« Previous | Main | Next »

I said it before

Nick Robinson | 20:47 UK time, Monday, 13 October 2008

42-days is dead.

After tonight's vote in the Lords and climbdown in the Commons, I refer you to the answer I gave some days ago.

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 9:06pm on 13 Oct 2008, delminister wrote:
all i can say is we are lucky chairman brown allowed one of his pet projects to be dropped.
what fool knighted mandelson? it seems standards are at an all time low under this government.
if only the people were allowed to elect a government that would represent the people.
well i am pleased the parliment act was not used to see the 42 day bill through.

Complain about this comment
2. At 9:14pm on 13 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
The government and authorities could've been sharper with the policy and presentation but the usual ideologues and vested interests share some of the responsibility for its failure. I'm looking at the hard left living in the past and the opposition for oppositions sake brigade on the other side of the house.

Still, reverse gear is another way of going forwards. By dropping the bill the target of opportunity is taken away. The glittering prize that caused so many eyes to blaze with opportunism and recrimination has disappeared *thwup* into thin air. Any victory is merely transitory: just another dream. This is a little subtle but may just have done the government a favour in some ways.

May you get what you wish for, etcetera.

Complain about this comment
3. At 9:15pm on 13 Oct 2008, solpugid wrote:
Sorry Nick, but this was predictable in June, nothing in my opinion to do with Mandelson or banks or Fannie Mae et al but all to do with the way we do things in this country. Narrow majority in the House, stuck in the Lords', gets dropped. Old as the hills.

Mind you I'm a bit surprised that they're not pushing it, what with Gordon's financial management making a big noise today across the pond. But then, has the Home Office (as was) survived New Labour as anything at all? Evidently not.

Complain about this comment
4. At 9:17pm on 13 Oct 2008, Stormontspy wrote:
Nick,
Why do you not tell us that in 1986 you spent a year as national chairman of the Young Conservatives? Are you prepared to tell us and make a statement? How as a Journalist can you be neutral?

Complain about this comment
5. At 9:19pm on 13 Oct 2008, solpugid wrote:
"what fool knighted mandelson?"

Did anyone?

Did I miss something?

Complain about this comment
6. At 9:22pm on 13 Oct 2008, Only jocking wrote:
All Gordon needs now is a terrorist incident to add to the financial crisis.

Just imagine - "I led the world" on the banking issue added to "I warned the country" on the 42 days"

What's a couple of national calamaties against a decisive boost to GB's personal position ?

Complain about this comment
7. At 9:25pm on 13 Oct 2008, Stormontspy wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
8. At 9:44pm on 13 Oct 2008, King_Athelstan wrote:
Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile, the official reviewer of terror laws has been quoted as saying this law would only affect "maximum maybe of five or six people in the next four or five years"

Are these figures correct? Or are we having the wool pulled over our eyes?

All this who-ha over 5 or 6 people? I just can't shake the feeling that my BS detector has gone crazy, anyone else think this sounds suspect? (No pun intended!)

Complain about this comment
9. At 9:44pm on 13 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
10. At 9:48pm on 13 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Now that they have dropped the 42 day debacle I wonder when we can be given a full Prime Ministerial statement on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. To parliament, so that we can hear the cunning plan for admitting our retreat and total abject defeat. You think I'm joking, we are being prepared for the inevitable, look at the Prisoners Dilemma, who will blink first, America or Team GB.

Now all they also have to sort out with the sisterhood is the contentious issue of the Human Embryo Bill, some of haven't forgotten that little gem.

Complain about this comment
11. At 9:55pm on 13 Oct 2008, King_Athelstan wrote:
@2 Charles_E_Hardwidge

Charles you have outdone yourself this time, "reverse gear is another way of going forwards".

What a fabulous example of doublespeak, bravo!

Complain about this comment
12. At 10:01pm on 13 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
4. Stormontspy

Actually I was asked when I went to an interview at the House of Commons if I had any affiliation to any political party. I said "no" but then added "well I was a member of the YC's once but just for the social scene". The interviewers visibly stiffened and their spokesman said quite sternly "well you would have to sever any connection s with any political party before you worked here".

YC's are for the under-30s. Nick will have left them years ago!

I don't think Nick is biased. He is an excellent reporter with quite a unique style. He manages to elicit some useful and informative responses from politicians.

42 days? Maybe its a political thing on Brown's part. Or it could be connected to the great scheme of events he is trying to pull off. I won't keep repeating it.

Complain about this comment
13. At 10:18pm on 13 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
42 days detention for terror suspects? How cruel. Still, some of them at the end of this ordeal will find themselves housed, not by Her Majesty's pleasure in one of our grotty prisons, but at the tax payers expense in expensive, private housing.

Complain about this comment
14. At 10:19pm on 13 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile, the official reviewer of terror laws has been quoted as saying this law would only affect "maximum maybe of five or six people in the next four or five years"

This sounds reasonable. I can imagine scenarios where that figure would be a lot higher. If the government really wanted to I can also imagine ways in which existing law could be used to lock people up without trial for a lot longer.

Personally, I just think people have given in to cliche and irrational fear. Britain can be strongly anti-intellectual, disorganised, and can't look beyond its own nose, so for a precise and forward thinking bill like this to be cut down is no surprise.

One hesitates to think how many balding overweight nylon football shirt wearing manchilds or We Care For You Give Us Your Charity Cash Ltd's will wrench their arms of the chair reading comments like that. But, they know who they are.

Complain about this comment
15. At 10:21pm on 13 Oct 2008, runskippyrun wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
16. At 10:22pm on 13 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
9. , T A Griffin (TAG)

Agree completely. Just one thing, how did this get past the terrible censors? It may upset some delicate luvvies, so bets on for how long this post remains!

Complain about this comment
17. At 10:26pm on 13 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
It was always a non-starter. Britain already has the longest period of detention without charge in the world. It was only Brown's arrogance that kept the debate going. Neither the security chiefs nor the police wanted this latest proposal which everyone agreed was totally unworkable.

But while on the subject of combatting terrorism, I was appalled by the video being shown by the BBC where a would-be suicide bomber explains her intentions. She says "The Jews are scared when we just throw stones. Imagine what happens when body parts fly at them."

What on earth is the BBC doing giving a platform to terrorists to 'justify' their actions? Why is airtime being given to someone to express their racial hatred? This is grossly offensive.

Considering that the BBC is watched all around the world, this clip would seem to be aiding and abetting terrorism.

Shame on you!

Complain about this comment
18. At 10:29pm on 13 Oct 2008, youngJohnmurray wrote:
Now that the banks are being nationalised to save the bankers how about The energy companies bing nationalised to protect th public? J.Bell

Complain about this comment
19. At 10:30pm on 13 Oct 2008, 02DhandeP wrote:
Nice - although we all knew it was headed that way anyway.

Complain about this comment
20. At 10:35pm on 13 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
WOOHOOO!

Complain about this comment
21. At 10:40pm on 13 Oct 2008, U11769947 wrote:
#12

Hark, the young conservative,
with a strong objection to "tough on crime"
law.

Beware the prophet, offering false prophecies!

Tell us! does William Hague have a soft spot for crime.......................??????

Complain about this comment
22. At 10:40pm on 13 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
In the party of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Complain about this comment
23. At 10:41pm on 13 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

Charles you have outdone yourself this time, "reverse gear is another way of going forwards".

What a fabulous example of doublespeak, bravo!

It's Chinese Doaist thinking.

The Anglo-Saxon mentality is used to banging heads, but this focus only invests effort in banging heads while the real solutions and situations are neglected. By backing off, or taking the 'low road', one works within ones limits and within what is possible. Thus, success happens more naturally.

The hardliners in here don't get this, which is why they're balls to the wall all the time. But, this is just revealing their character and twisting it in bad ways. It is a magnificient display of bad form and attitude, if you like that sort of thing. Personally, I've found it to be a niche market.

I've been commenting on this for the past year, and it's interesting to see how the main parties have split along Yin and Yang lines. Savvy marketers know this and how the Tory party is steadily painting itself into a tighter corner.

TAG's comments are just hammering lots of tiny nails into the Tory coffin but he doesn't get this. He just sees feeding the cycle of hate and not how it undermines and reflects on his own performance and that of his pals: a gift not accepted is a gift to oneself.

Complain about this comment
24. At 10:43pm on 13 Oct 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
Very many thanks to all those vested interest groups that share some of the responsibility for its failure

And of course a big thank you to the upper house for such a decisive No.

Complain about this comment
25. At 10:51pm on 13 Oct 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
He wants to be known as “plain Lord Mandelson

Was there ever a more nauseating ceremony.

Shameful

Complain about this comment
26. At 10:57pm on 13 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 14

Reasonable, of course; I mean it's not as if Labour have a track record of misusing terror laws, do they?

*cough* Walter Wolfgang *cough*

Complain about this comment
27. At 11:05pm on 13 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
17. DistantTraveller

As a long-time viewer of BBC Middle East news reports, it has always been obvious that the BBC will not tolerate racial discrimination nor will it encourage terrorism. Unfortunately, however, they appear to have a mandate to allow excesses by Moslem extremists which would be completely unacceptable if they were demonstrated by Jews, Christians, Hindus or other people. The BBC have a number of veteran reporters who delight in giving the terrorists a platform to spew forth their messages of hate. Sad, but it is a fact.

Complain about this comment
28. At 11:07pm on 13 Oct 2008, NorthernThatcherite wrote:
All Gordon wants to do is stoke up a mega boom before the next election hence:-

1. Mega borrowing to prop up the banks and wasteful Goverment spending.

2. Back to 2007 levels of lending and private debt creation.

3. Mega interest rate cuts.

4. No regulation reform.

and wait for it:-

5. He'll borrow billions to make TAX CUTS disguised as a stimulus package in the Pre-Budget Report.

Borrow Borrow Borrow, Spend Spend Spend. Boom Boom Boom.

The bill for all of this profilgacy goes to HM taxpayer!

Let's hope the the electorate sees through it.................a mega bribe.............

Complain about this comment
29. At 11:11pm on 13 Oct 2008, U11769947 wrote:
Didn't agree with 42 days, however, if you relate terrorist acts, as an act of war, like the type of war in Afghanistan, then what is the procedure for detaining someone, who is deemed as a prisoner of war?

Is it longer than 42 days...........
Is it as long as the war continues?

Maybe Charles has the convention (Geneva)
answer?

Complain about this comment
30. At 11:28pm on 13 Oct 2008, braveSouter wrote:
Regardless of the merits or de-merits of the proposal, it is worth remembering that it has been defeated by an unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative ermine clad clique. Are there still people in the country that think we live in a democracy?

Complain about this comment
31. At 11:35pm on 13 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Nick,

42 days is dead. Hooray!

All Icelandic bankers can breathe a sigh of relief (even though Labour would never, ever, ever abuse powers designed to fight terrorists).

The next thing we need to defeat the government on are ID Cards.........

Joe Public / Joe Six pack will be required to fund £6 billion pounds (before the estimates spiral out of control) for ID cards - whose security has already been broken by a newspaper - not that terrorists will bother applying for an ID Card in the first place.

Complain about this comment
32. At 11:35pm on 13 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
33. At 11:36pm on 13 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
25 carrots....
"..Was there ever a more nauseating ceremony."
Lord Archer of Weston Super Mare? That ceremony must have been pretty bad.

Complain about this comment
34. At 11:49pm on 13 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
22 power_to_the_ppl
"In the party of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

pfffff you are so funny!

Complain about this comment
35. At 11:56pm on 13 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
#27 warning123

You raise an in interesting point about the about the apparent one-sidedness of the reporting.

I don't wish to say anything critical of any religion because I think we must find a way to make peace and live together without hatred.

Unfortunately, the process is not helped by the BBC broadcasting inflammatory comments fueled by race hatred.

