The establishment and historic child sex abuse

[Soulman]

You know the point I am making but please carry on being an ass and we will be banned from discussing this matter at all.

Jeez, banned from discussing the matter. It is a very important subject, one that has people like you that have helped to stifle the truth by snitching and whinging.
Hopefully the people that are allowed to speak out/have an opinion will help a few minors in the future.
Meanwhile a chap who used to wear shell suits, a fair bit of jewellery, had bleached blonde hair.......now then now then.....got away with it for years.

 

[spring hall convert]

I have been an Admin and a Mod, obviously different opinions on what can and can not be posted, but at least i had the decency to inbox the poster, not play guess the mystery man.......oh and i understood the abuse, and accepted that was part of the package. More often than not the poster would edit/modify his own post, as tampering with other posters comments was deemed a bit low.

Check the Royal thread where I am subjected to a sweary public telling off. As I've said in that thread a simple PM would have sufficed.

 

[martyn20]

Jeez, banned from discussing the matter. It is a very important subject, one that has people like you that have helped to stifle the truth by snitching and whinging.
Hopefully the people that are allowed to speak out/have an opinion will help a few minors in the future.
Meanwhile a chap who used to wear shell suits, a fair bit of jewellery, had bleached blonde hair.......now then now then.....got away with it for years.

I am not stifling the truth at all, show me where I did that. You are breaking the forum rules and endangering the discussion. You mention names again and it's going to be banned, that is what I call stifling debate. Everyone else can discuss it without using names why do you have to be different.
You want to name names start you own discussion forum and get sued, see how that goes for you!

 

[Soulman]

Check the Royal thread where I am subjected to a sweary public telling off. As I've said in that thread a simple PM would have sufficed.

Exactly, the board need never know, i expect you may have edited/modified your own post. Thankfully there are boards where you can give a proper opinion without having to skirt around names etc. I now except that this board is not one, nor will it do it's modding off board with a timely message in the inbox.
At least we know eh.

 

[martyn20]

Exactly, the board need never know, i expect you may have edited/modified your own post. Thankfully there are boards where you can give a proper opinion without having to skirt around names etc. I now except that this board is not one, nor will it do it's modding off board with a timely message in the inbox.
At least we know eh.

Go an use one of them, please!

 

[thisistips]

Ian Hislop would be a far better choice to chair the enquiry. Sadly, will never happen.

Not sure he would becAuse of the seriousness of the situation. However, having him on a panel might work. I've been following and reading up on this, like others. Two weeks ago it wasn't known about. I've been thinking what a debt is owed to the people that have blown the whistle, the people speaking up and the politicians that won't bow to pressure to keep quiet. This really is very important, and I cannot understand Cameron's weakness in responding. First he resisted, then appoints an inappropriate judge, then the proceedings won't be under oath. He had a chance to deal with this and he's failed. Earlier in the thread I see there's a public protest outside parliament. I hope it / was well attended. The 'people' need to be heard on this one.

 

[Creaky]

As things stand I can understand why both Bozza and mods are nervous about potentally libellous posts.

Of course if the site had comprehensive Terms and Conditions for its use published and agreed to by posters, then like Twitter and Facebook they would not face possible action - it would be the individual poster that would be answerable for what they post as happened in the Lord McAlpine case.

I think you have to be very brave, (or daft), to be a mod on a large unregulated site like NSC.

 

[Soulman]

I am not stifling the truth at all, show me where I did that. You are breaking the forum rules and endangering the discussion. You mention names again and it's going to be banned, that is what I call stifling debate. Everyone else can discuss it without using names why do you have to be different.
You want to name names start you own discussion forum and get sued, see how that goes for you!

Have you ever run a board Martyn....have you?.....somehow i doubt it, as i stated i do know as i have. Anyway, you have your opinion and you do love to stir things up by going on about banning........that is not your call...is it.

 

[Soulman]

Go an use one of them, please!

I shall visit wherever i like Martyn. Just put me on ignore, or ask for me to be banned like you normally do with posts or posters you do not agree with.

