crt and the courts

[peterboat]

Yes I was watching this thread with interest as well. I could see a storm coming from it and to be honest it did need cooling down things have a habit of getting out of control which could lead to this mostly helpful often amusing and drives me to distraction site being closed down

 

Peter

[Tuscan]

Nigel does make some interesting points and, scarily, I find myself siding with him just a little bit! But where he errs it to present his side of the story as if it were fact, when in fact it's just his personal take on the matter. A take that, in the case in question, was clearly not shared by the impartial adjudicator. If he could recognise that there are alternative interpretations and perspectives, his posts would be more rounded and less likely to come under the knife.

I agree , but I think the same might be said for quite a few that have posted on this site previously.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Well, the reason why is, to be blunt, you. Because you have published an article referring to comments made in the original thread, and have linked to it all over Facebook etc., these comments have been bought to a far wider audience, and so it was decided that it was better to play it safe.

 

It's regrettable, but when people find that comments on a discussion forum are likely to be taken, quoted out of context and not directly linked to elsewhere, then discussion has to be moderated and curtailed when subjects are, or might be, contentious.

I would take issue on two points -

 

Firstly, I have not linked to it all over facebook. I have, as yet linked to it on just one site.

 

Secondly, I do not believe I quoted Nigel Moore out of context.

 

Having said that, I know from personal experience that moderation is a difficult and thankless task.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[nicknorman]

I agree , but I think the same might be said for quite a few that have posted on this site previously.

That is definitely true, however it is normally in a context where the possibility of bringing the site into disrepute doesn't really exist. Many are just ill informed or tongue in cheek rants.

 

Nigel's difficulty is that he is clearly very intelligent, knowledgable and articulate. But with those gifts comes an increased responsibility not to abuse them by presenting one's personal view as if it were irrefutable truth. That tactic should be reserved for pleading in court!

Edited December 8, 2013 by nicknorman

[Guest]

I know from personal experience that moderation is a difficult and thankless task.

Agreed, if I was a mod on here I would have removed the thread purely on the basis it was just so bloody boring..

Edited December 8, 2013 by The Dog House

[Lady Muck]

Probably why I hadn't read it til today!

[alan_fincher]

Firstly, I have not linked to it all over facebook. I have, as yet linked to it on just one site.

 

 

Although that "just one site" is in fact Facebook, isn't it, Allan?

 

So there must be at least a possibility then that others will share it, even if you don't post it yourself into multiple Facebook groups on this particular occasion.

 

Personally, I have always found selective quoting on NBW of things people have said in CWDF threads unacceptable.

 

We all know the owner/editor of NBW does not allow free discussion of stuff posted on his site, so "lifting" stuff onto there when the people whose stuff has been "lifted" cannot necessarily then give a view on whether it has been used in a fair way seems very poor practice to me.

 

I'm not ashamed of anything I have said being accurately quoted in full somewhere where I have a right of reply, but NBW is not such a vehicle, and I get pissed off when I see quoting of me (and others) on there, but the quoting is only partial, or out of context, (or both!).

 

(I'll freely admit I have not looked at NBW for the article in question here - I'm referring to a general principle, rather than a specific case).

[dmr]

Agreed, if I was a mod on here I would have removed the thread purely on the basis it was just so bloody boring..

 

It was one of the most interesting and informative threads on here for a long long time.

It might be contentious and a few people might even be disturbed by seeing how CaRT can sometimes behave (allegedly) and so would rather bury their heads in the sand and talk about flat batteries and canalside pubs,

You don't have to read things that you find boring, but let others decide what we find interesting.,

 

...........Dave

[Guest]

It was one of the most interesting and informative threads on here for a long long time.

It might be contentious and a few people might even be disturbed by seeing how CaRT can sometimes behave (allegedly) and so would rather bury their heads in the sand and talk about flat batteries and canalside pubs,

You don't have to read things that you find boring, but let others decide what we find interesting.,

 

...........Dave

Feel free to find it interesting......if it gets put back up...

