. Just because something is deleted it is not automatically an infringement of free speech.



1. If an opinion - however obnoxious you and I might find it - is deleted then that is clearly, by definition, a move against free speech. Some restrictions on freedom are imposed by law but you have not claimed that reason here so I assume it does not apply.
2. My memory of the thread is not that people were accusing the parents of murder; rather that the comments were mainly directed against the police for following what seemed to me to be correct procedures. Of course, inbetween my last visit to the thread and the deletion it could be that people started accusing the parents but I wouldn't know that because I was denied the opportunity to read those posts.
3. I had to laugh at the comment about my "anti-communism", since most criticism of me on this forum that I am a dangerous leftie! And I make no apology for constantly getting on my "free speech soapbox" - I will no doubt have ocassion to return to it.


----------



## Admin (Apr 9, 2012)

John H said:


> 1. If an opinion - however obnoxious you and I might find it - is deleted then that is clearly, by definition, a move against free speech. Some restrictions on freedom are imposed by law but you have not claimed that reason here so I assume it does not apply.
> 2. My memory of the thread is not that people were accusing the parents of murder; rather that the comments were mainly directed against the police for following what seemed to me to be correct procedures. Of course, inbetween my last visit to the thread and the deletion it could be that people started accusing the parents but I wouldn't know that because I was denied the opportunity to read those posts.
> 3. I had to laugh at the comment about my "anti-communism", since most criticism of me on this forum that I am a dangerous leftie! And I make no apology for constantly getting on my "free speech soapbox" - I will no doubt have ocassion to return to it.



John you are seriously suggesting that deleting this thread was clearly a move against free speech?

Well let me make this the clear. If this situation or simular one arises again I shall with no hesitation delete it.


----------



## maingate (Apr 9, 2012)

In the last 12 months, JohnH has travelled through Morocco, Libya and Egypt.

His latest trip was through Syria.

Need I say more? :dance:


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

I gather that this was the situation. Some days ago a child died whilst staying on a New Forest Camp site. The police arrested the parents on suspicion of murder as the death appeared suspicious. After a thorough investigation it transpired that the child had accidentally died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a barbecue-like contraption and that the parents were totally innocent. I can imagine nothing worse than losing a child and finding yourself accused of his/her murder. It must have been a nightmare.

It would appear from what I've read so far (as I had no part in the thread) that some people of the lynch-mob mentality blamed the parents and made up their minds without any evidence that they were guilty. Exactly the same thing happened after the murder of the honeymoon bride in South Africa, although I'm not sure if it was on this thread or on Motorhome Fun. Some people decided that he must be guilty and one man even said that he'd definitely done it for the dowry, although later it transpired that no dowry had ever been paid. I still have a totally open mind on this case.

I'm all for free speech and if someone wants to accuse the parents of murder let them do it directly to them and risk being sued under the defamation laws. However, libelling someone in a third-party medium such as a forum or a newspaper also puts the owner of the forum or newspaper at risk of being enjoined in any libel action.  Why should Phil be liable for for the actions of of some very unwise and unkind people who haven't the decency or good sense to wait for the full facts to emerge before deciding that a totally innocent couple, who have just lost a child, are murderers.

It was right to delete the thread and he should do it again in similar circumstances.


----------



## Tbear (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> John you are seriously suggesting that deleting this thread was clearly a move against free speech?
> 
> Well let me make this the clear. If this situation or simular one arises again I shall with no hesitation delete it.



Phil

I did not read the thread as I have to deal with death and disease in my professional life so have little interest in it during my leisure time but I have to agree with John H. Giving the more grounded people on here a chance to educate some on the fringe of reality has got to be better than censorship. You have enabled members to ignore the people that they have no wish to listen to so if a thread is not overtly offencive, perhaps joining in the discussion and helping direct it?

Richard


----------



## Deleted member 21686 (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> John you are seriously suggesting that deleting this thread was clearly a move against free speech?
> 
> Well let me make this the clear. If this situation or simular one arises again I shall with no hesitation delete it.



Well said Phil.
It is a real sad case without us making uneducated comments from afar.


----------



## Robmac (Apr 9, 2012)

Tbear said:


> Phil
> 
> I did not read the thread as I have to deal with death and disease in my professional life so have little interest in it during my leisure time but I have to agree with John H. Giving the more grounded people on here a chance to educate some on the fringe of reality has got to be better than censorship. You have enabled members to ignore the people that they have no wish to listen to so if a thread is not overtly offencive, perhaps joining in the discussion and helping direct it?
> 
> Richard



That could be seen as offensive in itself, you are assuming that your opinions are superior to others and that some of us need educating by their superiors?


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

Tbear said:


> Phil
> 
> I did not read the thread as I have to deal with death and disease in my professional life so have little interest in it during my leisure time but I have to agree with John H. Giving the more grounded people on here a chance to educate some on the fringe of reality has got to be better than censorship. You have enabled members to ignore the people that they have no wish to listen to so if a thread is not overtly offencive, perhaps joining in the discussion and helping direct it?
> 
> Richard



Not overtly offensive? Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever. 