I do wonder if the comments made by the trainee suicide bomber would have been deemed acceptable by the BBC had she been talking about killing anyone other than Jews? (She mentions Jews specifically).

I really think given the volatile nature of things, showing a terrorist 'justifying' her actions could indeed act as an incitement to other extremists.

BBC News has really sunk to an all time low with this offensive clip.

Complain about this comment
36. At 00:11am on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

Didn't agree with 42 days, however, if you relate terrorist acts, as an act of war, like the type of war in Afghanistan, then what is the procedure for detaining someone, who is deemed as a prisoner of war?

The purpose of this act was to avoid more stringent measures in an extreme situation. My take is if the trigger point had been more properly focused and the procedural cruft hadn't been added, the act would've been fine. The problem was that some folks were sniffing their own gases rather than making this the best act it could've been.

I tend to respect Alex Carlile's opinion and have a few successes with lobbying on legal issues. But, beyond that this is just my opinion. I'm a software developer, so my specialism isn't law but management, marketing, analysis, systems, and a bunch of other stuff.

Maybe it's just me but I'm hoping Labour make a manifesto pledge to refactor law from the constitution on down. The whole things a pile of blah. I figure, it's in everyone's interests and will help government be more effective.

Complain about this comment
37. At 00:13am on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
38. At 03:04am on 14 Oct 2008, alanborky wrote:
Is it me being cynical, or does the dropping off this bill, (supposedly so 'crucial' to national security), demonstrate much of the motivation laying behind it was merely the need to create suitable bogeymen?

Now the world financial crisis has gone and uncovered all those 'sinisterly' selfish fat cats and bankers, (financial terrorists, if you will), the need to cow the electorate into line with Islamic bogeymen becomes redundant.

Complain about this comment
39. At 03:28am on 14 Oct 2008, Moonwolf wrote:
So with everything else you've let be put into place (DNA database, ID cards, Phorm, "Enhanced" record checks, more CCTV per head than there were KGB informants per head in the old Soviet Union, etc), you all actually think you've somehow saved democracy and the British Way of Life?

Complain about this comment
40. At 03:43am on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
Another old saying that I like. "Out of some evil comes some good." Took what little savings I've accrued after a lifetime of hard work before it vanishes, and booked a cruise for my wife and myself.
Yet another profound thought: Attlee appeared as a colourless unattractive man, yet compared to GB he was bloomin' George Clooney!

Complain about this comment
41. At 04:48am on 14 Oct 2008, PeterJ42 wrote:
The end of 42 days?

Just like the "end of boom and bust".

It'll be back...

Complain about this comment
42. At 06:50am on 14 Oct 2008, KBuck wrote:
After a consistent stream of predicting the opposite... you're NOW crowing about this!!!!!!

Shouldn't these self-congratulatory back slaps belong on you're ISP free page along with your enthralling stories of what you did in your holidays when you were a kid...?

Complain about this comment
43. At 07:57am on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
In dropping 42 days Gordon has avoided a potential "poll tax moment".

The public would surely have taken to the streets if he had tried to force that through using the parliament act.

Complain about this comment
44. At 08:09am on 14 Oct 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
42 days was only ever introduced because brown wanted a pat on the head as being 'tough' and 'decisive'.

Now that brown has got his pat on the head from various parties regarding the banking bailout, the whole bogus 42 days was irrelevant to him.

How much did this disasterous legislation cost the taxpayer in wasted parliamentry time etc??

It was just another example of how he is addicted to spending money he hasn't got (our money) to try to cheer himself up.

Given the price of his last 'fix', once he comes back down he is never going to be able to afford to be happy again - although it will probably not stop him trying - god help us.

Complain about this comment
45. At 08:13am on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
The mendacious one has been at it again:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2217311/hes-just-making-it-up-now.thtml

2010 is such a long time to wait......!

Complain about this comment
46. At 08:16am on 14 Oct 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
33. dhwilkinson

Good point and quite right, but I didnt watch that one so it didnt make me feel quite so ill.

At least he did porridge though.

Complain about this comment
47. At 08:18am on 14 Oct 2008, King_Athelstan wrote:
For me the whole 42 days issue boils down to one thing - TRUST.

If the bill was passed, I couldn't say with a good conscience that ANY party wouldn't abuse it at some point.

That the higher House of unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable stiffs had to move to block it is, frankly scandalous.

@23 Charles_E_Hardwidge

What are you talking about? It's not Chinese Doaist thinking, it's claptrap. Reserve is going forward?

Complain about this comment
48. At 08:25am on 14 Oct 2008, DrKF77 wrote:
Hardwidge, you old rogue! Still peddaling the tripe about this having been opposed and finally scuppered by 'ideologues and vested interests'? For shame, still - your hackery is premised on a wilful blindness. Those who opposed the legislation, you say above, are composed the hard left living in the past and the opposition for oppositions sake brigade on the other side of the house.

Speak to me of Lord Goldsmith (former Attorney General, who described the proposed legislation as 'not only unnecessary but also dangerous') or of Eilish Anglioni, (Labour party member and Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), of Baron Dear (cross-bench peer and former Inspector of Constabulary), or Andy Hayman (the Met's former head of counter-terrorism), or Sir Ken McDonald (Director of Public Prosecutions) - each and every one of whom has opposed this odious bill.

Are they 'the hard left living in the past' or 'the opposition for opposition's sake brigade'. I think we should be told.

I also assume you group these renegades (Tory shills all, by your account) amongst the anti-intellectual and disorganised, also above? Like the anti-intellectual and disorganised names from British literature? (42 of them, so I shan't list them all - but as an intellectual yourself, I am sure a couple of your favourite authors are in there.)

Still, as you are more than perfectly well aware, I've brought this all up before, and not once have you responded. But you have amongst the most partisan lines of anyone on this forum to push, and mustn't let facts get in the way.

As I said before, this isn't Zen - it's pure hackery.

Complain about this comment
49. At 08:27am on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
Ah good, another subject to get our teeth into.

As right wing as I am this erosion of our civil liberties just sticks in my throat. The idea of 42 days is just too long, and we do have other appropriate measures in place, as the Icelandic government found out.

Allowing this government, in particular, too many powers over us is not a good thing, and at least the House of Lords agrees.

Of course the current construction of the House of Lords is a complete dogs dinner, and the mess was created by Bliar and Brown under the old regime. At least they have their comeuppance.

Complain about this comment
50. At 08:28am on 14 Oct 2008, correctopinion wrote:
yawn yawn. 42 days?

Nick you need to get out more, stop making 42 days into the "Maastricht Treaty"

OK you where correct well done, now try using this success to see a balanced view of things, if you cant go work for sky!

Complain about this comment
51. At 08:31am on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Good that 42 days is dead (for whatever reason) but one unfortunate effect of the controversy is that it's made the status quo look reasonable whereas 28 days is, in fact, a very long time to be held by the police without charge.

I'd like to see the debate move more towards 14 days or 7 days.

Complain about this comment
52. At 08:44am on 14 Oct 2008, spirite_uk wrote:
Shame - I was looking for a little analysis on this - what does it mean for Smith and Brown's remaining credibility, for example. Instead all we get is a smug "I told you so".

Must do better.

Complain about this comment
53. At 08:51am on 14 Oct 2008, smfcbuddie wrote:
#2, CEH

Any victory is merely transitory: just another dream.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Unfortunately, this point also applies to the travesty of the original vote in the Commons when Brown wheedled his way to a win at all costs. Thwup - the Commons vote is gone into thin air.

I appreciate the fact that you are always impressing upon us the breadth and depth of your reading and your portrayal of an individual who gives great thought to what he says. However, in light of the inconsistency in your own argument, it is plain that you are merely giving vent to your own bias. I would suggest that noww is the time to think you before you speak.

In the meantime, if Nick is being outed as a former member of YCs, can we have a list of everyone in the News department of the BBC who are either current or past members (or donors) of the labour party?

All the best

Complain about this comment
54. At 08:54am on 14 Oct 2008, StrictlyPickled wrote:
Gordon Brown continues to survive on the planet credit crunch, and meanwhile back in Brown's Britain it has certainly been a good month to bury bad news.

More personal data lost by government agencies, 42 days issue effectively sideline (he only ever wanted to wrong foot the tories with that one anyway), inflation nudging 5%, house sales continue to fall .....

Complain about this comment
55. At 08:54am on 14 Oct 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:
"Regardless of the merits or de-merits of the proposal, it is worth remembering that it has been defeated by an unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative ermine clad clique. Are there still people in the country that think we live in a democracy?"

Ironically it was this "unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative ermine clad clique" that acted on behalf of the will of the people (according to all the recent polls) and defeated the un-neccessary and unworkable gimmick of 42 days detention without charge or trial. It was the elected chamber that neglected the public's will.

Complain about this comment
56. At 08:57am on 14 Oct 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:
@51, Well said sagamix, I whole heartedly agree. Britain still has the longest detention without charge or trial of any western democracy.

Complain about this comment
57. At 09:01am on 14 Oct 2008, stanilic wrote:
Funny how our enemies change.

I could vote to bang the bankers up for 42 days. I could even be asked to lose the key as well.

Terrorism: I can handle that but a credit crunch? Woo, spookey!

Complain about this comment
58. At 09:02am on 14 Oct 2008, PhaetonFlanFlinger wrote:
I guess old men heckling at Labour Conferences and the people of Iceland can breathe a sigh of relief.

It was the worst of machismo posturing dressed up as politics.

Found out and busted by the Lords.

Another line in the epitaph of 'Master of Universe' Brown.

Complain about this comment
59. At 09:05am on 14 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
37. There you have it, the REAL cause of the problems. The soft touch of this crew in "power" to allow things to go on here which we the indigenous population whose relatives fought for this country's and the world's freedom, would never ever get away with.

It's calling bending over backwards to help the underdog but in reality some councils are mostly staffed and run by foreigners who help their own. Witness Ealing councillors who put the Afghan woman in a mansion with her nine children, no husband, and shelled out £12,000 a month to them. Words fail....

No wonder morale is low among our young people and many binge drink. Obviously it is due also to excess disposable income as they wouldn't be able to afford the drink in the first place but they are also despondent because they see what is going on and they feel worthless in their own country. Don't take my word for it, just ask them!

Many a young person I speak to favours the BNP.

Complain about this comment
60. At 09:17am on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
People complaining about the ermine clad members of the upper house seems to be overlooking something.

This Labour misgovernment kicke out the bulk of the hereditary peers and appointed a bunch of "party" apparatchiks.

they have been dickering about with a new constitution for the upper house for at least 8 years now, and have nobody to blame but themselves if they haven't got the answer they were looking for.

Seems obvious to me that at least the members of the upper house haven't lost their free will, yet, and have a sense of morality, more so than the lobby fodder that currently masquerades as Labour MPs.

It was ceratinly an unedifying sight back in the summer, when absolutely no deals were being done behind closed doors to ensure that Broon got the desired majority for this iniquitous act. Much good has it done him.

Prime Ministers questions tomorrow must be a must see program.

Complain about this comment
61. At 09:18am on 14 Oct 2008, TerryNo2 wrote:
I always thought Labour's approach in relation to terrorism was driven entirely by politics, rather than public safety

When the IRA were bombing their way around London, Labour consistently voted against anti-Terror legislation, arguing that it breached human rights - even, in the face of some horrific deaths.

Complain about this comment
62. At 09:23am on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
The US elections are 20 odd days away - once Bush is removed - confidence will begin to be restored to the US markets.

Unfortunately we will still have the 'Disaster of the Universe' in place until 2010......

Once the hue and cry of the main economic disaster is over (Christmas-ish) I expect the media will have time to tackle Gordon's role in creating the mess in the first place.

Also - no doubt - the media will have time to look at all the issues the government are sweeping under the carpet whilst the economic crisis rages.

So enjoy the posing whilst it lasts Mr Brown.

