censorship here

opinionated · 11-03-2005, 09:54 AM

There is censorship on this and other topics. Yesterday I had a message dumped because I critised Springer as a person of another religion criticising Christianity.

Apparently we are allowed to mention the Springer's faith and how they always bash Christians

UKIP engaging in the same nonsense as the major parties. There is more democracy at the BNP site!

OB

mkpdavies · 11-03-2005, 09:59 AM

Didn't see it so I don't know what you are talking about.

mkpdavies · 11-03-2005, 10:25 AM

How did you have a message dumped yesterday, when you only just joined today?

opinionated · 11-03-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

How did you have a message dumped yesterday, when you only just joined today?

Well it's glaringly obvious as I am the same person! As you are a site administrator, paerhaps you may be courteuos enough to supply a reason why messages are changed as well as people dumped when they have not breached any laws!

OB

mkpdavies · 11-03-2005, 10:33 AM

I didn't delete or remove any posts, nor did I ban anyone. I also have no idea who you posted as before, as I didn't see it.

I haven't any editing going on at all recently, so Anthony is the best person to explain why, if he did ban you/delete a post.

Amazing tollerance is shown normaly, so I won't comment any further until I know some more facts.

opinionated · 11-03-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I didn't delete or remove any posts, nor did I ban anyone. I also have no idea who you posted as before, as I didn't see it.

I haven't any editing going on at all recently, so Anthony is the best person to explain why, if he did ban you/delete a post.

Amazing tollerance is shown normaly, so I won't comment any further until I know some more facts.

I was dumped and a message was not displayed, that's why you didn't see it. It was intercepted.

It was a straight to the point message, but the historical truth. One post was dispaleyd in part! I suspect mr Butcher!

Thanks for you're reply, it's appreciated!

TomPhil · 11-03-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opinionated

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

How did you have a message dumped yesterday, when you only just joined today?

Well it's glaringly obvious as I am the same person! OB

Why would you register twice?

C_steam · 11-03-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

I suspect mr Butcher!

In the library with the candlestick.....................

Aardvark · 12-03-2005, 10:36 AM

'Historical truth'????

I didn't see the message so perhaps shouldn't comment, but your first post about 'Springer' and religion etc gives one a clue.

The fact that you state that things appear better on the BNP site is also a clue as to where you do some of your reading.

This site is monitored by those who do not have UKIP's best interest at heart.

I don't subscribe to any party, but I did deliver UKIP leaflets during the Euro election campaign.

I follow this site and it is clearly important that race and religion arguments don't degenerate. UKIP is trying to win votes from all sections of the community - black, white, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian and Muslim alike. The people who post here are clearly from a mix of backgrounds. Even the immigration issue, which is not about race and religion per se, but is more about numbers and the capacity of a host culture to survive uncontrolled flows that are not fairly regulated is up for grabs. The key issue for UKIP is sovereignty not race or religion.

Some parties state things as historical 'facts' and distort them to their advantage to attack social and political groups. There are for instance myths that have become fact - King John was a bad king if you read what the monks and Barons had to say; King John was a good king in that unlike his brother, who is 'lionised', he stayed in England and introduced Jewish money lenders to free up an economy stifled by the church and bankupted by the ransome paid to release Richard I from prison.

I don't know what your fact was, but if it had to do with Jews and Christians I suspect that it is disputed by historians, religious and political groups and could have been seen as divisive. Possibly it could have brought opprobrium on this site and the good people who post here.

I am very careful about words such as censorship since they reflect on the way we live our lives, but we have restrictions on freedom of speech - libel, slander, malicious falsehood, blasphemy, Official Secrets Act, court orders banning publication of certain facts, 20/30/50 year rules on documents, 100 year rules on the census, sub judice and the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act etc.

'I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it' is an aphorism that we all know, but your right to say something is not a duty for every private individual, newspaper or website to give you a platform. You may state your historical 'fact', it is just that the moderators here might think that it is best stated on the BNP website. The BNP are welcome to their site, I ignore it by choice. I looked at 'blackchat' the other day and I also looked at a 'Fatwa bank', I didn't agree with a lot of views expressed so I know where not to go if I don't want to be offended.