Do you really believe that anyone should be able to say anything about someone on a public forum? There's free speech and there's  outright libel of the kind that can ruin people's lives for ever.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire as is often quoted) said:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". However, that was a century ago before the Internet, where unfounded and malicious allegations can become common currency all over the world in minutes.


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Robmac said:


> That could be seen as offensive in itself, you are assuming that your opinions are superior to others and that some of us need educating by their superiors?



Can I steal that comment Rob, seems to be the perfect reply to every post for least one person on here.
:lol-061:


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Robmac said:


> That could be seen as offensive in itself, you are assuming that your opinions are superior to others and that some of us need educating by their superiors?



Doh double post


----------



## Tbear (Apr 9, 2012)

Robmac said:


> That could be seen as offensive in itself, you are assuming that your opinions are superior to others and that some of us need educating by their superiors?



Hi Robmac,

Yes I agree with you. It was not meant to be offencive but does sound a bit bid headed. My attempt at diplomacy in a difficult subject failed therefore you have educated me so does that not prove my point. 

Richard


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

i find it quite offensive that members are commenting and name calling already and they havnt eaven seen the thread, typical :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:


----------



## Robmac (Apr 9, 2012)

Tbear said:


> Hi Robmac,
> 
> Yes I agree with you. It was not meant to be offencive but does sound a bit bid headed. My attempt at diplomacy in a difficult subject failed therefore you have educated me so does that not prove my point.
> 
> Richard



Errr not sure, but good of you to admit your diplomacy failed


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

Haaamster said:


> Can I steal that comment Rob, seems to be the perfect reply to every post for least one person on here.
> :lol-061:



And this from the person who can't work out that a smoking room may no longer contain smokers. Grow up and give it a rest will you? And stop polluting threads with snide comments that have no bearing on them whatsoever just because you had a disagreement and were made to look very silly on a previous thread.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

kimbowbill said:


> i find it quite offensive that members are commenting and name calling already and they havnt eaven seen the thread, typical :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:



Yet when Haaamster makes a thoroughly snide and nasty comment that has nothing to do with this thread and is a personal attack on an individual, you click the the 'Like' button. You really ought to have a look at your own standards.

Now perhaps we can get back to a sensible debate on the merits or otherwise of 'free' speech?


----------



## Tbear (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Not overtly offensive? Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever.
> 
> Do you really believe that anyone should be able to say anything about someone on a public forum? There's free speech and there's  outright libel of the kind that can ruin people's lives for ever.
> 
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire as is often quoted) said:  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". However, that was a century ago before the Internet, where unfounded and malicious allegations can become common currency all over the world in minutes.



What I ment was if you say the wrong thing then someone will put you right on this site. There is a name for the people that love to post scandelous statements about tragedies but it escapes me. If they make them on here and get mauled then tuff. Might just stop them doing it on the families facebook account. 

Richard


----------



## n brown (Apr 9, 2012)

i'm happy for phil [still not sure if he is a person or a commitee] to make decisions of this kind,right or wrong.i would hate to be mother hen to you lot!


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

Tbear said:


> What I ment was if you say the wrong thing then someone will put you right on this site. There is a name for the people that love to post scandelous statements about tragedies but it escapes me. If they make them on here and get mauled then tuff. Might just stop them doing it on the families facebook account.
> 
> Richard



I do understand your point, but for everyone who may try to put you right on this site there'll be others who'll support your libel! I really do believe in free speech but not unfounded accusations against individuals, and isn't that what we're talking about in this case? I respect your right to call me an idiot or to tell me that my politics stink, because that's always subjective, but if for instance I told you that I led a boy scout brigade and you started implying from that that I must have paedophile tendencies, does that come under the banner of reasonable free speech?


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Yet when Haaamster makes a thoroughly snide and nasty comment that has nothing to do with this thread and is a personal attack on an individual, you click the the 'Like' button. You really ought to have a look at your own standards.
> 
> Now perhaps we can get back to a sensible debate on the merits or otherwise of 'free' speech?



what you mean like the personal attacks you dish out? my own standards? thats rich coming from you Northerner, quite hypocritical sir, if i may call you sir


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> And this from the person who can't work out that a smoking room may no longer contain smokers. Grow up and give it a rest will you? And stop polluting threads with snide comments that have no bearing on them whatsoever just because you had a disagreement and were made to look very silly on a previous thread.



When I want your opinion I think i'll ask for it mate, until then I suggest that you don't think that everything people post on this site has to be about you. That's a mighty big headed opinion in my opinion so in future kindly shut it. 
Made to look silly  and being made to look silly is something you appear to do in every thread you enter with your made up cobblers but then that's probably not your opinion.


----------



## n brown (Apr 9, 2012)

PHIL! PHIL! Its kicking off again!


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

n brown said:


> PHIL! PHIL! Its kicking off again!



:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049: too many Easter eggs, and time off work, everyones bored :lol-049:


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

kimbowbill said:


> what you mean like the personal attacks you dish out? my own standards? thats rich coming from you Northerner, quite hypocritical sir, if i may call you sir



But you just don't get it do you? I couldn't care less if you attack me in a debate in which we're both arguing. What is childish and silly is snide attacks on people that are nothing whatsoever to do with the thread are are slipped in just because some sad person bears a grudge.

And this is the result. Haaamster can't resist his nasty little comment, you 'Like' it and then bleat on about people calling names. You're the worst kind of hypocrite.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

Haaamster said:


> When I want your opinion I think i'll ask for it mate, until then I suggest that you don't think that everything people post on this site has to be about you. That's a mighty big headed opinion in my opinion so in future kindly shut it.
> Made to look silly  and being made to look silly is something you appear to do in every thread you enter with your made up cobblers but then that's probably not your opinion.



So your snide little comment definitely wasn't about me then? Come on, have the courage to tell the truth. I shall leave it to your conscience to decide if you're telling the truth or not.

Debate with me any time but don't make nasty and snide little attacks that have nothing to do with the thread, just because we clashed swords on a previous occasion. That's not worthy of you or of anyone.

Now, can we get back to free speech of which the last few posts haven't been the finest example?


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

No it wasn't about you actually, it was about a certain person that doesn't seem to be on here much but seemed to have an opinion on everything and everyone upsetting many as he went along.
But if you still want to think it was about you then go ahead,it's not my worry.


----------



## Tbear (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I do understand your point, but for everyone who may try to put you right on this site there'll be others who'll support your libel! I really do believe in free speech but not unfounded accusations against individuals, and isn't that what we're talking about in this case? I respect your right to call me an idiot or to tell me that my politics stink, because that's always subjective, but if for instance I told you that I led a boy scout brigade and you started implying from that that I must have paedophile tendencies, does that come under the banner of reasonable free speech?



This is getting worse than one of those Chicken and Egg things but at least that's funny. Paedophiles are not funny however they do exist. If you know who they are they become less of a threat but drive them underground. I'm not going there. Forgive me but I think I'm going to a different thread.

Richard


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

Nah it could actually be about me too but it was a fella that used to fall out with his neighbours a lot if you know who I mean.:ninja:


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

how can it be you with a million trillion posts? :scared: :lol-053: its aimed at the one who just pops in and out now and agen and does nothing but stir things up,


----------



## n brown (Apr 9, 2012)

so to sum up;article 19 0f the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that the right to freedom of speech bears with it certain responsibilities and is subject to certain restrictions,such as the need to respect and be careful of the rights and reputation of others.this quite clearly covers the situation regarding the parents of the child and in my opinion phil's decision was right and more importantly sensible in the true meaning of the word.[O.B.N. on its way i hope]


----------



## Haaamster (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> I knew it wasn't me:dance: Just testing!
> I want it to be meeeeee



Or was it


----------



## herbenny (Apr 9, 2012)

kimbowbill said:


> how can it be you with a million trillion posts? :scared: :lol-053: its aimed at the one who just pops in and out now and agen and does nothing but stir things up,



Jen I agree with you ..........in my opinion people need to get a grip and stop trying to outdo each other verbally and continually try and inflate thier egos by proving how intelligent and articulate you are ...for goodness sake the original thread is about a loss on an innocent life.


----------



## Canalsman (Apr 9, 2012)

From the Forum Rules:

_We created the Conduct Guide to provide a basic understanding of what's allowed and not allowed in our forums. The following are the principle guidelines for the establishment and enforcement of our CG:

*- Ensure a friendly atmosphere to our visitors and forum members*
- Ensure the privacy of our members and that of others
- Comply with existing laws
*- Encourage responsible use of our forums and discourage activities which disrupt our
community and reduce the value of our services to our visitors
- Encourage the freedom of expression and exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner*_

My bold (for emphasis)

Forum Rules - Wild Camping for Motorhomes


----------



## scampa (Apr 9, 2012)

From what I saw of that thread (and I may not have seen the later comments), and from what Phil says on here, it's crystal clear that it was removed purely in the interests of common decency and respect for those involved in the tragedy.  Nothing at all to do with free-speech.

How can any of you make an argument out of that??


----------



## sean rua (Apr 9, 2012)

Yes, Phil has a tough job.
 I wouldn't want to do it, but when I joined up, I agreed to abide by what the "boss" said. If things ever became unbearable, I'd just buzz off and post elsewhere, if needs be.

And, yes, I believe in the idea of free speech. It's good, but this has to be balanced and tempered by a realisation ( that I only learnt the hard way way) that
some things are best left unsaid, and, sometimes, "less said, soonest mended" may apply.

This lesson took me a while to learn, as I was a hot-headed, passionate, believer in things and causes that I believed were right.
 However, I've had to learn, like eveybody else, that society ( and life) can run better when there's a bit of compromise.