Complain about this comment
63. At 09:28am on 14 Oct 2008, RobinJD wrote:
So the Master of the Universe turned out to be a master for no longer than an afternoon.

What a shame.

42 day detention is dead until a firework goes off in a sweetie shop when Gordon will announce that it's in the national interest to bring it back.

ID cards will go the same way; the tories need to mount a vigorous opposition to this and now will.

The Gordon saves the universe plan will backfire on him. he's ahd his moment in the sun but a similar scheme in Sween caused a three year recession and took GDP down 5.1%. The gross amount of aid wordlwide is 4trillion dollars; this represents 7% of global GDP that has been removed from the system to prop up the banks.

We can expect a similar contraction to global GDP and hanks to Gordon Brown's largesse; we ahve had the biggest bailout and can expect the biggest contraction.

So while the Nobel prize winners pat themselves on the back for their amazing reflation schemes; remember the guys who brought down LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) in 1998 were all Nobel prize winners too.

Nobel Schnobel - it does't make two hoots of difference who approves of Gordon's rescue package it hasn't put money in the pocket of ordinary people and it is highly likely to be taken out of his pocket in years to come in higher taxes.

Call an election please.

Complain about this comment
64. At 09:34am on 14 Oct 2008, Cardiffopinion wrote:
The result is the will of the Lords (and possibly the Commons if it had come back) so does this arrogant government accept that ? No.. they produce a bill that can be voted on in an emergency when feelings are running high .. behaving like a spoilt child who can't get what they want

Complain about this comment
65. At 09:43am on 14 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
It will be interesting to see whether certain politicians have a change of mind on this issue sometime around June 2010......

Complain about this comment
66. At 09:49am on 14 Oct 2008, youngerap wrote:
#59.

I favour the NBP and I am over fifty. For too long we have seen this country degraded by uncontrolled immigration and ridiculous 'welfare' rules - biased towards the useless immigrant.

It is long past time when we do something positive about it - starting with the repeal of the Human Rights Act (my apologies for the loss of income to the Bliar household) and the compulsory mass deportation of failed asylum seekers.

Then perhaps, we can also do something about the home-grown parasites that expect the state to pay for them and their seven kids to live in relative luxury whilst pensioners who have worked hard all their lives struggle to make ends meet. It is all wrong.

Complain about this comment
67. At 09:54am on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
65 Balhamu

I think Cardiffopinion at 64 has it bang on.

No right minded politician would force this legislation through, without being able to demonstrate it was needed (sort of reminds you when they forced through the Iraq war doesn't it?)

There will come a time when there is a new terrorist attack, and Labour have already lined themselves up to take political advantage from it. Nice.

Complain about this comment
68. At 09:55am on 14 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
#29
#36

Has nobody else noticed that there actually never seems to be anybody captured in Afghanistan. It seems to be that there are encounters where oh, let's say 50 Talebhan are killed in an encounter with British soldiers. Nobody seems to be injured, nobody captured for interrogation, just well, they died in battle.

Nothing to do with the fact that these freedom fighters are killed by American airstrikes, or Drones being operated from the safety of the back-office. Not true, I hear the usual culprits, well just look at footage of brave Prince Harry, with his joystick authorising an air strike. How brave is that, 'we do bad things to bad people' was that not on the cap he wore.

The day of retribution is fast approaching where like so many before our occupation we have to retreat, just like every instance in the past. it will be left to special forces and the Drones to fight the war.

It will be just like the war against Japan after the victory in Eirope, the forgotten war, with forgotten soldiers fighting because that's what they do.

Complain about this comment
69. At 09:57am on 14 Oct 2008, shellingout wrote:
If Peter Mandleson took his seat in the Lords yesterday, I wonder what else he's got (or is going to get) as part of his Return Package.

Complain about this comment
70. At 09:58am on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
#65
Its unlikely to occur, since around April 2010 I'm anticipating the uncovering of a plot that will make it inherently unsafe to hold elections in the forseeable future........

Complain about this comment
71. At 09:59am on 14 Oct 2008, gthebounceranddavincimaster wrote:
I read this morning that Jacqui Smith is saying this bill is not dropped and it will be readdressed when and if there is a terrorist event. 2 things - what does she know that we don't? and secondly how is that sensible government to act when emotions are completely off key to force their own MPs to vote through legislation?
This is the pits of this government. The sooner we can have an election the better off we will be all round.

Complain about this comment
72. At 10:02am on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
rap @ 66

... "Then perhaps, we can also do something about the home-grown parasites that expect the state to pay for them and their seven kids to live in relative luxury whilst pensioners who have worked hard all their lives struggle to make ends meet" ...

What about pensioners who haven't worked hard all their lives, though. What are we going to do about them?

Complain about this comment
73. At 10:04am on 14 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Nick,

I like the way you head up this particualr log, 'I said it before', now where does that thread come from? Surely not that awful Mr Griffin.

In the meantime I listened to the Home Secretary this morning on the Today programme. Guess what she was blaming the opposition.

Now, when the Tories said that they would support the government in this period of financial crisis then they were castigated because the government had a majority in the House of Commons. So, my point is that the government still has a huge majority in the House of Commons so they could get it through quite easily if they had the full support of their back-benchers.

How dare Jacqui Smith try to blame the opposition for this fiasco, Gordon Brown has a majority in the House, he could easily get it through only he doesn't seriously have his back-benchers support, that is why it has been dropped!

Now, let's see what happens with the Human Embryo Bill, come on Hadrien Hardman, bring it back and soon.

Complain about this comment
74. At 10:08am on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Does anyone else get a teeny bit annoyed with the pernickity way that Gordon Brown says "billions" when talking about money. You know, always making it a plural. Whereas everybody else would say "we are putting in 37 billion", Gordon will say "we are putting in 37 billions". Why does he do that, does anybody know? I mean, no big deal, not a vote swinger or anything, but still ...

Complain about this comment
75. At 10:09am on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 71

The government are corrupt, lying scum. Nuff said.

Complain about this comment
76. At 10:13am on 14 Oct 2008, newtactic wrote:
Those vocally opposing the proposed extension of the detention limit for terror suspects seemed to ignore two age old principles of government in this country. The only reason we have a longer detention limit for suspects in this country as opposed to many other countries is the fact that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, putting the onus on the representatives of law and order to produce the proof before the suspects must be released. This was the main reason some politicians thought it prudent to extend the current term of detention to 42 days.
The second age old principle is the two tier parliamentary system which means the Lords is composed of older and (we hope) wiser and more experienced politicians. This is not the first, and it is unlikely to be the last, time the Lords have either modified a bill beyond recognition or thrown it out all together.
Our democratic system may be ancient. It may also seem slow and ponderous to those who enjoy the flash prima donnas of the Commons, who make flamboyant gestures to attempt to attract popular support for a single cause. But this is not what it is about. It is about making sensible decisions about changes to the law after proper debate at both levels. It is also about making sure the voters are aware of what those decisions are and why they are being taken.

Complain about this comment
77. At 10:16am on 14 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
#30

Surely even you must admit that the House of Commons does still have supremacy over the Lords. Am I right or wrong.

Exactly who voted for Gordon Brown as leader of the labour party. Show me the voting papers.

What a great day to bury bad news.

We have the disclosures in the de Menezes inquest, where an individual changed the computer transcript. We have the inquest into the death of the barrister where the police colluded over their written transcripts. We have had the resignation of Sir Ian Blair as head of the Met. We have Tony Blair and the Ecclestone affair back in the news. We have Mandelson going into the Lords, when he surely could have stood for bye-election if he wanted to come back into the government. I have still not had a satisfactory report into the loans to the labour party, nor the cash for honours.

Complain about this comment
78. At 10:23am on 14 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
79. At 10:34am on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 71

The government are corrupt lying scum. Nuff said.

Complain about this comment
80. At 10:36am on 14 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
Gordon has lost is 42 day issue. He's got it on ice should he need it - that's enough.

Now he can let go of that particular bone and go back into his kennel for a while.

Be a good dog now, Gordon, or we might have to chop you in.

Complain about this comment
81. At 10:39am on 14 Oct 2008, Constable_Shoe wrote:
#55 - Exactly, and not for the first time.

#61 - Exactly, headed by one Anthony Charles Lyton Blair, member for Hypocrisy Central!

Complain about this comment
82. At 10:41am on 14 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Nick,

in respect of the 42 days maybe some people really ought to look into the history of our own philosophers, Hobbes, Locke and, Mill for example.

Surely if philosophy was part of the curriculum then at least our children and grandchildren would then come to understand how we have come to be where we are. Our 'constitution' has come about to meet necessary change which has occurred in our society.

Look at Locke on toleration and you can see why torture does not work, never has and never will. That is why we should not hold suspects for 42, it would be misused, you say not possible, then why was the anti-terror legislation used in respect of Iceland, what about ill treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. This is about Game Theory and the Prisoners Dilemma, oh and you can even use tidal curves to monitor the movements in the Stock Exchanges, its all about the Moon, might as well be because all logic has gone out of the window.

Complain about this comment
83. At 10:42am on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
#76 newtactic

Very accurate words. You might have added

..the upper tier of our Parliamentary system has the wisdom to recognise a flawed proposal which, notwithstanding it's flaws, passed the Commons only by dint of chicanery by Gordon Brown, obvious chicanery he subsequently denied....

I wonder will the DUP, I think it was from memory, still recieve the sweeteners allegedly offered behind the scenes to ensure their compliance

Complain about this comment
84. At 10:51am on 14 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Nick,

now some people think that I am somehow anti-Scottish, they could not be more wrong. How can Gordon prove to me that there is not a strong pro-Scottish bias within the government?

Tell you what, let's have the ridiculous situation over putting the clocks back, which results in it being dark at three in the afternoon, abolished. Surely in the time of energy conservation we must now take the opportunity to actually put the clocks forward by two hours so that it is still light at five. Think how much energy would be saved by offices not having to be ablaze with lights so early in the afternoon, street lighting, so many effects to mention here but you get the drift.

We have cahnged forever from a rural economy to an urban one, the war has been over for decades, let's move on shall we, or who does run the country?

Complain about this comment
85. At 11:02am on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
86. At 11:07am on 14 Oct 2008, doctor-gloom wrote:
It's a good job the whole mess is over with Nick. It a climbdown? bet your designer glasses it is. One thing I know (and I admit I don't know much) is that this government is decaying into a shrunken corpse. Sure the old global economic thing is propping Gordonbennet up a bit, but that's politics. Can't wait to see his face when he leaves No 10 with the rest of his woodentops. Not too long to go now.

Complain about this comment
87. At 11:10am on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
74 Sagamix

The 'billions' thing has rankled with me for years! I try my hardest to ignore it..... but it sort of zaps me between the eyes every time and rankles.

Complain about this comment
88. At 11:19am on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
The government lie. Fact.
The government cheat. Fact.
The government thieve. Fact.
The government will continue to do all these things unless they are voted out. Fact.
The government will be voted out. Fact.

Complain about this comment
89. At 11:24am on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
#84
With reference to the clocks going back, I note that the Channel Islands are reported as considering a move on to CET.

It's a token gesture and makes a mockery of the etsablished geography of the world. We are where we are, until the tectonic plates want to move around a little more, and time and distance are measured from a commonly accepted point.

Since we get arguments about daylight saving, and don't forget Europe goes through exactly the same motions, why don't we stop messing about. Let GMT mean exactly what it was established to mean.

Complain about this comment
90. At 11:24am on 14 Oct 2008, bradshad1 wrote:
@68 - TAG your pedling that "no prisoners" rubbish that you tried a month ago, I presume that you must mean that the prison break that occured where all those captured Talaban types made their escape, was in fact just a TV crew filming for series four of Prison Break.

Don't talk so much rubbish about a subject you appear to know nothing about.

As for 42 days, good good good. Now for reminding people who messed up the regulatory framework which allowed the credit crunch to happen.

