What Happened?
- Thread starter John H
- Start date
- Status
kimbowbill
Full Member
- Posts
- 3,761
- Likes
- 2,715
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 23,492
- Likes
- 63,469
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,708
- Likes
- 2,021
herbenny
Guest
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
Guest
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
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,580
- Likes
- 1,211
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??
How can any of you make an argument out of that??
sean rua
Guest
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.
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 3,761
- Likes
- 2,715
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
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
Guest
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 3,761
- Likes
- 2,715
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,798
- Likes
- 5,014
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
al n sal
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 3,761
- Likes
- 2,715
nor the price o fishcakes,:lol-053:
- Status