[Ange]

 

It was one of the most interesting and informative threads on here for a long long time.

It might be contentious and a few people might even be disturbed by seeing how CaRT can sometimes behave (allegedly) and so would rather bury their heads in the sand and talk about flat batteries and canalside pubs,

You don't have to read things that you find boring, but let others decide what we find interesting.,

 

...........Dave

Greenie from me.

 

In today's soundbite world a low boredom threshold is becoming more and more predominant. I too resent the idea that someone can dictate what is posted on this forum on the basis of their own interest, or lack of - as you say if you find it boring don't read it but how dare they presume that they should be able to deprive the rest of us who can read more than two lines of text at a time without snoozing and do find it interesting.

 

I find Nigel's posts interesting and informative.

 

Sorry - edited a couple of times cos I thought of something else I wanted to add

Edited December 9, 2013 by Ange

[Guest]

Greenie from me.

Really why?

 

Oh hang on I can guess.

Greenie from me.

 

In today's soundbite world a low boredom threshold is becoming more and more predominant.

 

I find Nigel's posts interesting and informative.

Nice edit

[Guest]

Greenie from me.

 

In today's soundbite world a low boredom threshold is becoming more and more predominant. I too resent the idea that someone can dictate what is posted on this forum on the basis of their own interest, or lack of - as you say if you find it boring don't read it but don't deprive the rest of us who do find it interesting.

 

I find Nigel's posts interesting and informative.

 

Sorry - edited a couple of times cos I thought of something else I wanted to add

Nice further edit.

[ackdaw]

humm im sure ive read something along these lines some were , how ever ive just been to the above posters and read the article , so at least ive some infomation and can form my own opinion on it all .

 

personally i smell a water rat with a fishy tale thats tried to catch a minnow and found itself fighting a shark , and you dont have to be irish to like the little people , do you ?

[pelicanafloat]

humm im sure ive read something along these lines some were , how ever ive just been to the above posters and read the article , so at least ive some infomation and can form my own opinion on it all .personally i smell a water rat with a fishy tale thats tried to catch a minnow and found itself fighting a shark , and you dont have to be irish to like the little people , do you ?

Lol, like it! I just wish I understood it :-)

[jenlyn]

It was one of the most interesting and informative threads on here for a long long time.

It might be contentious and a few people might even be disturbed by seeing how CaRT can sometimes behave (allegedly) and so would rather bury their heads in the sand and talk about flat batteries and canalside pubs,

You don't have to read things that you find boring, but let others decide what we find interesting.,

 

...........Dave

greenie from me too.

[Phoenix_V]

Sometimes we remove possibly contentious threads so we can discuss them with the site owner. It is only fair, he may not have even seen the thread in question. I certainly had not read it until my attention was drawn to it today. And knowing that our site owner is only just back from abroad, he may not have seen it either.

It's his site, we'd like to give him a chance to make his own mind up. It's his site and his spare time hobby, so please give him a break.

As yet he hasn't been online.

If there is any problem at all it is that the site owner is not fully aware of what has gone on in his absence. There is no conspiracy, no one was pushed to do it and i have no idea as to whether CRT had even seen it.

Hang on that wasnt what I said no problem with above

 

Edited so as to be clear especially to the doghouse

Edited December 9, 2013 by Phoenix_V

[Leo No2]

A very interesting thread but I quite understand why the moderators would wish to protect themselves and Daniel and the forum from any possibility of action. I honestly don't think anyone should be permitted to air their personal views, in the way Nigel has, on a website which he doesn't own - it is all too easy to publish (and for someone to copy and assert the source as CWDF) something that anyone reading the thread (known member or not) might object to. There has to be a balance struck as to what is just 'banter' and innocuous personal opinion and what can be seen as a soapbox for some fairly far ranging and interesting views whether they interest us or not and that's a difficult balancing act I am sure.

 

I believe the Moderators and Daniel need to err on the side of caution - if the forum owner were taken to court there is, to the best of my knowledge, no money to defend a claim or pay damages. We have access to this huge amount of useful information which, we can if we wish, donate to to help with the running costs.