Complain about this comment
91. At 11:37am on 14 Oct 2008, spirite_uk wrote:
#74 and 87

In my dictionary Billions is defined as "A very large indefinite number (usually hyperbole)"

Sounds about right for Brown.

Complain about this comment
92. At 11:38am on 14 Oct 2008, tarquin wrote:
thankyou for that Nick - however I hardly consider you pointing out the bleedin obvious a massive moment in your career

but anyway I'm glad it's dead, but the sooner we get rid of Labour the better - they will take defeat right now because the majority of people have let it slip past in light of economics, but they will try again eventually, too proud to be defeated, as we saw with their dodgy victory in the first place using the DUP

Complain about this comment
93. At 11:46am on 14 Oct 2008, Triffid100 wrote:
Amazing Nick. What a truly analytical and perceptive crystal ball you have.

Unfortunately, whilst you were decrying David Davis and calling him "mad" - everyone else 42 days was dead then.

Glad you caught up eventually. Could do without the self-congratulatory tone though (after all, you did you best to rail road the country and stick the knife in DD.)

Complain about this comment
94. At 11:48am on 14 Oct 2008, The Notting Hill Hammer wrote:
It has been evident for a long time that 42 days would be defeated in the lords. It is hilarious that the opportunist clown David Davis is claiming credit for the defeat. Does no-one remember that at the time he resigned many people were saying it was a pointless exercise precisely because 42 days would be defeated in the lords anyway? He is not vindicated, this defeat just shows what a silly stunt he pulled.

Complain about this comment
95. At 11:54am on 14 Oct 2008, shellingout wrote:
#89 T'uga

Some of our Local Councils are switching off street lights for a few hours in the evening under the guise of saving power (and money),although I suspect that the latter is probably at the top of their Agenda.

I realize that putting our clocks backwards and forwards an hour has been the norm since the Second World War but, surely, if we gain as much daylight as possible this can't be a bad thing in the present climate.

Complain about this comment
96. At 12:19pm on 14 Oct 2008, Nansell wrote:
Theres nothing like modesty, Nick - and that was nothing like modesty!

Given that you write such an addictive and insightful blog we'll put it down to well placed arogance shall we?

Nathan.

Complain about this comment
97. At 12:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
98. At 12:35pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
35. At 11:56pm on 13 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
#27 warning123

I do wonder if the comments made by the trainee suicide bomber would have been deemed acceptable by the BBC had she been talking about killing anyone other than Jews? (She mentions Jews specifically).

I don't want to pour oil on troubled waters, and like you I truly want peace amongst nations, harmony between religions.

I fear that as antisemitism as such is not poiltically correct, certain BBC reporters turn to rabid anti-Zionism to vent their hate and promote their agenda. I cannot write too much lest I be moderated. I earnestly pray, that humanity will one day live and let live.

Complain about this comment
99. At 12:57pm on 14 Oct 2008, Eatonrifle wrote:
88# Pttppl

You don't know the difference between fact and opinion. FACT.

Northern Rock have paid back over half the amount owed to the Government. FACT

If left to Cameron and Osbourne NR woul have gone to the dogs and thousands lost their deposits and 10s of thousands their jobs. OPINION.

Spot the difference?

You could try it sometime (then again)

Complain about this comment
100. At 1:05pm on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 97

Thanks. The traitors can keep on referring, but I will never be silenced. Zanu-Labour's minions know nothing but lies and treachery, so they will never silence the dissenting voices of truth.

There is always hope. In 2010 we shall be free of the looters and moochers (to use Rand's terms) that unceasingly leech from us, the public.

Complain about this comment
101. At 1:06pm on 14 Oct 2008, JPSLotus79 wrote:
And now after 42 days is dropped so too is the plan to have secret coroner's inquests! A good day to bury bad news then?

Complain about this comment
102. At 1:17pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

What are you talking about? It's not Chinese Doaist thinking, it's claptrap. [Reverse] is going forward?

Yup, and I spent an entire post explaining why in detail. I could probably explain better but folks just dig their heels in even more. Mostly, this is because they're hung up on "winning" for themselves so lose the bigger picture. See an earlier comment on the "ghetto mentality" if you can find it, and reflect on positive consensus and long-term capital growth.

Speak to me of Lord Goldsmith (former Attorney General, who described the proposed legislation as 'not only unnecessary but also dangerous') or of Eilish Anglioni, (Labour party member and Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), of Baron Dear (cross-bench peer and former Inspector of Constabulary), or Andy Hayman (the Met's former head of counter-terrorism), or Sir Ken McDonald (Director of Public Prosecutions)

...

Still, as you are more than perfectly well aware, I've brought this all up before, and not once have you responded. But you have amongst the most partisan lines of anyone on this forum to push, and mustn't let facts get in the way.

As I said before, this isn't Zen - it's pure hackery.

Titles, fame, and time-served don't impress me. My bullshit filter switches on when people pull that. Power, status, and wealth don't mean a thing.

I think, some of them let their own personal perspective and ambitions cloud their judgement. In some cases their titles where longer than their supposed reasons for opposing it. They're suffering from a case of legal sticker shock, and people like Goldsmith change their opinion depending on which way the wind is blowing.

I put a lot of effort into explaining things and how I spend my time is my business, so you can cut that tub thumping and demanding attitude out.

In the meantime, if Nick is being outed as a former member of YCs, can we have a list of everyone in the News department of the BBC who are either current or past members (or donors) of the labour party?

Can't speak for them but I've been a member of and voted for both the Tories and Liberals, and never been a member of or voted for Labour. My focus is, mostly, policy and self-development and any "Labour hardline" from me is relative to the cranked to the max Tory mob that have taken this place over.

The government lie. Fact.
The government cheat. Fact.
The government thieve. Fact.
The government will continue to do all these things unless they are voted out. Fact.
The government will be voted out. Fact.

You're projecting, sweetie.

It's pretty obvious to anyone that the Tories are the party of power and wealth acquisition, and the CBI and Tories have held back economic development and society. They've been caught out in so many lies over the past few weeks it's off the dial, and no amount of desk banging emotionalism is a qualifier for governance.

Steve Richards writes a nuanced opinion that illuminates a calmer view than your shrill attention seeking.

Look at Locke on toleration and you can see why torture does not work, never has and never will. That is why we should not hold suspects for 42, it would be misused, you say not possible, then why was the anti-terror legislation used in respect of Iceland, what about ill treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. This is about Game Theory and the Prisoners Dilemma, oh and you can even use tidal curves to monitor the movements in the Stock Exchanges, its all about the Moon, might as well be because all logic has gone out of the window.

That's a good impression of the sort of muddled sophistry I'd expect to see in the right wing press. If I recall, the government used the appropriate law from an act that rolled three things into one. The only 'terrorism' bit is in the title and they never used that part of the act.

And, dude. I've 'done philosophy'. It was my number one hobby for a decade. Sure, there's always someone out there who can remember details and references better than me but you'll have to work hard to get wiseguy stuff past me. Very hard.

The Zen view of learning is that you start off with nothing, climb the mountain of learning, then throw it all away. It's a continuous cycle of death and rebirth: cyclic versus linear, and intuitive versus cognitive. Knowledge, self, and reality are all the same thing but not necessarily in alignment. The trick is in getting all the ducks to line up.

Now, don't get me wrong, here, TAG. I think, you try hard and mean well: a sort of right wing opposite to Peter Tatchell, but there's a difference between goals, being effective, and achieving goals. This assumes, of course, those goals are the right goals, your approach is the right approach, and things don't change when you've achieved those goals.

(Ha-ha. Some Tory boy referred my Terminator post again. w00t.)

Complain about this comment
103. At 1:26pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
97. At 12:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, warning123
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain

This was an innocent comment telling pptp how I missed his contributions. I am sure, a most unpleasant, bitter person requested this to be referred, and I object strenously to its removal. On #100 pttp thansk me for my comment, which I repeat was innocent and broke no house rules. I challenge Charles E Hardwidge to deny he referred it!

Complain about this comment
104. At 1:35pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 98 warning123

Yes you are right. It isn’t seen as acceptable to be openly anti-Semitic, so many claim they are "only" anti Israel or anti-zionist. But if you want to see what some of the extremists really want, you need look no further than some of the children’s programmes on Palestinian TV.

Some clips are available on a well known video website – just do a search for Hamas Mickey Mouse. Of course, I do not blame the children; they are just repeating what they have been told. But here is unmistakable hatred of Jews, not dressed up as the more fashionable anti-zionism – just listen to what the children have been taught to say! No pretence here.....

Teaching children to hate their neighbours is appalling and makes achieving peace much more difficult.

My complaint to the BBC is that they are giving a world-wide platform for terrorists to 'justify' their race hatred.

Complain about this comment
105. At 1:39pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
65. At 11:46pm on 13 Oct 2008, I wrote in response to Charles_E_Hardwidge

If we need a moderator, then we have those provided by the BBC. I ignore this blogger's comments, and think the best way to deal with him is to give him the proverbial cold shoulder. If any of my comments suddenly disappear now, I will know who has been malicious.

THIS IS HIS OBSCENE REPLY

The moderators upheld 90%+ of the handful I referred, and you're just some anonymous mouth with an agenda that appeared out of nowhere to troll and flame my hide, so don't pull the Mr Innocent in here, pal. You've either got me mixed up with someone else, or are a bit mixed up yourself. I suggest you fix it

This is the message of sweetness and light which this upleasant phoney sent when I objected to him acting as a moderator. It appears on Rebirth of Gordon Brown Forum. We, the licence paying participants of this forum are entitled to blog in freedom and not be censured by a dictator who has no real vaue.

Complain about this comment
106. At 1:43pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
102 Charles_E_Hardwidge

You say you have a "bullshit filter". Is this one way only?

..... just being cheeky - I couldn't resist... ;-) Afternoon.....

Complain about this comment
107. At 1:44pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
97. At 12:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, warning123

Dear Moderator,

Doesn't decency demand that this posting be returned to the forum? What House Rules were broken? Please for once, go public using my posting as an example, and give your reasons for removing it, also in public. This would break the usual custom here. At least we would know what was done incorrectly.

Complain about this comment
108. At 1:52pm on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 103

That post was completely innocent yeah. Therefore the moderators are not doing their job properly and the BBC is outrageously biased. And yep I'm pretty certain that it was CEH, our resident philodox, charlatan, and bore, all rolled into one.

Complain about this comment
109. At 1:54pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
Sorry, I am writing again about the arbitrary removal of comments which do not break House Rules. I am seriously worried, because the whole forum is being taken over by an angry person who wants to use it as a platform for his views (whatever they are). It is is a gross violation of the rule of free speech, for which this country is famed. This character is introducing an alien ethos, which he claims is of sweetness and light, but actually is to crush any who disagree. He abuses the philosphy of Zen Budhism and has replaced it with his own version, on which I will not comment. He will only be content when he has driven all serious bloggers away, and is only left with a few who enjoy his offereings. BBC please attend to this. Make a public announcement why #97 was removed, and why other blogs this person referred to were removed. EXPLAIN PLEASE HOW AND WHAT WAS AGAINST HOUSE RULES!!!!

Complain about this comment
110. At 1:59pm on 14 Oct 2008, TheHandOfHistory wrote:
All this hate-filled rhetoric from bloggers toward Brown is ridiculous.

Gordon Brown is not only a very intelligent and clever man he is also the best person to lead this country.

Admit or not, the only reason you hate him is because he's not too good at the acting like his predecessor, Mr. Blair. Merely talking about the issues without any showmanship makes it too difficult for you to understand the substance of Mr. Brown's reasoning. You also just use him to blame for your own problems.

David Cameron would not be any better as Prime Minister. People seem to forget the colossal damage the Tories infliced on British society.

Gordon Brown is a good family man and is well respected as a world leader by his peers. There is currently no better person to lead this country.