That said, my tally for last year, 2011, was
* number of pubs from which banned = 2
* number of pubs from which I received a "red card next time" warning = 3. 

Like everyone, I need to learn from my mistakes. A cursory analysis showed that the common denominator in all the problematic incidents was my going a bit OTT. In all cases, I was told to "steady on" and "keep it down a bit".

Just like Phil, publicans have a hard job to do. If  they feel the need to step in, it ain't no major loss to " free-speechers", 'cause free speech ain't no good when most decent folk have switched off and listen no more.

" A time and a place" and all that,
and, btw, the removed thread was sh ite, as it happens.
 Served no useful purpose whatsoever, and, when folks don't know the facts, they should keep stum, especially when the topic is death. Tis a lose-lose situation, and any gambler worth his salt has to know when to fold.

Happy Easter! 

sean rua.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Not overtly offensive? Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever.



You missed the thread but you are sure of your opinion of it - well done. In fact, the thread contained NO accusations against the parents (up to the last post I was able to access). What it contained were several anti-police comments. But, despite your nonsensical views about something you didn't see, I will not be asking for your post to be removed.


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

maingate said:


> In the last 12 months, JohnH has travelled through Morocco, Libya and Egypt.
> 
> His latest trip was through Syria.
> 
> Need I say more? :dance:



Actually, the latest trip was through Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia (Syria was a few years ago) so I wouldn't book a flight to any of those in the near future!


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Phil said:


> John you are seriously suggesting that deleting this thread was clearly a move against free speech?
> 
> Well let me make this the clear. If this situation or simular one arises again I shall with no hesitation delete it.



Well yes - I'd have thought that was clear. The whole point of free speech is that it can be very uncomfortable - that is why we have to defend it. If there had been any indication of illegality (and therefore liability on your part) then I could have understood the deletion but there wasn't, so it was deleted simply because you and a few others didn't like it. That is a move against free speech in anybody's language. But the thing I find really fascinating about this current discussion is the number of people who clearly didn't read the original thread assuming it said things that it didn't. There were (up to the point I last saw it) absolutely NO comments against the parents, yet somehow there are a lot of people who are now convinced there were. Human nature is a fascinating thing.


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

I read and posted on the thread, my comments were, "i think using the word suspicious before a post mortem to ascertain death has been carried out is wrong" , i felt the main topic was about the press, and how they had interpreted it,  but i agree that the thread was deleted, its not a good topic, i think there are many other topics where you can express your views and have your freedom to speak. like, how cheap Easter eggs are these days, i mean, 3 for a quid, bargain :tongue:


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

kimbowbill said:


> I read and posted on the thread, my comments were, "i think using the word suspicious before a post mortem to ascertain death has been carried out is wrong" , i felt the main topic was about the press, and how they had interpreted it,  but i agree that the thread was deleted, its not a good topic, i think there are many other topics where you can express your views and have your freedom to speak. like, how cheap Easter eggs are these days, i mean, 3 for a quid, bargain :tongue:



I'm pleased to see that at least one person who has expressed an opinion on here did at least read the original thread. However, it is a very dangerous world we are entering if you are only allowed to discuss "safe" topics. For the record, I thought that some of the criticisms of the police on the original thread were disgusting - but free speech means that people are free to express disgusting views, whether you and I agree with them or not.


----------



## Rubbertramp (Apr 9, 2012)

John H said:


> Well yes - I'd have thought that was clear. The whole point of free speech is that it can be very uncomfortable - that is why we have to defend it. If there had been any indication of illegality (and therefore liability on your part) then I could have understood the deletion but there wasn't, so it was deleted simply because you and a few others didn't like it. That is a move against free speech in anybody's language. But the thing I find really fascinating about this current discussion is the number of people who clearly didn't read the original thread assuming it said things that it didn't. There were (up to the point I last saw it) absolutely NO comments against the parents, yet somehow there are a lot of people who are now convinced there were. Human nature is a fascinating thing.



I read that thread. I also listened to the reports on the incident on the radio news the day before. They said the parents of that little girl were arrested "on suspicion of murder" of course we now know that that was a mistake. The original poster entitled the thread "Girl Murdered on Campsite" or something very similar...an unfortunate and misguided choice in my opinion. There were a few short comments about how sad it was then within 3 or four posts people jumped to the defence of the parents and started criticizing the police for their actions. Others defended the police action and a lively discussion ensued. 
Free speech in action in my view. I'm sure the press had a good old go at the subject too. I don't see their stories being stamped on.


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

I agree with you about FOS, however, when a death has occured and especially under tragic circumstances like that, i think we should be sensitive and careful to what is said.


----------



## Minisorella (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Not overtly offensive? *Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child *isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever.


I agree with John and Kimbowbill on this bit. I saw the first couple of pages of the thread and, certainly up to that point, no-one was accusing the parents of anything... in fact your words up there are almost word for word the sort of criticism forum members were throwing at_* the media*_ for sensationalising the article with a headline using the word 'murder', when the text said no such thing. Sympathies were entirely with the parents from all the comments I saw.



