Sunday, April 13, 2008

Comments policy on this blog

This blog is meant to be capable of being read by a family audience. I will not accept profanity on it, and neither will I accept libellous comments.

I have only deleted about three comments from visitors to the site in the three years this blog has been in existence, including the one I removed today. I don't accept that blocking an average of one comment a year can be described as intolerance of disagreement.

Nevertheless, I want to reiterate my policy on comments, which is

1) Any post which contains profanity is likely to be deleted.

2) Any post which I consider potentially libellous will be deleted.

3) Posts which do not break either of the above rules and which are signed will usually be left up even if I strongly disagree with them, though of course I will normally post a reply

4) However, I reserve the right to delete posts which I consider to make unfair attacks on anyone, and I am particularly likely to delete such posts if the authors do not have the guts to sign their names.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Whiteside said...

The two posts above made a number of criticisms of the Chief Executive of Copeland Council and challenged me to delete them if I found them to be in breach of the comments policy above.

In my view some of the wording of both posts crossed the line between robust but legal discussion and what would put me, rather than the author, at risk of a libel action. I have therefore deleted them.

However, I am not trying to shut down criticism of myself or anyone else associated with the council provided that it is expressed in a lawful and reasonable way. So here are a couple of extracts from the comments which I deleted which explains what this is about.

The author of the comment wrote:

"In March 2008 I received a letter from the Deputy Regional Director at the GONW. Among other things it states "the Chief Executive [of Copeland BC Mr Liam Murphy] has assured me that he has advised you of what is happening with this case."

He adds that he has "received no such assurances from Mr Murphy or the Council, of course ‘the assurances’ could have been lost in the post.

To put my mind at rest I made a Freedom of Information Request on Mr Murphy asking for copies of all such assurance."

The due date for response to the FOI requests is 22nd April.