The hatred people in this country aim at their leaders is disgusting. As if any of you could do any better.

Complain about this comment
111. At 1:59pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
104. At 1:35pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 98 warning123

I agree with you 100%. Sorry I didn't respond immediately, but I'm having a rather foolish battle here on the forum. I know it is minor stuff compared what is happening in the world, but these petty dictators spread their venom and can destroy the innocent fun of hundreds of thousands. We must always be alert for subtle indoctrination.

Complain about this comment
112. At 2:00pm on 14 Oct 2008, jimbrant wrote:
OK. Everyone can now relax, secure in the knowledge that if it becomes necessary to hold a suspect for more than 28 days without charge the government of the day can use the existing legislation (the Civil Contingencies Act). There is no limit to the period of detention in that, so far as I can see; and the protections it includes are far weaker than those in the proposals that have now been defeated.

Complain about this comment
113. At 2:01pm on 14 Oct 2008, Only jocking wrote:
#102 CEH wrote - Titles, fame, and time-served don't impress me. My bullshit filter switches on when people pull that. Power, status, and wealth don't mean a thing.

You have a bullshit filter Charles ?!?!? Works for incoming only, I assume ?

On a serious note, I have a query re the moderation process, particularly when the removal of an item follows a reference to the moderators. This rarely happens to me but my #6 on this thread was pulled - no communication from the moderators as to why. I was puzzled but not particularly bothered and rasied no protest. However, it was then reinstated, I guess about 12 hours later. I can only imagine that this was as a result of the moderators finding that there was no valid reason to support the removal.

Query - given that, due to its period in limbo, the very likely result willl be that less people will read an item than otherwise would be the case - why don't the moderators leave the item in situ until and unlesss they decide whether or not the complaint merits its withdrawal ?

Complain about this comment
114. At 2:07pm on 14 Oct 2008, DrKF77 wrote:
So sorry you found what I thought was a reasonable question to be 'tub thumping', Charlie, and I'll certainly *try* to cut out the 'demanding attitude', since it seems to have punctured your calm somewhat.

That said, I have a couple of supplemantray questions. I gave a list of people who I thought might have opposed 42 days detention as a matter of reasoned principle, having given the matter serious consideration based on experience in relevant fields. Now, I take on board that you reject what we might call 'expert testimony' (although largely, I suspect, simply because you disagree with them), and that "some of them let their own personal ambition and ambition cloud their judgement".

You've seen off Lord Goldsmith (fair point) - but what of the others? And, specifically, if 'some of them' were so led to their conclusions, which of them were *not* so led (since that is the implication). That is to say, which of those named above do you credit with having reached the point of opposition based on reasoned consideration?

The point I have been trying to make is that, throughout this debate, here and passim, you have characterised opposition to 42 days detention as, variously, 'a right-wing putsch', the result of confused, partial or self-interested thinking, Tory fellow-travelling and worse - do you honestly think there is and can be no opposition to 42 days detention based on sound moral, legal, technical or any other basis?

I can see your side of the debate - I might disagree, but I wouldn't label you an idiot for holding the position, or characterise you as a shill, or in league with diabolical forces.

But what I can only call your partisan hackery, which as I said above is wilfully blind, leads you to trot out these malicious and provocative smears at every opportunity.

For shame, for shame.

Complain about this comment
115. At 2:08pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 103 warning123

"This was an innocent comment telling pptp how I missed his contributions. I am sure, a most unpleasant, bitter person requested this to be referred, and I object strenously to its removal"

As has been pointed out many times, the moderators are in breach of the BBC guidelines if they remove any comment which does not break the House Rules.

Just because someone clicks "complain" does NOT mean it should be automatically removed.

See for details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_checking_messages.html

"A moderator's job is to remove messages which break our House Rules. Messages will not be removed for any other reason."

Could we therefore ask:
1) people stop making groundless referrals
2) Moderators do their jobs properly and stop deleting messages which do not break the house rules?

(I don't know how some people manage to insert hyperlinks to other pages in their text. How is this done???)

Complain about this comment
116. At 2:08pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
Just received an email regarding removal of #97. Still no reason except Broke House Rules. But what rules? Grateful for receiving the email, but please give a public explanation of where the posting broke the rules, so the same will not occur again. Thanks.

Complain about this comment
117. At 2:23pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 111 warning123

"but I'm having a rather foolish battle here on the forum. "

Not foolish at all. I have complained about this many times! Your comment #97 has been replaced with a message publicly accusing you of having broken the House Rules.

The House Rules probit postings which are "racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html

So, the moderators are in effect accusing innocent people of this behaviour. Perhaps one day someone will sue for defamation of character. Someone in senior management at the BBC should be alerted to this problem.

Actually, I do wonder if there are any 'real' moderators. Perhaps it's just a computer checking for offensive words. Does the cash strapped BBC really employ people to read messages at 3 in the morning? I think we should be told!

Complain about this comment
118. At 2:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
119. At 2:34pm on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 110

Admit or not, the only reason you hate him is because he's not too good at the acting like his predecessor, Mr. Blair.

Perhaps one of the many reasons is that he schemed for 10 years to grab a job he can't do, at the expense of our country. Perhaps another reason is that he has turned benefits into a lifestyle choice. Perhaps another reason is that we don't know who is coming in and out of our country because the borders might as well not exist. Perhaps another reason is his warmongering. Perhaps another reason--- no wait, just read the majority of the posts on here; read mark learn and inwardly digest.

Down with Brown.

Complain about this comment
120. At 2:38pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
121. At 2:39pm on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: hyperlinks

Check this out.

Complain about this comment
122. At 2:43pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 118 warning 123

"I replied to the email I just received, explaining I'd like an explanation"

Yes, I tried that once too, but no reply. I expect it's just an automated response.
Obviously, they can't tell you how you broke the House Rules if you didn't!

As I suggested in an earlier blog, perhaps people should keep copies of their posts just in case they are wrongfully removed. That way we can use Exhibit 'A' to complain at a higher level.

I really believe that a wrongful public accusation by the moderator of breaking the House Rules could constitute a serious libel. No reasonable person would want to be branded as racist, homophobic, sexist etc.

Complain about this comment
123. At 2:48pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Hyperlink test:

Blog Test

Complain about this comment
124. At 2:48pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
121. power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: hyperlinks

Thanks, pal.

Complain about this comment
125. At 2:48pm on 14 Oct 2008, Dennis Junior wrote:
Nick:
42 days was died, pretty much on arrival...
it is sad! but there was not much support!

Complain about this comment
126. At 2:59pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
127. At 3:07pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

I can see your side of the debate - I might disagree, but I wouldn't label you an idiot for holding the position, or characterise you as a shill, or in league with diabolical forces.

People don't always explain themselves very well and the environment around here is pretty toxic. I can only comment on what I read, plus, have to balance a response against how some people around here try to make capital out make of me putting one word out of place.

The 42 days issue and Tory putsch are different but overlapping issues, and I've explained them before. It gets a bit tiring going over the same ground again so other folks might want to carry their share of the load. Also, my heads in a different space at the moment in any case.

Final note: I don't debate. I prefer discussion, and all the headbanging around here is just so much noise to me. I gave up competitive games like that ages ago, and some folks still don't get that others may be playing by a different ruleset.

Complain about this comment
128. At 3:11pm on 14 Oct 2008, doctor-gloom wrote:
Warning 123 105, distant traveller 122 and others:

I know how you feel. I've commented on Charles as you have and had what I thought were pretty mild comments whipped off the blog. I try to ignore him these days. The thing is he is acting as a self appointed moderator and it's pretty sad really. What he doesn't like, for whatever reason, he objects to. I think it depends on how he feels on the day. He's a strange character, on the one hand seemingly trying to spread the message of love and tolerance but on the other doing the opposite. A bit Jeckal and Hideish. What bugs me is his complete ignorance of the norms of citing other comments. Have you noticed he simply writes a comment without even referring to the blogger he's commenting on. Half the time it's difficult to Know who he's referring to without trailing though the entire blog. You couldn't say you could hold a 'dialogue' with him because he seems to want it to be a one-way thing, if you know what I mean. Anyway, if you do get the chance to read this, it'll be remarkable> As I've said before, we ought to not have to look over our shoulders just in case Charles feel the urge to act as a self appointed moderator. I doubt this comment will stay on the blog for long.

Complain about this comment
129. At 3:13pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#115 DistantTraveller

I hope you followed power_to_the_ppl's useful link in #121, but if you want full details of what HTML you can and cannot put in these blogs, see see my #84 on the New ways into blogs thread and my #75 on the same thread containing more about allowed HTML.

Complain about this comment
130. At 3:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
131. At 3:23pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

All this hate-filled rhetoric from bloggers toward Brown is ridiculous.

Gordon Brown is not only a very intelligent and clever man he is also the best person to lead this country.

Admit or not, the only reason you hate him is because he's not too good at the acting like his predecessor, Mr. Blair. Merely talking about the issues without any showmanship makes it too difficult for you to understand the substance of Mr. Brown's reasoning. You also just use him to blame for your own problems.

David Cameron would not be any better as Prime Minister. People seem to forget the colossal damage the Tories infliced on British society.

Gordon Brown is a good family man and is well respected as a world leader by his peers. There is currently no better person to lead this country.

The hatred people in this country aim at their leaders is disgusting. As if any of you could do any better.

The Anglo-Saxon mentality is to beat people down with a stick while high-fiving your buddies. This is a very narrow and insular approach, very anti-intellectual and partisan, and helps explain why Britain's economic fundamentals remain stubbornly broken and why a Tory government is the very last thing people should vote in.

My view it the CBI and their Tory pals, and other hardliners and vested interests are responsible for the accumulated damage which caused the economic crisis. Only another Labour government can blow this lie apart and develop the change that Britain needs to become more forward looking and sociable.

Only today, the Prime Minister sounded very level headed when compared to Tory grandstanding and the Liberals attempt to hug people with a bribe. If you listen to Cameron he has the touch of Midas that would turn broken tractor parts into gold, and Clegg would magic public services out of thin air. These claims and concerns are, of course, total fantasy.

Get real. Vote Labour.

Complain about this comment
132. At 3:40pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Glentrothes..........

Sarah Brown is coming back out again as the 'PR body guard' - so that people 'forget' how much they dislike Gordon.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Complain about this comment
133. At 3:43pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#128 doctor-gloom

I agree with you 100% re CEH, but although I would not for a moment defend him, there are others on all sides of the debate who do not have the courtesy to quote both post number and user id when responding. That means, if you're active on a thread you have to look at the comment numbered to figure out if it was one of your own.

My advice would be simply to ignore them all until they learn basic etiquette. I wish I always followed that advice myself!

With no new thread, this one would be more usefully occupied by moving on to discussion of the new climb-down over secret inquests and the bunfight it Glenrothes, for which the writ is rumoured to be being moved today.

Complain about this comment
134. At 3:46pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
128. At 3:11pm on 14 Oct 2008, doctor-gloom wrote:
Warning 123 105, distant traveller 122 and others:

Hello Doctor-gloom,

I appreciate your comments and relieved to know I am not paranoid or developing some sort of persecution complex. That character is bad news, and I ran from some work I was doing to check the computer, because postings are falling like autumn leaves. I was lucky to find yours. It is really very sad, and rather than be angry we should feel pity for the poor chap. Naturally he wont quote who sent a posting or the number, because he is so wrapped up in ego. Never mind! In the meantime, Distant Traveller 122 has given me wise advice. I am keeping a copy of this posting, and seriously will consider bringing a libel case if it is removed. I am not a rascist, sexist or any other of those nasty things. As said before, I am probably rough, rude, crude, etc. etc. but not beyond hope!

Complain about this comment
135. At 3:52pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
130. At 3:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, T'uga Mawilli (aka Duoteste)

Many thanks pal for your support. I can see by your name you are a real gentleman. Thanks, I was feeling like an outcast!

