Ward-Minter

[scuzzball]

Can I suggest you ban him. People get banned for being rude and offensive about individuals. W-M is regularly offensive about whole groups of people (for example see his recent comments about muslims - all muslims not just a minority), yet gets away with it.

[january_bug]

Cor Ed - working late eh?

Just as an honest question, if a user gets reported a certain number of times, do you ban them? If so, will you reveal that number? (I appreciate that it's all at your discretion and that you may feel that even giving a rule of thumb would be inviting trouble!).

To put my own 2p-worth in on the thread, I would say that I suspect that the reason WHY people "name-and-shame" is because they wish to express their frustration that something/someone that they have repeatedly found to be offensive is STILL on the site. I appreciate that the Editing team may (no doubt DO) have their reasons, but people still get frustrated.

On the Abu Hamza issue, surely a better parallel would be if a hypothetical user posted "Death to the West" type sentiments on the site, rather than expressed these ideas through preaching in and around Mosques. If someone suggested, for example, that they think that the London bombings were a good thing as Westerners deserve to die as a consequence of, say, actions in Iraq, I would see that as something, which Ed would/should remove. That's not the same as Abu Hamza though - simply in the sense that the context/medium of the message is different.

Finally, I will again reiterate that it is sometimes VERY frustrating to see offensive comments coming frequently from the same users, with the only solution suggested being to "send me an url and I'll deal with it". Whilst this is practical, it does seem a rather detached/cold way of dealing with something that has clearly upset the user who is choosing to report. If users complain with a passion, it seems that they arguably deserve a little bit more of an energetic response from Ed (although as usual, I'm sure resources simply don't allow time for this!).

Right - that was more like �1.50 worth - so I'll sign off now!

Buggy

x

[smudge]

In total agreement with the Ed regarding naming & shaming any one individual on here. Either press the Report button, or e-mail AB.

If W-M had the chance to re-read his post, I'm sure he'll realise why certain people were put out by those particular comments. It's very easy to get out of your pram & post things you later regret & I'm sure some of us have been responsible for doing just that at one time or another!

[january_bug]

I quite agree Smudge, but I also think that W-M is an intelligent individual, and there is no reason to think that his posts are not well thought out and, dare I say it, perhaps even calculated to get such a response!?

[smudge]

I also think W-M is an intelligent person january_bug.

As I said, I agree with a lot of his sentiments & understand his anger over the issues raised, but that one particular post wasn't appropriate for this site.

[january_bug]

Then we totally agree! :-)

[bernardo]

Ward-Minter is a hilarious, entertaining and satirical wind-up merchant. The whole purpose of this website is to keep people dull, bored and miserable, and therefore he must be banned at once. Entertaining people with witty and clever answers like his should not be allowed.

[jno]

bernardo, I found the post in question repellent. It doesn't really matter whether the writer's tongue was in his cheek; the question, I think, is whether you'd want your child to see it, even if your child had the requisite sense of, ah, humour. Do you think this is the wrong approach?

[Drisgirl]

jno - its not there anymore and if it had just been reported instead of debating it - it would have been deleted pronto.

What about WM's recent post re what makes Britain Great.Didnt see that mentioned.Too much double standards on AB - oh - this is a family site so we all must adhere to the fact that children might read something unsavoury.Well I think the parents should be supervising what they are looking up on the internet and they should be the nannies - not us.I have seen some saucy comments from the very people who complain constantly about it being a family site.So we cant respond as adults now as there maybe a child reading the post.C'mon...

[jno]

hi Drisgirl... dunno if you're a parent. I am. Yes, I know I should be standing guard over my family 24/7; every responsible parent knows this. They also know it's impossible. They have to rely on the help of society at large. This means schools don't hire paedophiles, the media stop trying to persuade every 12-year-old that it's cool to be sexually active, and websites keep violent sexual fantasies off public forums.

It isn't just that kids might happen to come across AB; it's actually intended as the sort of sites kids might enjoy reading and asking about homework on. That's fine by me, I think it's great, there should be more. It's not intended as an adult site. There are lots of those people can go to if they want, and that's also fine by me. But please allow a few websites to exist that might actually function as family sites. The British so often seem to hate kids and resent having to make allowances for them - I don't know why; I've never seen anything like it in other countries. But please don't be outraged that people are asked, on this one site, to moderate their language for the sake of children.

[scuzzball]

The reson why I highlighted this individual is because he regularly posts calculated and offensive remarks. I know that people are completely banned from this site for immature, childish and offensive comments about individuals or individual posts, yet he gets away with it.

He is intelligent and yes much of what he says is ironic, but at the core there is a degree of offensivenes that I think unacceptable and that contravenes the rules of this site.

[smudge]

My sentiments entirely jno.

[netibiza]

Well said jno wish I was more erudite. I will stop beating you up "at home" now.