Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another issue that nobody seems to have considered is the Bosman ruling in the European Court of Justice. In this and other cases the European Court holds precident. Does that precident continue after Brexit?
lindanesocialist wrote:A branch is not divided by holding different opinions but I appreciate I shouldn't have used the word 'divided' , I appreciate your comments re video SP Can anyone confirm if the party is open to prosecution re my post 204 above?as far as I'm aware, copyright matters are usually a civil law issue and only rarely have criminal consequences
Perhaps a sensible way forward would be to set up a working party to produce a brief for the AV committee 9and perhaps the SSPC) with regards to the use of materials used in videos, the SS, etc.Or better still pay a professional organisation to come in and give us a full brief of what we can do, what we can't, where we should apply for permission, etc. (I am sure there are companies who have these ready as off the shelf documents). If we ensure that these service providers are fully competent and have full liability insurance. That way, if we follow their guidance and something crops up, then we have fall back to the liability insurnace provided by company that gave us the guidance. That might be a far better approach than relying on our own interepretation of the legal situation.
Well I've got to say mate , if the one on the right is your sister in law, any chance of an introduction "ding bloody dong". If she played her cards right she could be the future Mrs Kilgallon.
lindanesocialist wrote:He is referring to this account as being a sockpuppet , referring to vin and myself as trolls. He is bringing into question the intergrity both of us. His own post OP is by his own definition 'trolling' and it is a technique he uses to avoid direct reference to a member., while launching an attack. He is attempting to sow discord and provoke an emotional response, in this case he is the troll.In no way can this account set up be described as a 'sockpuppet' . Both Vin and I attended online branch meetings and everyone is/was aware of what is going on. Indeed member encouraged it: SP ALB, TIM etc A member of the party arguing for change should not be referred to as a troll.Bill Martin should withdraw his implied attack on the two members's integrity or be suspended from the forum.Vin and LindaI've got to say Linda & Vin, if YMS is having a pop at you, which is by no means certain. You can't really complain (neither could I if I felt it was directed to me, by the way). If you are prepared to use sarcasm you can't really complain when it comes back your way. YFSTim
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:By default if not be design the "truth" of any particular scientific theory is likely to be a matter of interest and concern to only a small minority though one or two meta-theories might well attract wider interest. Lets be honest anf frank about this.Honest and frank?You might as well say to any workers just starting to take an interest in socialism, science, and its possibilities, 'Fuck off, thickoes, and leave it all to your betters!'That would be 'honest and frank' about robbo's political views.
Off you go again using sophisms and fallacy to back up your argument. Robbo clearly isn't saying that any worker taking an interest in Socialism, science and it's possibilities might as well be told to fuck off. What he iaying is that it is likely that many areas of science are likely to be of little interest to many people. A classic example of your use of the straw man fallacy. You have asked on a previous thread why I don't engage with you seriously, here lies your answer, your repeated use of fallacious logic, time and time again.Incidentally as part of a degree I was taking I was required to undertake a study of holly leaf miners. they are the larvae of Agromyzidae flies and feed exclusively on holly leaves. there are various theories about their life cycle, and I must say after several months of studying these larvae, I couldn't give a flying fuck about them, the flies they become and any theory as to their existance. In a socialist society I can't imagine a situation where I could give a toss about them either, I'm fairly sure that many millions, if not billions have a similar view of the holly leaf miner. I fear many abstentions in your science referenda.
Hi StephenNot a problem and I accept that at times my sarcstic approach can be annoying. As a child Cde Kilgallon senior used to say to me "If you can't think of anything nice to say don't say anything at all", which was ususally followed by several weeks of complete silence on my behalf, whilst I desperately tried to think of something nice to say.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?This issue is being addressed, Tim. It has not been neglected. As a union negotiator, you know you wait until the negotiations are finished before presenting them. You also know, they are rarely speedy.
To be fair Alan, I wasn't asking that question as part of negotiation process, I was asking a straight question, which is would you have accepted that process or would you have objected to it , it really is a yes or no question.
SocialistPunk wrote:Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.Tim Kilgallon wrote:As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago.
StephenWhat you actually said was and what I object to was that "Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it."I have demonstrated clearly that I haven't just make sarcastic comments, and that in the past, contrary to what you have posted, I have made contributions which pointed out where I think you have gone terribly wrong and made suggestions about how I think the mods could have hamdled the situation better. So I ask again, are you, as you are keen to get others to do, willing to withdraw that remark?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have referred to it in a previous message but i will repeat it…the present moderators are discussing proposed amendments to the guidelines and as i have already indicated one of the difficulties in designing a guideline fit for purpose. There are others which we are addressingThe moderators are subject to a process by being a SUB-committee and that EC approval is also required for new guidelines to be adopted. My suggestion that we act as benevolent dictators was fortunately for the forum users not accepted.I suggest some patience. Unsubstantiated speculation about what amounts to, imho, a shadow EC operating via the IC is damaging to the Party's reputation and will not bring forth many new members. Members should be prudent in the way they express themselves.Hi Alan, I asked a question in a previous post, which I think kind of got lost in the deluge of posts, but I'll pose it again.As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?
SocialistPunk wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it.
You state that I just come out with sarcastic comments, however I believe you read my contribution #58, as you replied to it. But just in case, here it is again:"I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a separate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB"I have also pointed out previously that I think that in line with common dispute review procedures, Mod 1 should not have taken part in the review. I have made the point that the use of the term contrition (which still keeps cropping up) was unnecessary. I have also posted on several occasions that I think the idea of an indefinite suspension was too strong a response to Vin's behaviour, behaviour which I have also publicly and privately criticised.I have clearly not "just come out with sarcastic comments". I have come out with some comments that are critical, some that are constructive and some that are sarcastic.In line with your comments asking other poster to back up what they are saying or withdraw it and in the light of the above, will you withdraw your comment that I "just come out with sarcastic comments"? Or does that principle only apply to others and not yourself? (N.B contrition not required)