Northerner said:


> Do you really believe that anyone should be able to say anything about  someone on a public forum?



Should they be able to?  That's a really tough one because my inherent sense of good manners would object to people being rude just because they can.  On the other hand, I would hate even more to see the whole Internet become overly policed and regulated by a central 'big brother'.  It's the nature of the beast that people can and will say what they like on a public forum... the freedom of the Internet is both wonderful and horrible, as is free speech.  However, forum members have the right and the means to report offensive posts and the moderators and administrators of a forum have the power to remove whatever they deem inappropriate.  Obviously, Phil felt that removal was the right thing to do in this case and that's exactly as it should be.



Northerner said:


> Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire as is often quoted) said:  "I  disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to  say it". However, that was a century ago before the Internet, where  unfounded and malicious allegations can become common currency all over  the world in minutes.



The passage of time and new innovations don't change the principle behind this quote yet there have long been laws in place to help protect against slander, libel and the like - a counter-balance to this principle if you like.  I do agree with you on this bit though... the power of social networking sites and mobile phone campaigns that can drive youngsters to despair and suicide is a very scary part of e-life today and I hope someone somewhere finds a way to protect our children and grandchildren, without damaging free speech and freedom of expression.

 Meanwhile, we have Phil


----------



## al n sal (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> Agree Jen, it has nothing to do with the price of bread:tongue:



I totally agree, let me put my view point across from another perspective.

many years ago on a warm spring day my kids were playing in the garden on the swings, my two year old son all of a sudden fell really ill, i drove like a mad man to the hospital, less than 11 hours later while i held him he sighed and left us........if it wasnt for the fact that it was very evident that meningitis was the cause, then i too could of been arrested until cause had been found. I can't imagine how this would of effected me or my family, i can guess that as i had extreme trouble coping with this anyway, my daughter would probably have lost both brother and father......

the police have to look at these things suspiciously until cause is found, BUT the press should show more respect and certainly more sensitively but as far as they are concerned that wont sell their rags......
I am glad it was pulled...its a horrible subject......good move Phil

al

sorry meant to quote Jens post..Doh


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

John H said:


> You missed the thread but you are sure of your opinion of it - well done. In fact, the thread contained NO accusations against the parents (up to the last post I was able to access). What it contained were several anti-police comments. But, despite your nonsensical views about something you didn't see, I will not be asking for your post to be removed.



I know that your rather extreme views on free speech have taken a bit of a drubbing in this thread and that you may be feeling a bit miffed but there's really no need to take it out on me in such a rude and aggressive manner. My opinion was based on the following comments from other posters, which perhaps you haven't noticed?

Post 8 from Haaamster: Didn't really read a lot of that thread but from what I did read I think a few people jumped the gun when it looked like the parents were arrested and vented their fury on them. 

Post 13 from Phil: Isabelle Harris the six year old girl that died after having a seizure was removed as I had many complaints about the thread as it implied that the parents were responsible for Isabelle's natural death. I felt that this thread was not really relevant to this website and decided to delete it. 

Post 18 from Phil: I understand your position on free speech, however I can not even start to understand how you can even connect this deletion with free speech. A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.


Perhaps you missed some of the thread in question? Either way I think that most people might agree with me that, reading the posts that I quote gives a clear implication that someone did suggest that the parents were responsible. If the people in question have posted misleading comments, perhaps you should take it up with them and not shoot the messenger?

I quote again from the last post by Phil in case you still haven't got the message:  A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

Minisorella said:


> I agree with John and Kimbowbill on this bit. I saw the first couple of pages of the thread and, certainly up to that point, no-one was accusing the parents of anything... in fact your words up there are almost word for word the sort of criticism forum members were throwing at_* the media*_ for sensationalising the article with a headline using the word 'murder', when the text said no such thing. Sympathies were entirely with the parents from all the comments I saw.



Thank you for a reasoned response. However, I used the word murder as it had already been used by Phil, as I have explained in my post above.


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> Agree Jen, it has nothing to do with the price of bread:tongue:



nor the price o fishcakes,:lol-053:


----------



## John H (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I know that your rather extreme views on free speech have taken a bit of a drubbing in this thread and that you may be feeling a bit miffed but there's really no need to take it out on me in such a rude and aggressive manner. My opinion was based on the following comments from other posters, which perhaps you haven't noticed?
> 
> Post 8 from Haaamster: Didn't really read a lot of that thread but from what I did read I think a few people jumped the gun when it looked like the parents were arrested and vented their fury on them.
> 
> ...




It is always dangerous to base your opinions on the reports of others about what was said. As has been pointed out by others who actually read the thread, there was NO criticism of the parents - as you would be able to see for yourself if the thread had not been removed. The criticism was directed at the police or the press (the former, in my opinion, unfair; the latter well-directed). I trust you have learned from this experience. By the way, I had to smile at two points in your reply:
1. What is an extreme view of free speech, other than one you disagree with?
2. If you don't like rude and aggressive manners (and I don't accept that mine was in this case) then perhaps you should avoid them in your own replies.