Complain about this comment
136. At 4:03pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 129 Brownedov

Many thanks! All very useful!

Now, if only we can find a way to stop the removal of messages......

Complain about this comment
137. At 4:03pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Nick............. wake-up

Have you noticed that today is the ultimate day to 'bury bad news'???

Today's Government back down count:

1 - SATs tests in schools

2 - 42 Days

3 - Secret inquests

Will there be yet more - in this 'bonfire-of-the-inadequacies'?

Complain about this comment
138. At 4:05pm on 14 Oct 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
I realise there is no point in being overly worried about this governments actions.

They always have something far, far worse just around the corner.

If you get at all worried about something they do today, you will soon run out of levels of outrage when the next thing comes along.

Complain about this comment
139. At 4:07pm on 14 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
Brown is a very late family man. I heard on radio that he got married at the advice of Tony Blair who said it would make him look better in politics!

I could never vote for a nosepicker:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6VaP1HB7Vew

Complain about this comment
140. At 4:11pm on 14 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
#131
I'm game for a laugh Mr Hardwedge.

You're talking drivel again. Get real and leave the complain button alone.

Complain about this comment
141. At 4:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, braveSouter wrote:
No 55. I am afraid that if you think we should be governed by the results of popular opinion polls, you will not be taken seriously. What do you think would be the result of a poll on the issue, on the day following a terrorist attack in Central London resulting in multiple deaths of innocent citizens?
No77. I do not believe that there should be any role for, unelected, unaccountable,
unrepresentative individuals, along with ex party hacks, sycophantic journalists, or the ancestors of feudal vagabonds in a modern British parliament.
Mr Brown was elected un-opposed leader of the Labour Party. A process adopted by thousands of organizations throughout the UK.

Complain about this comment
142. At 4:18pm on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Power TOP @ 100

... "There is always hope. In 2010 we shall be free of the looters and moochers (to use Rand's terms) that unceasingly leech from us, the public" ...

You're extremely optimistic about the merits of a David Cameron administration, I must say! Can I have some of it when you're finished, please? - you know, just whatever you have left.

Complain about this comment
143. At 4:19pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Gordon - please go for it. You have my 100% backing............

New Election That Never Was!!!

Complain about this comment
144. At 4:19pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
Following earlier messages, we don't know who is responsible for making all the unjustified complaints. It may be more than one person.

However, it is highly irritating, unfair and anti-free speech. If you don't agree with someone, have the courage to say so, and why.

There have been a lot of allegations, but we don't know who these alligators are.

Whoever is doing it, please stop making all these complaints as it gets very boring.

Complain about this comment
145. At 4:25pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
146. At 4:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
120. At 2:38pm on 14 Oct 2008, warning123
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.

Here we go again! Please send me an email, explaining if able why I am accused of breaking House Rules. I am now maintaining copies of postings sent, and if there is no reason why they have been removed, further action will be taken. Let's hope reason will prevail.

Complain about this comment
147. At 4:36pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
#131 Charles_E_Fraudwidge

.....Only another Labour government can blow this lie apart and develop the change that Britain needs to become more forward looking and sociable......

How would you respond to the criticism that The Labour Party have had eleven years to develop this vision, why only start now? Do you think there might be a connection between what they say, what they do and a general disillusionment amongst the Electorate with Gordon Brown?

Now, I referred to the position of the post, the contributor and used a very respectable tone, granted not as wordy as you would have done, but cannot see any reason you might refer this post.

Complain about this comment
148. At 4:47pm on 14 Oct 2008, doctor-gloom wrote:
133 Brownedov and 134 Warning 123:

It's a funny old world but I agree with everything both of you have said. I wish he'd just simply show a little tolerance even if he feels slightly offput by what he's reading. I have to admit, I'm no angel, I like to say what I want, and yep, I can be crude, rude and otherwise unsaintly in what I write. However, we do live in a democracy (for the moment) and we should be big enough to take the rough and tumble of being criticised. Unfortunately Charles seems unable to do this. Such is life. It's all about free speech, I just wish he'd understand this.

Complain about this comment
149. At 4:59pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
134 Warning 123

You will get used to it. On the subject of unfair referrals that do not break house rules:

Generally you will get referred to moderators if you make a point that that undermines the government position - especially if the point you are making sees through the government spin on a subject.

Your chances of being referred increase exponentially if your posting is one of the first few posts on a new blog article (whoever - refers these legitimate postings does not like the 1'000's of casual passing viewers of blog comments to see certain comments - if the comment is buried lower down the order they don't mind as much)

Sometimes the referred posting is eventually approved, although hours later and loses its impact. Sometimes the posting remains 'referred' forever. Sometimes a legitimate post is removed by the moderator - presumably because out of sight, out of mind is more comfortable.

Of course the government have also set up a 'rapid blog rebuttal unit' - whether the unfair referrals are government inspired or blocked by sensitive Labour supporter types - or both - remains to be seen:

Labour Blog Rebuttal Unit

Complain about this comment
150. At 4:59pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 134 warning123

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, because I genuinely don't know who the arch-complainer is, or if it is more than one person.

However, it is clear that the majority of complaints are not 'genuine' but malicious.

According to the BBC's own rules "Action will be taken against anyone abusing the complaints system or technical infrastructure."

We don't know who is abusing the complaints system, but the moderators do. Why don't they look into it?

Complain about this comment
151. At 5:22pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
130. At 3:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, T'uga Mawilli (aka Duoteste)

This letter was removed because it supported my claim of letters being referred and removed on the word of a poor confused man. THERE WAS NOTHING OUT OF ORDER IN #30

Complain about this comment
152. At 5:26pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
I took another scan through this topic and it's no different to what you find in any other media: Gordon Brown is staying calm and shrugging off the rubbish while the Tories and their media pals whoop it up.

This sort of behaviour reminds me of the diligent girls at the front of the class who got top marks while the giggling boys mucking around at the back of the class left school with nothing.

The Tao comments on the low versus high road and as we've seen with the economic crisis, the low road wins every time. Some folks may dispute the evidence but you can't buck reality.

Complain about this comment
153. At 5:39pm on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Hey listen up!

On this referring to mods business, or "censorship" as it's sometimes referred to. There's a mega need to be getting over ourselves, don't you think?

Nobody reads the stuff we post on here apart from us. The first level moderation is a bit of software to pick out obvious bad words like "C???" and "N?????" you know the sort of thing and then, after that, they have a few long suffering, lowly paid types to look at things that get referred.

It's rather precious to get uptight about something of yours that gets referred and it's a little bit "up yourself" to refer something.

As regards CH, I don't believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to remove comments that put him in a negative light. If you don't believe me, check out this blog at exactly 19.14 because what I'll do, at that exact time, is post something that will devastate him ... and I bet it gets published.

Complain about this comment
154. At 5:42pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
145 Charles_E_Hardwidge

I note that your posting at 145 does not address the topic Nick has started "I said it before".

By your own personal moderation rules - would you refer your own post 145 to the moderators?

Complain about this comment
155. At 5:43pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
156. At 5:53pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
157. At 6:12pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

How would you respond to the criticism that The Labour Party have had eleven years to develop this vision, why only start now? Do you think there might be a connection between what they say, what they do and a general disillusionment amongst the Electorate with Gordon Brown?

Now, I referred to the position of the post, the contributor and used a very respectable tone, granted not as wordy as you would have done, but cannot see any reason you might refer this post.

I've already explained my position on how Thatcherism is the cause of this bubble and quoting issues. You should be familiar with both by now. I'm not big on repeating myself nor getting sucked into stuff so will leave it at that. Plus, as I've said, my head is in another place at the moment: I'm absorbing stuff and have other things going on.

Complain about this comment
158. At 6:22pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
.....145. At 4:25pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
I note some folks are trying to set me up or paint me into a corner for the past week, and that's easier hiding behind an anonymous name or from the safety of a group. But, I'm not going to let that stick or get sucked into that game.

I'm only going to say this once: focus on the topic and play nice, or any trolling and mob behaviour just goes straight to moderation and they can sort it out. 90%+ of referrals have been upheld so you can take your chances if you're feeling lucky.

This is simple: learn how to use the blog software, keep at least one foot in the topic, and don't go insulting or ganging up on people. If you can't do that you shouldn't be here. Certainly, on any well run forum this wouldn't be tolerated..........

CEH I have copied and pasted the entire entry from you for position #145

Did you realise the entire post has neither foot in the topic and appears to convey an implied threat?
If referred surely this would fall into the 90 % +/- of your upheld referrals. Why not let the Moderators do their job? If they are spending a disproportionate amount of time analysing referrals, subsequent posts are delayed before being visible, thereby disadvantaging other users.

Can I respectfully suggest you follow your own "guidelines" not that anyone here should be dictated to in the manner you see fit to frequently use.

Complain about this comment
159. At 6:22pm on 14 Oct 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
137. jonathan_cook

You forgot:

4 Inflation at a 16 year high

5 Public sector staff to swell to over 6 million

6 House prices perdicted to fall another 10%

Complain about this comment
160. At 6:30pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#137 jonathan_cook
"Will there be yet more - in this 'bonfire-of-the-inadequacies'?"

Well, last week they said they would be issuing the Glenrothes writ today but I can't find confirmation it happened either on this website or the http://www.parliament.uk/ home page.

That was supposed to be scheduled in the next bad news day window immediately after the US elections. Has anyone been watching BBC Parliament and heard anything?

Complain about this comment
161. At 6:33pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#137 jonathan_cook

PS to my #160

Inflation at 16-year high!

Complain about this comment
162. At 6:53pm on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
JCook @ 149

... "Generally you will get referred to moderators if you make a point that that undermines the government position - especially if the point you are making sees through the government spin on a subject" ...

Oh no, that sounds a bit like the dreaded Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell - you know, that rather short short list of one as regards rightists and "novels they have read".

Complain about this comment
163. At 7:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
I'm afraid that Gordon's "plan" is not going to work ... really awful slump coming our way, and rightly so.

Sorry everyone.

Complain about this comment
164. At 7:25pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
warning123@everywhere

That moderator button does not remove messages. It sends them to the moderators who decide if they break the house rules. A good idea might be try the self explanatory blue magic word 'Explain'. It gives the house rules and will help you see how you have broken the house rules. I'm pretty sure you have. I know the usual suspects game. post offensive messages so they are removed. Then blame censorship, liberal left bias and your most difficult opponent. I got one of them and didn't block it. You are so transparent.
I bet many of you are internet bores who are against Censorship. Why I wonder? If a message is too offensive to just leave to embarrass you or use it against you. I will press that button with pride. If I'm wrong the message will be returned. If I'm wrong too many times action will be taken against my account its all in the explain button.

Complain about this comment
165. At 7:32pm on 14 Oct 2008, godzilla4321 wrote:
#152 - CEH

Gordon Brown reminds you of a girl?

Complain about this comment
166. At 7:34pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 149 jonathan_cook

You write: "Your chances of being referred increase exponentially if your posting is one of the first few posts on a new blog article (whoever - refers these legitimate postings does not like the 1'000's of casual passing viewers of blog comments to see certain comments..."

Fascinating! One of my comments which was wrongly removed on an earlier blog was right at the top, and slightly critical of our Leader. Sure enough, it was quickly removed.

We have no way of knowing whether there are any 'real' moderators - it may all be done by some computer algorithm. This could explain why messages are automatically deleted if anyone complains. But, if the messages are read by a human, and deleted anyway even if the House Rules have not been broken, then this smacks of political collusion.

The BBC knows who is making all the complaints (we don't!) and if they uphold their own rules, they should take action against anyone who abuses the complaints procedure. But of course they won't do that. If they upheld their own rules, the messages would not have been removed in the first place

Complain about this comment
167. At 8:02pm on 14 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Cook @ 87

... "The 'billions' thing has rankled with me for years!" ...