 

[martyn20]

Have you ever run a board Martyn....have you?.....somehow i doubt it, as i stated i do know as i have. Anyway, you have your opinion and you do love to stir things up by going on about banning........that is not your call...is it.

I have been a mod on a large 'conspiracy type' board (till I realised many on there were totally tonto) and run 3 smaller boards for myself, I know exactly what it's about. You agreed the rules when you joined, everyone else, who has been making very important points in this thread, have done it without breaking the rules and naming names.
You have really important things to add to this and other threads just do it within the rules or you will have to stop, surely you can see that?

 

[martyn20]

I shall visit wherever i like Martyn. Just put me on ignore, or ask for me to be banned like you normally do with posts or posters you do not agree with.

Show me one other person I asked to be banned....just one?

 

[Creaky]

I have been a mod on a large 'conspiracy type' board (till I realised many on there were totally tonto) and run 3 smaller boards for myself, I know exactly what it's about. You agreed the rules when you joined, everyone else, who has been making very important points in this thread, have done it without breaking the rules and naming names.
You have really important things to add to this and other threads just do it within the rules or you will have to stop, surely you can see that?

Where are these rules - do you have a link?

 

[Soulman]

I have been a mod on a large 'conspiracy type' board (till I realised many on there were totally tonto) and run 3 smaller boards for myself, I know exactly what it's about. You agreed the rules when you joined, everyone else, who has been making very important points in this thread, have done it without breaking the rules and naming names.
You have really important things to add to this and other threads just do it within the rules or you will have to stop, surely you can see that?

Aye aye Captain, perhaps if you had read my post above yours which stated quote: " I now except that this board is not one, nor will it do it's modding off board with a timely message in the inbox." you might have refrained from your holier than thou posts afterwards.
I shall stifle my posts, i shall post them elsewhere (thanks for the advice) and i shall try my damnedest to keep within the board rules. You can carry on being the minder for the Mods........

 

[martyn20]

Where are these rules - do you have a link?

Did you not read the rules you agreed to when you joined the forum? There is plenty of coverage in FAQ's.

 

[Creaky]

Did you not read the rules you agreed to when you joined the forum? There is plenty of coverage in FAQ's.

So there are no rules published.

 

[martyn20]

Aye aye Captain, perhaps if you had read my post above yours which stated quote: " I now except that this board is not one, nor will it do it's modding off board with a timely message in the inbox." you might have refrained from your holier than thou posts afterwards.
I shall stifle my posts, i shall post them elsewhere (thanks for the advice) and i shall try my damnedest to keep within the board rules. You can carry on being the minder for the Mods........

I am not a minder for the mods I just do not want to see this thread stopped due to posters breaking the rules. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[martyn20]

So there are no rules published.

Is that what I said? Maybe you should ask a mod, I am not one of those.

 

[Soulman]

Check the Royal thread where I am subjected to a sweary public telling off. As I've said in that thread a simple PM would have sufficed.

This was in the "How a Moderator works"
"When infra Fiona happen the matter stays between the moderator and the user - nothing is published in public and nothing appears in our moderating decisions forum. So don't assume because there is nothing visible on NSC that no action has been taken - it might well have been. So far the infraction system seems to be working well and there are few repeat offenders."

So no inbox message, and editing/changing a post on the forum......is hardly between "the moderator and the user"....is it.

 

[Creaky]

Is that what I said? Maybe you should ask a mod, I am not one of those.

No but you refer to "rules" -

"due to posters breaking the rules"

- that aren't published anywhere except for one general opt out sentence only visible when you first register.

 

[Soulman]

Is that what I said? Maybe you should ask a mod, I am not one of those.

Yep, you said.
"I am not stifling the truth at all, show me where I did that. You are breaking the forum rules and endangering the discussion. You mention names again and it's going to be banned, that is what I call stifling debate. Everyone else can discuss it without using names why do you have to be different.
You want to name names start you own discussion forum and get sued, see how that goes for you!"
Libelous eh