I am being asked again why certain contributions have been deleted. I have explained before the posting policy.
I delete references to external sites which I have not read or do not know, or delete the whole post if it depends on them.
I delete posts which make unpleasant or inaccurate generalisations about named groups of people, and or references to individuals or named institutions which might be libellous or hurtful to those people.
Long posts are likely to be delayed as I am very busy and need to find additional time to read and moderate them.
I offer similar protection to all political parties and political leaders, and allow more latitude in criticising all of them including the Conservatives than in the case of other people and institutions.
17 Comments
Comments are closed.
December 13, 2014
OK
December 13, 2014
Your gaff, your rules.
December 13, 2014
“Words,as a Tartar’s bow,do shoot back upon the understanding of the wisest,and mightily entangle and pervert the judgement.”(Bacon)
December 13, 2014
Thank you for providing this site at your expense. It is a real contribution to libertarian democratic debate and your posts so often explain complex situations in a clear an understandable way.
December 13, 2014
I wish the BBC would also offer such an appropriate and rigorous management of the responses to their news items. Well done.
December 13, 2014
You have still failed to address my question about Dan Hannan and Richard North’s comments. Surely you have some awareness of Richard North? He did write a book about the EU which you might have read. I hesitate to link to his website for fear of having this comment deleted too. He raises a valid point about the mechanism by which Dan Hannan suggests a renegotiation could be initiated and I would be interested to know your view.
December 14, 2014
Fair and reasonable justification, but perhaps you need to add to the list that drawing attention to your leader’s sometimes dubious, but proven, associations with certain controversial groups may lead to embarrassment and will therefore also be deleted.
Reply I afford Mr Cameron the same protection as Labour or UKIP people where I do not know the veracity of a specific allegation.
December 14, 2014
John, I would have thought that everyone would understand your sensible position on deciding which blogs are published on your site. On the odd occasion that one of my texts have not appeared I do not ever question your decision but instead look critically at my comments and can, usually, guess the reason – such as I am perhaps adding nothing to the argument, am off topic maybe almost irrelevant to the topic. Please carry on the good work!
December 14, 2014
Thanks for letting us express our frustrations on politicians. It would be horrible if the right were to be taken away and would make some of us even more grumpy than we are already. When contributors manage to make fair and informed points, this must also be helpful to the politicians who are not to blame for the sometimes damaging policies. When the debate becomes heated, it is better to be had in writing as both sides can be heard and have time to respond. The deletion or editing of words often is a relief, as sometimes the first entry may have been too impolite or possibly libellous. It is a pity you do not have time to correct the grammar too.
December 14, 2014
I agree with Stred – thanks for giving us this forum to discuss topical issues, I think you are extremely fair in allowing people to make statements on behalf of opposing political parties and criticising your own party leadership. I feel blogs like this are a key part of a modern democracy.
December 14, 2014
I repeat what I have suggested before – responders should be allowed one contribution to the topic and one reply . Allowing the blog to become the means by which they continuously reply to each other is boring and adds no substance to the topic .
I quite agree that the rules governing responses are under your control and you have every right to include or exclude whatever you think proper . I enjoy the blog and look forward to it every day ; if you moderate me out I don’t like it but I accept your judgement .
December 16, 2014
I agree,
Such a limitation per topic might get some more focussed contributions, and so not waste our time as well as John’s.
December 18, 2014
This is a democratic site and to have no sort of debate between contributors would diminish it’s powerful position.
December 14, 2014
The definition of ‘hurtful’ language could pretty much encompass anything depending on the sensitivity of the individual concerned. It’s seems like a catch all policy to ban any comment that isn’t politically correct. If i want to read PC opinion I can always go and read the Guardian.
I do think Mr Redwood is tieing himself up in knots here – there is always the suspicion the policy is in place purely as a tool to suppress inconvenient facts or opinions.
For example I included a link to a news item from a BBC website from the 90’s that detailed the many tax increases that the Conservative Major government was making.
The comment was deleted – who was being ‘hurt’ here ?..It’s a BBC website so how ‘inaccurate’ can that be ?
By definition anyone could claim to have been hurt simply as their views had been challenged. No doubt Mr Redwood may disagree with my views and by defintion find them ‘inaccurate’. In effect Mr Redwood policy is to put a filter in place that only permits a menu of pre approved opinions that fit with his narrative.
Reply It was not clear it was a BBC website and when I tried to check it out the link did not work. Do not use links as it makes deletion more likely. I do not censor comments that are anti Conservative as any reader can see.
December 18, 2014
I do not have a lot of new information to add to this blog site and my own position is one of attempting to gain more insight into economics and politics, but from an ethical point of view it would seem fairly obvious what hurts another, whether they admit to a particular sensitivity or not.If some in anger can get away with it and repetitively say the same silly things, the transparency of the comment is often quietly satirised.There are many who have a lot to offer though; even those who seem to be utterly frustrated and wildly express themselves are interested parties. They could simply not bother.
December 14, 2014
John, I know I’ve said it before but I’d like to thank you, once again, for having the courage to continue to print most of our comments and to be on hand to put your side. You do seem to take more than your fair share of flack on behalf of politicians in general, and your leader in particular, but that is the downside of having such a popular blog – particularly one not managed/censored by a third party!
Our country is going through such drastic changes and we are getting a say only once every five years, so the frustration is growing and this is reflected in your blog. As difficult as it may be at times, the limitations you impose have to be respected.
It’s a pity more MPs aren’t like you – most aren’t even willing to respond to their own constituents’ concerns, let alone invite comments from all and sundry.
December 14, 2014
Your site, your choice.
In the mainstream media I often try to understand it as with the way one is supposed to read a Russian novel: it is what it does NOT say which is most important.
I find the British literary tradition of understatement interesting too. No-one seems to have fully explored why this tradition started and why it continues in some small degree: understatement as a tool has its limitations.
But whilst a most humble, ever so humble writer…a blogger or one-man publisher online has to watch his ps and qs much more than his equivalent one hundred and one years ago it does point refreshingly to the now much enhanced power of the Word.
It also points to the reality that whilst the attention of various interested parties are concentrated on computer screens their attention is proportionately neglecting off-line methods of expression.