Mmmm, wonder what his game is. Is it because he's this "son of the manse" that I keep hearing about? Do you know any other sons of manses so we could either prove or disprove?

Or (yes, I've got it!) perhaps we could track down an actual Manse and ask him - "hello there Mr Manse, if you had a son would he always say Billions, not Billion, when he's talking about enormous sums of government money?"

Complain about this comment
168. At 8:03pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
149 Jonathan cook

thats the one withthe headline
"Labour and Tories plot to dominate the blogosphere"

Does the tory bit explain warning123 and all the offensive messages you lot are sending?

Complain about this comment
169. At 8:12pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
155

130. At 3:15pm on 14 Oct 2008, T'uga Mawilli (aka Duoteste)
This letter was removed because it supported my claim of letters being referred and removed on the word of a poor man. THERE WAS NOTHING OUT OF ORDER IN #30

Why was my posting #155 referred to moderators? Which Nouse Rule was broken?

Complain about this comment
170. At 8:17pm on 14 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
#67

We'll see.

I'm convinced that Cameron as PM will have to be more concerned about preventing terrorism than he currently is.

42 days will be implemented by him at some stage.

Complain about this comment
171. At 8:23pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
Either the referrals are taking all their time or we've collectively (except CEH of course) upset the mods - 2 hours plus to process a post now.

Complain about this comment
172. At 8:28pm on 14 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
#149

You're right.

That's why all the posts here are so supportive of the Government.

Read the comments on the blog, and you can clearly see that.

Oh. Hang on........

Complain about this comment
173. At 8:30pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
#157 Charles_E_Fraudwidge

Evasive as always

Complain about this comment
174. At 8:40pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
warning123
"Sorry, I am writing again about the arbitrary removal of comments which do not break House Rules. I am seriously worried, because the whole forum is being taken over by an angry person who wants to use it as a platform for his views (whatever they are). It is is a gross violation of the rule of free speech, for which this country is famed.."

Please tell me your a parody. and not some tory disruption strategy. You are taking the mickey aren't you. complaining about moderating your posts that complain about moderating your posts. Now you've given me a headache. Thats assault that is! Im going to sue you whoever you are.

Complain about this comment
175. At 8:49pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
158., Ilicipolero

Completely agree with you, Ilicipolero.
All day, this despotic fool has been referring both my blogs and those of any who agree with me. I do not understand why he is allowed on the forum. Perhaps because every court needs not only courtiers, but also a permanent clown.
I BET THIS GETS MODERATED.

Complain about this comment
176. At 9:00pm on 14 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#157 Charles_E_Hardwidge
"I'm not big on repeating myself nor getting sucked into stuff so will leave it at that. Plus, as I've said, my head is in another place at the moment..."

Careful CEH, you're making sense for a change. I think we all now have a good idea of where that place is.

Complain about this comment
177. At 9:11pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
162 Sagamix

You try posting on this web-site with non-government views.

Then You will find out what I say is true.

I can't believe the government would waste their time policing this blog (although the Derek Draper unit is laughable).

There is definitely someone / a group of people who put a lot of time and effort into referring legal posts.

Quite tiresome really.

Complain about this comment
178. At 9:16pm on 14 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
164 DHwilkinson

You can get referred without breaking house rules, but usually only if you disagree with the government.

Warning123 had a comment referred - where the text basically only said "he thought is was shame power-to-people kept getting referred to moderators"

I read that post - there were zero rules broken. Just like many other posts which get referred unfortunately.

Complain about this comment
179. At 9:29pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
# 164 dhwilkinson That moderator button does not remove messages. It sends them to the moderators who decide if they break the house rules. A good idea might be try the self explanatory blue magic word 'Explain'. It gives the house rules and will help you see how you have broken the house rules. I'm pretty sure you have. I know the usual suspects game. post offensive messages so they are removed. Then blame censorship, liberal left bias and your most difficult opponent. I got one of them and didn't block it. You are so transparent.
I bet many of you are internet bores who are against Censorship. Why I wonder? If a message is too offensive to just leave to embarrass you or use it against you. I will press that button with pride. If I'm wrong the message will be returned. If I'm wrong too many times action will be taken against my account its all in the explain button.......

Surely most posters here read the rules of the game before they begin to contribute, I did. Why not leave moderation to the Moderators? Left, Right, Centre, Top or Bottom give as good as you get instead of squealing for help because you've been offended. This blog is all about politics, which is partisan at the best of times. Opposing opinions could debate/discuss/disagree for days and find no common ground. I remain to be convinced screen names are a convenient way of insulting people whilst remaining anonymous.

Contributors like Grandantidote and p_t_t_p
have polar opposite opinions for example, but in between we all enjoy valuable posts from all kinds of educated people with a specific Political allegiance, the clever ones among our number disagree but learn a hell of a lot. Live and let live

......

Complain about this comment
180. At 9:45pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
164. dhwilkinson

....It gives the house rules and will help you see how you have broken the house rules. I'm pretty sure you have.

how wonderful that you know what other people do.

.....I bet many of you are internet bores who are against Censorship.

Of course you are for censorship. You even use a capital C to write the word.

I will press the button with pride.
Pity, nobody can press your button!

Actually you are a misguided fellow. There is no political substance in any of the letters which were in question, and you frankly do not assist in any way. Kindly do not bother to send didactic messages to those who understand the situation far better than you.

Complain about this comment
181. At 9:50pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
168. At 8:03pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
149 Jonathan cook

thats the one withthe headline
"Labour and Tories plot to dominate the blogosphere"

Does the tory bit explain warning123 and all the offensive messages you lot are sending?

Oh Jonathan,

They are really out with the long knives tonight.
Seems there is a second one with his knickers in a twist. Ooops! Is 'knickers' a banned word!

Complain about this comment
182. At 9:57pm on 14 Oct 2008, U13507351 wrote:
171. Brownedov wrote:
Either the referrals are taking all their time or we've collectively (except CEH of course) upset the mods - 2 hours plus to process a post now.

To be on the safe side they have buried them all, with the 42 days and the secret inquests. Today the blogs, tomorrow the world.

Complain about this comment
183. At 10:01pm on 14 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 170 balhamu

"I'm convinced that Cameron as PM will have to be more concerned about preventing terrorism than he currently is.

42 days will be implemented by him at some stage."

I very much doubt Cameron is less concerned about terrorism than Brown.

The problem with Brown's plans were twofold.

Firstly, this would have set the period of detention without charge at by far the longest anywhere in the democratic world. Has Brown not heard of Magna Carta? Did she die in vain? (with acknowledgement to Tony Hancock)

Secondly, the proposals were unworkable.

Traditionally in our admittedly unwritten constitution, there is supposed to be a 'separation of powers'. This means politicians set the policy, but do not interfere with the day to day administration of justice. That should be left to the courts and a judge. These proposals would have effectively resulted in trial by the House of Commons.

It was a total mess. Brown was simply playing politics - trying to look tough. He didn't even have the support of his own MPs on this.

Complain about this comment
184. At 10:36pm on 14 Oct 2008, grandantidote wrote:
18 young john murray,

Now that the banks are being nationalised to save the bankers how about The energy companies bing nationalised to protect th public? J.Bell

You really must be young John, Hasn't anyone told you that energy was nationalised but maggie sold it all lock stock and oil barrels.
You dont know who Maggie is well she was Margaret Thatcher Tory PM for nearly as long as Tony Blair was Labour PM.
.

Complain about this comment
185. At 10:49pm on 14 Oct 2008, Ilicipolero wrote:
# 176 Brownedov

A considerable distance up his own botttum?!!

Complain about this comment
186. At 11:04pm on 14 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 176, Brownedov

LOL good one.

Complain about this comment
187. At 11:13pm on 14 Oct 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:

There is definitely someone / a group of people who put a lot of time and effort into referring legal posts.

Oooh, the magnificence of Dear Leader even extends to these lowly depths. See? He cares for all his little angels.

I'm *humbled*.

Complain about this comment
188. At 11:35pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
178 jonathan_cook

"164 DHwilkinson

You can get referred without breaking house rules, but usually only if you disagree with the government."

Yes I know they can be referred without breaking the rules. If you are found not to break the rules. you are returned. Thats why its says 'Refer to moderator' instead of 'self moderate'. Come back and tell us how many have been returned. The last part about censoring criticism of the government is far from true and very silly. I think You're probably a bit overtired.

warning123 only talks about refered messages and complains when his messages complaining about refered messages are refered.

I think that this person must be an asprin salesman.

Complain about this comment
189. At 11:57pm on 14 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
180 warning123

You upset me with your harsh words. I'm off now to cry myself to sleep. I hope you're pleased with yourself. No knickers isn't a bad or funny word if your over 10 years old. Isn't it past your bed time?

I have mixed feelings about this 42 days thing. Considering that people can already be held longer by introducing emergency measures. The government and the opposition should stop playing party politics with serious issues of national security like this and work together to buildi a concensus. Yes I am an Idealistic fool and on top of that warning123 doesn't like me. Boo hoo!

Complain about this comment
190. At 00:03am on 15 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
re: 164

Does dhwilkinson think for himself or merely repeat the vacuous tripe of a blogger who wishes he was Japanese?

(Hint: the latter).

Complain about this comment
191. At 00:16am on 15 Oct 2008, denzil69 wrote:
@ 43 - jonathan

"... The public would surely have taken to the streets if he had tried to force that through using the parliament act"

ironic, as the anti terror laws currently in place forbid more than 2 people staging a protest without authorisation from the police!

i didnt mind the 42 days being brought in, what i objected to was the protections for the individual being removed at the same time (devil in the detail)

- government departments cannot be prosecuted
- individuals could be held without any explanation
- there was no requirement to inform the individual after release, even if no charges are brought

i simply asked myself if my own son was suddenly taken away by police and held under this act, with no information being given then released after more than a month again without any information being given, lost job, lost earnings, snooping around our home without any explanation or reasoning given, etc, would i like this?

the plain answer is no

Complain about this comment
192. At 00:42am on 15 Oct 2008, impassive wrote:
It seems to me that rather than indulge in the subject matter, many posts refer to this curious Charles E Hardwidge or CEH as he seems to have become affectionately known as (to some)

So continuing with the majority interest and noting that this character has a recent (no 187) comment waiting moderation, could someone confirm if he, she or it, has ever had a post directly removed.

Not that it would be particularly significant since we would never know the content of such a removal, indeed it could be
a moderator laying a false trail - but I'm sure others would be as interested as I am in knowing.

Complain about this comment
193. At 01:02am on 15 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#185 Ilicipolero

As Francis Urquhart so eloquently put it: "You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment".

Complain about this comment
194. At 01:38am on 15 Oct 2008, DistantTraveller wrote:
# 157 Charles_E_Hardwidge

Charles, you've mentioned a couple of times that your head is in another place and that there are things going on. I hope all's well...

I'm a bit confused because your post 145 has gone, but is commented on in 154 and 158. (It would be so much easier to follow the thread if the posts just stayed put.)

Do we gather from 158 (which we are told reproduces the now missing 145) that you were fessing up to being the complainer? If so, who complained about your message?

I think there may be cases when a complaint is genuinely justified, if for example it is racist or otherwise offensive. But I know from experience that messages can and do disappear for no valid reason. But then dhwilkinson suggests (# 164) that some people "post offensive messages so they are removed. Then blame censorship". Personally, I doubt this!

There's also sagamix (# 153) who says "there's a mega need to be getting over ourselves" and "It's rather precious to get uptight about something of yours that gets referred".

Well maybe it IS part of the cut and thrust - but it's still rather annoying!

Anyway, perhaps we've now cheesed off the moderators - which might explain the long backlog. Sorry about that!

The discussion is good - but I would like to make a complaint about all these complaints!

If Michael Winner were here, I'm sure we know what he would say: "Calm down dear, it's just a blog."