----------



## Minisorella (Apr 9, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Thank you for a reasoned response. However, I used the word murder as it had already been used by Phil, as I have explained in my post above.



Yes, totally understand   What I meant was that it was the media that cynically headlined the word murder, when the actual content of the article was much more measured.  Seems to happen a lot these days!


----------



## Minisorella (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> It depends on if they are past their sell by date like this thread:scared::lol-053::scared::lol-053:



Hint taken... I'm on me bike... :lol-053: :lol-053:


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

***** said:


> It depends on if they are past their sell by date like this thread:scared::lol-053::scared::lol-053:



stop reading it then :lol-053:


----------



## Northerner (Apr 9, 2012)

John H said:


> It is always dangerous to base your opinions on the reports of others about what was said. As has been pointed out by others who actually read the thread, there was NO criticism of the parents - as you would be able to see for yourself if the thread had not been removed. The criticism was directed at the police or the press (the former, in my opinion, unfair; the latter well-directed). I trust you have learned from this experience. By the way, I had to smile at two points in your reply:
> 1. What is an extreme view of free speech, other than one you disagree with?
> 2. If you don't like rude and aggressive manners (and I don't accept that mine was in this case) then perhaps you should avoid them in your own replies.



So there's no chance that you missed one of the latest posts? Or perhaps Phil is lying? You then criticise me for taking cognisance of the views that I quoted, but then base your own argument on the views of those who support your stance, as in: As has been pointed out by others who actually read the thread, there was NO criticism of the parents. 

I quoted people who had also read the thread! Why is it acceptable for you to quote others, but not me?

Extreme free speech is speech with no boundaries whatsoever, which you certainly give the impression of supporting. It would appear that there is nothing too vile, to offensive or too untrue that you would not allow? I'm sorry if I'm wrong here but that's the impression that I've got of you.

Perhaps you may now learn something? Such as allowing people to quote the posts of this site's owner and taking them in good faith and as true? I repeat again what Phil said as you seem to be deliberately ignoring its existence: A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.


----------



## scampa (Apr 9, 2012)

al n sal said:


> I totally agree, let me put my view point across from another perspective.
> 
> many years ago on a warm spring day my kids were playing in the garden on the swings, my two year old son all of a sudden fell really ill, i drove like a mad man to the hospital, less than 11 hours later while i held him he sighed and left us........if it wasnt for the fact that it was very evident that meningitis was the cause, then i too could of been arrested until cause had been found. I can't imagine how this would of effected me or my family, i can guess that as i had extreme trouble coping with this anyway, my daughter would probably have lost both brother and father......
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that it would be right of me to add a "Like" to your comment, due to your own tragic events, but I would like to offer my sincere thoughts and condolences to you and your family.

Also in the circumstances, to offer my respect for your reasoned view of the actions by the police and others involved.

More and more nowadays, I feel "old-fashioned" with my views of decency and respect (where deserved).

In my view, the main thing that we should be focussing on from this recent sad event is the very real dangers of toxic fumes or irrespirable atmospheres that we may encounter as wildcampers, so as to avert another similar tragedy.

I think that it will shortly be time to close this thread, and put an end to some of the "point-scoring" that some contributors seem to be so obsessed with.


----------



## Robmac (Apr 9, 2012)

al n sal said:


> I totally agree, let me put my view point across from another perspective.
> 
> many years ago on a warm spring day my kids were playing in the garden on the swings, my two year old son all of a sudden fell really ill, i drove like a mad man to the hospital, less than 11 hours later while i held him he sighed and left us........if it wasnt for the fact that it was very evident that meningitis was the cause, then i too could of been arrested until cause had been found. I can't imagine how this would of effected me or my family, i can guess that as i had extreme trouble coping with this anyway, my daughter would probably have lost both brother and father......
> 
> ...



I know exactly what you mean, condolences from one bereaved father to another.


----------



## kimbowbill (Apr 9, 2012)

Robmac said:


> I know exactly what you mean, condolences from one bereaved father to another.



not pressing the "like" button, a "respect" button is needed in this instance.


----------



## Firefox (Apr 10, 2012)

I think one just has to accept that there will never be free speech on forums. Things have to be removed for a variety of legal reasons. They can even be removed becase they are not judged to be within the spirit of the forum or good for the forum.

The most practical route is simply to accept what has happened and move on to other threads. If one can't accept that, then try other forums where the moderation may be slightly more lax. Arguing that the policy should be changed in favour of free speech is likely to lead nowhere, because that can never happen legally. Even if the admin allowed it, the forum would be pulled by the authorities, or the forum host, or webspace hosts, or isps due to legal pressure at some stage.


----------



## Dezi (Apr 10, 2012)

Firefox said:


> I think one just has to accept that there will never be free speech on forums.