I am fortunate to have studied history at a high level and both of my degrees had a historical element to them. I also did a lot of Roman history when I studied Latin. I have lived and worked abroad and have been to some 50 countries as varied as Belize, Brunei and Belgium. I have also worked in Israel and Palestine. Everybody's world view is different and so is everybody's view of history. One man's fact is another man's gross distortion - the Vatican invented propaganda, Hitler used the big lie, Stalin intellectually was off with the fairies and listening to the world view of the most fanatical settlers in Israel would make a Reformed Rabbi weep. Your post may well have been removed. Your ID might even have been deleted. This is a privately owned site and the owners/moderators are free to do that.

It's like cricket, you play by the rules and when you are out you walk (unless your name is Ashley Mote).

11-03-2005, 09:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
opinionated Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 111	censorship here There is censorship on this and other topics. Yesterday I had a message dumped because I critised Springer as a person of another religion criticising Christianity. Apparently we are allowed to mention the Springer's faith and how they always bash Christians UKIP engaging in the same nonsense as the major parties. There is more democracy at the BNP site! OB

11-03-2005, 09:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,083 Party: Libertarian Party	Didn't see it so I don't know what you are talking about. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

11-03-2005, 10:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,083 Party: Libertarian Party	How did you have a message dumped yesterday, when you only just joined today? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

11-03-2005, 10:33 AM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,083 Party: Libertarian Party	I didn't delete or remove any posts, nor did I ban anyone. I also have no idea who you posted as before, as I didn't see it. I haven't any editing going on at all recently, so Anthony is the best person to explain why, if he did ban you/delete a post. Amazing tollerance is shown normaly, so I won't comment any further until I know some more facts. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-03-2005, 10:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,974	'Historical truth'???? I didn't see the message so perhaps shouldn't comment, but your first post about 'Springer' and religion etc gives one a clue. The fact that you state that things appear better on the BNP site is also a clue as to where you do some of your reading. This site is monitored by those who do not have UKIP's best interest at heart. I don't subscribe to any party, but I did deliver UKIP leaflets during the Euro election campaign. I follow this site and it is clearly important that race and religion arguments don't degenerate. UKIP is trying to win votes from all sections of the community - black, white, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian and Muslim alike. The people who post here are clearly from a mix of backgrounds. Even the immigration issue, which is not about race and religion per se, but is more about numbers and the capacity of a host culture to survive uncontrolled flows that are not fairly regulated is up for grabs. The key issue for UKIP is sovereignty not race or religion. Some parties state things as historical 'facts' and distort them to their advantage to attack social and political groups. There are for instance myths that have become fact - King John was a bad king if you read what the monks and Barons had to say; King John was a good king in that unlike his brother, who is 'lionised', he stayed in England and introduced Jewish money lenders to free up an economy stifled by the church and bankupted by the ransome paid to release Richard I from prison. I don't know what your fact was, but if it had to do with Jews and Christians I suspect that it is disputed by historians, religious and political groups and could have been seen as divisive. Possibly it could have brought opprobrium on this site and the good people who post here. I am very careful about words such as censorship since they reflect on the way we live our lives, but we have restrictions on freedom of speech - libel, slander, malicious falsehood, blasphemy, Official Secrets Act, court orders banning publication of certain facts, 20/30/50 year rules on documents, 100 year rules on the census, sub judice and the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act etc. 'I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it' is an aphorism that we all know, but your right to say something is not a duty for every private individual, newspaper or website to give you a platform. You may state your historical 'fact', it is just that the moderators here might think that it is best stated on the BNP website. The BNP are welcome to their site, I ignore it by choice. I looked at 'blackchat' the other day and I also looked at a 'Fatwa bank', I didn't agree with a lot of views expressed so I know where not to go if I don't want to be offended. I am fortunate to have studied history at a high level and both of my degrees had a historical element to them. I also did a lot of Roman history when I studied Latin. I have lived and worked abroad and have been to some 50 countries as varied as Belize, Brunei and Belgium. I have also worked in Israel and Palestine. Everybody's world view is different and so is everybody's view of history. One man's fact is another man's gross distortion - the Vatican invented propaganda, Hitler used the big lie, Stalin intellectually was off with the fairies and listening to the world view of the most fanatical settlers in Israel would make a Reformed Rabbi weep. Your post may well have been removed. Your ID might even have been deleted. This is a privately owned site and the owners/moderators are free to do that. It's like cricket, you play by the rules and when you are out you walk (unless your name is Ashley Mote).