 

If I have any criticism at all it is that those that agreed to hide and/or delete the thread should ideally have been more proactive in advising the forum members of their action rather than those who were following the thread to have to ask what had happened to it.

 

If people like Nigel have a view they wish to promote in the way that has happened I believe that it should be hosted externally to the forum with perhaps, a link to that information.

 

I'd be interested in what others may think bearing in mind it is a topic of great importance and interest.

[Phoenix_V]

Do you really think a small unpaid team of mods really have the time to sift out stuff that may cause the site to be taken down while any legal complications get sorted?

This is what i agreed with

[Lady Muck]

If people like Nigel have a view they wish to promote in the way that has happened I believe that it should be hosted externally to the forum with perhaps, a link to that information.

I'd be interested in what others may think bearing in mind it is a topic of great importance and interest.

Well if anyone wants to do that feel free to ask Dan. I don't know if he wants it used elsewhere or not.

The reason we removed it has already been explained on this thread. If you lift content from here and use it in a sensationalist way elsewhere, don't be surprised if we're not happy about that. Perhaps try to write your own compelling original content instead.

This is what i agreed with

Ok misunderstanding, my bad.

[Guest]

This is what i agreed with

And LM confirmed that she does not indeed have the time in the very first line.

[Tuscan]

A very interesting thread but I quite understand why the moderators would wish to protect themselves and Daniel and the forum from any possibility of action. I honestly don't think anyone should be permitted to air their personal views, in the way Nigel has, on a website which he doesn't own - it is all too easy to publish (and for someone to copy and assert the source as CWDF) something that anyone reading the thread (known member or not) might object to. There has to be a balance struck as to what is just 'banter' and innocuous personal opinion and what can be seen as a soapbox for some fairly far ranging and interesting views whether they interest us or not and that's a difficult balancing act I am sure.

I believe the Moderators and Daniel need to err on the side of caution - if the forum owner were taken to court there is, to the best of my knowledge, no money to defend a claim or pay damages. We have access to this huge amount of useful information which, we can if we wish, donate to to help with the running costs.

If I have any criticism at all it is that those that agreed to hide and/or delete the thread should ideally have been more proactive in advising the forum members of their action rather than those who were following the thread to have to ask what had happened to it.

If people like Nigel have a view they wish to promote in the way that has happened I believe that it should be hosted externally to the forum with perhaps, a link to that information.

I'd be interested in what others may think bearing in mind it is a topic of great importance and interest.

On what grounds could the forum be taken to court in this instance can you elaborate.?

 

Others have banged on about how inaccurate NBW is etc etc, perhaps Allan can tell us how many times they have been taken to court to give us a reference point.

[Phoenix_V]

There was a lot of useful information and good points raised on the 2nd thread it would be a great shame to loose them all.

 

Trust Dan and the mods will moderate and return the thread as soon as possible,

 

CRT's actions have left them open to legitimate criticism and damaged their standing as a charity.

[alan_fincher]

Perhaps try to write your own compelling original content instead.

 

Shame we can't award "greenies" to the moderators, but, absolutely, yes!

[gaggle]

Mr Moore is providing this site with a great thread that is informing us of the alleged "shenanagins", " acting the goat " at the head of the waterways and if canal and river trust dont like what he is posting they will be in touch , pretty fast if they think what he says is untrue , for anyone to pretend they are not fully aware of what he is posting beggars belief , they monitor or pay people to monitor all media for anything that relates to them , they are aware and have not objected so please get the thread up again ,its not like the newspapers are going to keep us informed .

 

edited .

Edited December 9, 2013 by gaggle

[Alastair]

That's all very well, gaggle, but this country has really strict laws about libel. It isn't fair for Mr Moore to put Daniel (as site owner) potentially in the firing line of a lawsuit.

 

As suggested here, if Mr Moore really wants total freedom to say what he wants about CaRT, then he should set up his own website, write the material there and then give us all a link to it.