Firefox said:


> Things have to be removed for a variety of legal reasons. They can even be removed becase they are not judged to be within the spirit of the forum or good for the forum.
> 
> The most practical route is simply to accept what has happened and move on to other threads. If one can't accept that, then try other forums where the moderation may be slightly more lax. Arguing that the policy should be changed in favour of free speech is likely to lead nowhere, because that can never happen legally. Even if the admin allowed it, the forum would be pulled by the authorities, or the forum host, or webspace hosts, or isps due to legal pressure at some stage.



Hi,Having kept away from this unfortunate thread on principle I  feel that the secondary issue  “the subject of free speech” is disingenuously being used as a cover for the “I can say what I like & as forcibly as I can” brigade.

Its worth remembering that the great freedoms we enjoy in this Country also come with great responsibilities.

All the other web sites that I belong to have freedom of speech, this one is no different. We are just expected to use it wisely.      

Dezi   c:


----------



## John H (Apr 10, 2012)

Northerner said:


> So there's no chance that you missed one of the latest posts? Or perhaps Phil is lying? You then criticise me for taking cognisance of the views that I quoted, but then base your own argument on the views of those who support your stance, as in: As has been pointed out by others who actually read the thread, there was NO criticism of the parents.
> 
> I quoted people who had also read the thread! Why is it acceptable for you to quote others, but not me?
> 
> ...




I think the most interesting - and worrying - thing  here is that you have stated several times that you never read the thread and yet you have also said several times that you are glad it was removed. It does not matter what the thread actually said (although it is fascinating that in its absence, several people have assumed it said something it didn't). I didn't like the thread but what I do and do not like is not relevant and, no, your position and mine are not the same; I actually read the thread. 

Further, I have NEVER advocated free speech with no boundaries. The debate is about where those boundaries are drawn. I have many times stated that there are laws setting limits to free speech and I would never advocate breaking those laws. However, if something is not breaking the law (and Phil has, by his silence in response to my earlier point agreed that no law was broken here) then you are on very dangerous territory if you start banning things because you don't like them. These are the roots of totalitarianism. For example, some people find the music of Wagner distasteful; some find the paintings of Dali distasteful; some find the Daily Mail distasteful; the Chinese find Facebook distasteful - where do you draw the line? 

And a final word to those who want this discussion to stop because they find the topic in the original thread one not suitable for discussion here: I agree with your unease and disgust in relation to that topic but this thread is not about that - it is about whether things (anything) should or should not be banned in a free society. We could continue to debate that without any further reference to the original thread.


----------



## John H (Apr 10, 2012)

Dezi said:


> Hi,Having kept away from this unfortunate thread on principle I  feel that the secondary issue  “the subject of free speech” is disingenuously being used as a cover for the “I can say what I like & as forcibly as I can” brigade.
> 
> Its worth remembering that the great freedoms we enjoy in this Country also come with great responsibilities.
> 
> Dezi   c:




What I am actually defending here is the right of people to express views that I disagree with, so your assessment is a little upside-down. 

I do, however, agree totally with your point about rights and responsibilities - as I have said many times on other threads and indeed here. The debate is about who sets the limits of responsibility and where do they set those limits? Any ideas?


----------



## Deleted member 3802 (Apr 10, 2012)

am rate glad a wor born dead fick and dint become a Master debater :idea-007:


----------



## Dezi (Apr 10, 2012)

John H said:


> What I am actually defending here is the right of people to express views that I disagree with, so your assessment is a little upside-down.





John H said:


> I do, however, agree totally with your point about rights and responsibilities - as I have said many times on other threads and indeed here. The debate is about who sets the limits of responsibility and where do they set those limits? Any ideas?



I have intention of getting into a long pointless debate with you John. We have been down that road before.

I would however gently suggest that with your ability to continually shift the goalposts around to suit your position  a full time

job as goalkeeper at Doncaster rovers awaits  - they are in dire straits.

Dezi   c:


----------



## maingate (Apr 10, 2012)

Some people never learn when to shut up Dezi.

Or when to refrain in the first place.

Anyway, it is common knowledge that Old Arthur is a master debator (the dirty oick). :lol-061:


----------



## Dezi (Apr 10, 2012)

Old_Arthur said:


> am rate glad a wor born dead fick and dint become a Master debater :idea-007:[/QU OTE]





Old_Arthur said:


> Nice try old un. However if you remove the first two letters  from the last word & read the sentence again -
> 
> now thats more like the Old Arfur we know.
> 
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 3802 (Apr 10, 2012)

Dezi said:


> Old_Arthur said:
> 
> 
> > am rate glad a wor born dead fick and dint become a Master debater :idea-007:[/QU OTE]
> ...


----------



## Northerner (Apr 10, 2012)

John H said:


> I think the most interesting - and worrying - thing  here is that you have stated several times that you never read the thread and yet you have also said several times that you are glad it was removed. It does not matter what the thread actually said (although it is fascinating that in its absence, several people have assumed it said something it didn't). I didn't like the thread but what I do and do not like is not relevant and, no, your position and mine are not the same; I actually read the thread.
> 
> Further, I have NEVER advocated free speech with no boundaries. The debate is about where those boundaries are drawn. I have many times stated that there are laws setting limits to free speech and I would never advocate breaking those laws. However, if something is not breaking the law (and Phil has, by his silence in response to my earlier point agreed that no law was broken here) then you are on very dangerous territory if you start banning things because you don't like them. These are the roots of totalitarianism. For example, some people find the music of Wagner distasteful; some find the paintings of Dali distasteful; some find the Daily Mail distasteful; the Chinese find Facebook distasteful - where do you draw the line?
> 
> And a final word to those who want this discussion to stop because they find the topic in the original thread one not suitable for discussion here: I agree with your unease and disgust in relation to that topic but this thread is not about that - it is about whether things (anything) should or should not be banned in a free society. We could continue to debate that without any further reference to the original thread.



This and you are getting very tiresome, so I shall now have one last go at trying to explain to you what actually happened. This is the sequence:

A member stated that he did not find anything offensive in the thread. *Based on the reports of the thread that I'd read* I replied:

'Not overtly offensive? Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever.'

Now as this was a debate on free speech, it is actually irrelevant as to whether the claims by Phil and others are true. I could have posted a purely hypothetical question using the same terms and most people would have been able to work that out.

The poster to whom I replied didn't choose to challenge my view but, some time later, you came along and said this about me:

'You missed the thread but you are sure of your opinion of it - well done. In fact, the thread contained NO accusations against the parents (up to the last post I was able to access). What it contained were several anti-police comments. But, despite your nonsensical views about something you didn't see, I will not be asking for your post to be removed.'

Now on several occasions I have told you that I based my opinion on statements by other people who had read the thread, including Phil, who wrote, and I'll put it in bold because, up to now, it's as though you deny its existence.

Phil wrote:  *I understand your position on free speech, however I can not even start to understand how you can even connect this deletion with free speech. A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.*

Have you understood it? He said: A family tragically lost their young Daughter and *an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child*.

I have explained and explained how I came to form a view but it's like talking to brick wall. You squirm and obfuscate and refuse to accept the reality of the situation and continually deride me for having the gall to form an opinion based on the statements of others, including the owner of the site.

So I will finish by asking you a some simple questions.

1.Have you never formed an opinion based on facts told to you by a third party?

2. Did Phil lie when he said:  ...an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.

3. Was it wrong of me to take his statement as true, or should I have immediately suspected that he was lying?

4. Is it possible that, in between your last viewing of the thread and it being removed, that a post or posts could have been submitted and missed by you?

As far as I am concerned there is only one reason why you accused me of posting nonsense and having the temerity to comment on a thread that I actually hadn't read, and it's because of an antipathy to me from previous spats, and that antipathy caused you to hit the keyboard without putting your brain in gear. Now, as has already been said, you're moving the goal posts yet again.

Any chance of a straight answer to my questions?


----------



## maingate (Apr 10, 2012)

Well Desmond and Arthur, the fact that we are so fed up with these pointless squabbles that we have resorted to taking the p*** out of the main protagonists has had NO effect whatsoever.

Hopefully they will have a severe bout of apoplexy and be confined to bed. A dose of Castor Oil might shut them up. :dance:


----------



## Northerner (Apr 10, 2012)

maingate said:


> Well Desmond and Arthur, the fact that we are so fed up with these pointless squabbles that we have resorted to taking the p*** out of the main protagonists has had NO effect whatsoever.
> 
> Hopefully they will have a severe bout of apoplexy and be confined to bed. A dose of Castor Oil might shut them up. :dance:



Has it ever occurred to you that some of us may actually enjoy the cut and thrust of debate? I thought that the 'Off Topic' type of forum section was intended for that? Or perhaps you think that only the things that interest you are worthy of debate.

It's been said many times but I'll repeat it for you. If a thread isn't of interest to you, don't read it. I delve into a tiny number of threads on this forum, as many of them are of no interest to me. But they're obviously of interest to others, and good luck to them.

If there's anything more boring that long drawn-out threads, it's the people moan about them!


----------



## Deleted member 13543 (Apr 10, 2012)

Time to give this thread over completely to John H and Northerner, and go off to read something different!! :scooter:

Hope you all enjoyed your Easter Eggs!!!

KP x x x


----------



## Northerner (Apr 10, 2012)

kernowprickles said:


> Time to give this thread over completely to John H and Northerner, and go off to read something different!! :scooter:
> 
> Hope you all enjoyed your Easter Eggs!!!
> 
> KP x x x



Mmmmm. It's a pity that you just couldn't do that without having a snide little dig. As I said, the people who moan about threads are worse than the thread itself!


----------



## Admin (Apr 10, 2012)

I am going to lock this thread.
I am not going to explain why.
If you do not like it then go and find another forum to use.


----------