Complain about this comment
195. At 07:36am on 15 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Nick,

I think that in the absolutely fantastic work done by the brilliant intelect of the most wonderfully financially astute Premier since, well, almost forever there is a downside which many have not fully understood.

Consider that it is not only the pension funds that will not share in the largess being offered to the LloydsTSB and HBoS because of the imposition of a no dividend payment policy to the aforementioned companies. It is also the employees and former employees who will lose out because of the investment policies of the existing directors.

They are major shareholders and rely on their dividend payments to mainitain their standard of living. These people left the organisations in good condition when they retired, why should they suffer because of the problems caused by the current encumbents. This policy of paying no dividends must be reversed, and with some urgency. In this case the ends do not justify the means, ordon Brown must instruct the Treasury that this policy is wrong. Sorry, the Permier can never admit that he is wrong so we shall just have to live with a disastrous policy which will have repersussions not thought of by the so called experts.

Please note that I am not in any way a beneficiary of any of the aforementioned organisations.

Complain about this comment
196. At 07:44am on 15 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Nick,

these are joyous days. I am in receipt of a pension from a previous employer, a not unsubstantial one either, on which I pay no national insurance, although I do pay income tax.

My point, well my pension is just about to be increased by 5%, the maximum allowed. Current employees are to receive a miserly 2%, or even have their wages reduced, so I who no longer work, will have an increase in income over twice as much as a worker, and will not pay national insurance either, this is bizarre, no wonder the pensioners are going to be quiet. Great thing this inflation.

Oh, happy days. Come on socialists, congratulate the chancellor and premier, they are doing an absolutely brilliant job, keep up the good work.

Complain about this comment
197. At 07:50am on 15 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Many of those now being made redundant will be quite well off, especially those who leave the banks. In many cases they will have so much money that they will not sign on because their income means that they are not entitled to any unemployment benefits.

There will be tens of thousands who will be able to live off their savings, contrary to my earlier postings. Do you seriously think that they will be seen down the dole office. Mind you if they are married, male and still with their partners then I have every sympathy with the partner who has not had to put up with having their loved one around all day. I can see a lot of marriages breaking up as people say I didn't marry you to have you around all day. Get a job, even if it means stacking shelves down the supermarket.

Complain about this comment
198. At 08:39am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
167 Sagamix

Yes - we must track down the Manse or father of the blessed Manse at least!

The whole "Son of the Manse" is another thing that rankles, it is an over used phrase by reporters, the same as "Arguido" is over used by reporters covering the disappearance of Madeline McCann.

I'm sure reporters throw these phrases in, to make them sound like they have undertaken some authentic journalism, rather than just broadcast an 'opinion' piece!

Complain about this comment
199. At 08:41am on 15 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
Jonathan @ 177

... "You try posting on this web-site with non-government views" ...

But most of the postings on here are anti government, aren't they? It can't be that aspect that gets something referred, it must be something else.

Complain about this comment
200. At 08:45am on 15 Oct 2008, sagamix wrote:
@ 198

... "The whole "Son of the Manse" is another thing that rankles, it is an over used phrase by reporters, the same as "Arguido" is over used by reporters covering the disappearance of Madeline McCann" ...

Yeah, and another one I'm sick of is "Our Money" when some reporter is talking about the banking bailout. I mean, okay, yes we know - but do they have to bang on and on and on.

Complain about this comment
201. At 08:49am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
1678 Dhwilkinson

Well I don't think the Conservatives have set up an official body like the Labour 'rapid blog rebuttal unit'!

Unfortunately you are witnessing first hand genuine disappointment and anger of real people.

OK - it does spill over into bile, but just like earlier someone wanted to rant about the Conservatives more robustly than the blog rules allow, the level of rant you read from people disappointed by the Government is hugely toned down compared to what people genuinely feel.

I for one am angry because I can see the government pull the wool over the public's eyes routinely.

I'd like to see the media really go to town on both the Conservative plans for the future and the Government's track record over the last 11 years.

I want some authoritive and balanced journalism - not the guff we currently get.

You have to search really far and wide to try and build up a balanced picture of the country.

Complain about this comment
202. At 08:54am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
172 Balhamu

Well it would be impossible to supress all anti government feeling wouldn't it!! ;-)

If you read the posts above - there are a lot of people who are experiencing that posts which in no way break the house rules are referred to moderation.

For instance - I was referred above somewhere for pointing out that Sarah Brown is to campaign in Glenrothes to help build Brown's poor PR image.

Complain about this comment
203. At 09:03am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
188 DHwilkinson

The point is if you are referred to Moderator - then your comment is out of circulation and irrelevant by the time the next blog thread arrives. That is censorship by hissy fit.

As for government censorship - who knows what the Labour 'Rabid blog rebuttal unit' get up to. Do you know?!

Complain about this comment
204. At 09:04am on 15 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
I have been moderated for saying that Jackie Ashley, on the Politics show recently where the psychologist pointed out Brown's insecurities, is the daughter of Labour Peer Jack Ashley and she is married to Andrew Marr!

I think we hit a nerve with some people and they let their personal feelings get in the way.

Monster moofer moofs in mysterious ways but I see on the other forum that zen may have something to do with some of the removals.

Complain about this comment
205. At 09:13am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
199 Sagamix

Well - there is an elephant in the room isn't there.....

Grandantidote was on the receiving end of hissy fit moderation by referral a couple of weekends back......

You may have noticed at the time that a few of us who are more normally on the 'disappointed with government' edge of politics and who experience legal posts referred as a matter of routine were on his side and calling for Granadtidote to be allowed to post his views.

Complain about this comment
206. At 09:14am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
200 Sagamix

Thanks - I hadn't been annoyed by "our money" until now - no doubt it is going to start to annoy me from now on!

Complain about this comment
207. At 09:17am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
204 Flaming Patricia

You try and point out that Robert Peston wrote a tame biography of Gordon Brown and is also the son of a Labour peer.

.... the leaks that Robert calls 'scoops'... where do they come from? Did the most recent leak cause the banks share price to drop like a stone - so that they were forced to accept Gordon Brown's 'Master of the Universe Plan'?

At the time we weren't allowed to debate that viewpoint - it was referred to moderators!!

Complain about this comment
208. At 09:19am on 15 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
If people are going to lose their jobs then the benefits claims are going to rocket....

Complain about this comment
209. At 09:20am on 15 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
No, I never wrote anything about Peston. Wrong person, Jonathan.

Complain about this comment
210. At 09:34am on 15 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
Oooops sorry, I see what you mean. You were saying :if I said anything about him it would be moofed. Undoubtedly.

I also wrote about the neopotism in the Labour ranks and in the BBC and that got moofed, which confirms your point.

Balls and Cooper
McNulty and Gilbert
Milliband and Milliband
Marr and Marr and Ashley
Peston and father

They feel safer that way no doubt.

Let's see if I get moofed on this one.

Complain about this comment
211. At 09:39am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
209 Falming patricia

Poor wording by me - I was just noticing you had similar struggles to me getting a posting published talking about Jackie Ashley - I was noting that I was referred for talking about Robert Peston's links to Labour (in a legal post).

More examples of censorship by referral........

Complain about this comment
212. At 09:51am on 15 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
Morning all, back on the treadmill once again.

The moderators, who are doing a dfficult job under extremley difficult circumstances, are fully deserving of the praise that they are receiving from all and sundry.

It behoves us all, in these diffcult times, to not make their jobs any more difficult, and to refrain from hitting the complaint button.

I would have thought the pre-moderation process, which should weed out the obvious transgressions of good taste and beaviour, should have been sufficient. Most subsequent referrals seem to be upheld, probably on the basis that if one person has found a post to be objectionable, then it must be so.

The alternative, that is open to all of us, is to bring complete chaos to the system by automatically referring any post with which we disagree, and then see what kind of frank and open discussion we can have.

Complain about this comment
213. At 09:55am on 15 Oct 2008, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:
194. DistantTraveller

Wow; you not only read his posts but you actually follow the whole stream.

Youll never find the source though.

Complain about this comment
214. At 09:57am on 15 Oct 2008, viablowinginthewind wrote:
Out goes 42 days and in comes a giant database to store all our telephone calls, emails etc. The moderator to end all moderators!

Complain about this comment
215. At 10:01am on 15 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
The Mods are given quite a broad remit by the house rules, and I suspect everything that has been removed would fall under one of the House Rules (I suspect 1, 2, 3,4 and 9 are important ones, and 12 would allow most comments here - including my ones - to be moderated).

Jonathan (and others) - tell me that the lost comments you are talking about could not be considered as breaking one of these rules (see below):

The BBC's 12 blogging commandments

1. Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others

2. Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable

3. Contain swear words or other language likely to offend

4. Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. This includes breach of copyright, defamation and contempt of court.

5. Advertise products or services for profit or gain

6. Are seen to impersonate someone else

7. Include contact details such as phone numbers, postal or email addresses

8. Are written in anything other than English - Welsh and Gaelic may be used where marked

9. Contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines

10. Describe or encourage activities which could endanger the safety or well-being of others

11. Are considered to be ?spam?, that is posts containing the same. or similar, message posted multiple times

12. Are considered to be off-topic for the particular message board

Complain about this comment
216. At 10:29am on 15 Oct 2008, flamepatricia wrote:
My posts don't fall into those categories. They are sometimes, like others', off topic but they are mostly about political issues of the day.

The BBC is one strange institution. If we did away with the licence fee and its obvious connection to the Labour party it might be an improvement.

I notice Brucie on Strictly made a reference to MANDY but because its live they couldn't edit it out.

Complain about this comment
217. At 10:31am on 15 Oct 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
215 Balhamu

If I refer your post 215 to the moderators will it get removed because it is not on the topic of "I said it Before" i.e. Nick's topic???

Although you are posting as part of a longer threaded debate, which originally started on-topic, if I do a 'censorship by referring your post to moderators' job on you - then that post will either sit awaiting moderation until the whole world has moved on, or it will get removed - despite your post not breaking any rules.

Complain about this comment
218. At 10:43am on 15 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
#215
Apart from the swearing issue, which goes without saying, most posts, when related to political issues, are going to be antagonistic to some degree and will fall foul of 1,2 or 3 in some way.

The alternative is to have a series of posts that are anodine, or pretending to be philosophical and condescending in some way. And we all know to whom I am referring.

Complain about this comment
219. At 10:46am on 15 Oct 2008, dhwilkinson wrote:
190 power_to_the_opl

No dodgy websites like guido fawkes or anything. My rubbish is all my own work. I admire CEHs different style of stay calm and watch the enemy destroy itself but I cannot possibly hope to emulate his genius.

Thanks for the interest

May the force be with you.

Complain about this comment
220. At 11:08am on 15 Oct 2008, jimbrant wrote:
#196 T A Griffin (TAG): "My point, well my pension is just about to be increased by 5%, the maximum allowed. Current employees are to receive a miserly 2%, or even have their wages reduced, so I who no longer work, will have an increase in income over twice as much as a worker etc...."

Sometimes governments just can't win. My memory is memorably faulty, but wasn't it the last government that removed the link with average wages? And isn't it this government that is restoring that link?

I look forward with eager anticipation to the howls of protest from the usual suspects on here when the poor pensioners have to make do with a rise in benefits lower than the rise in the RPI (or the CPI as now).

You really do have to look at things with a bit more of a long-term vision. Over time, wages increase faster than the CoL.

Complain about this comment
221. At 11:14am on 15 Oct 2008, jimbrant wrote:
I have never had a post referred or blocked, except when I have used unacceptable characters. But I have assumed that that was because my posts are always highly intelligent, moderate, evidence-based, and perspicacious, unlike those of some contributors I could name. In fact, my only fault is an excessive degree of modesty, but fortunately that does not seem to upset the system.

Complain about this comment
222. At 11:20am on 15 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
#217

Try it.

I suspect it will be removed for a few hours, and then put back, as while off-topic it is continuing a conversation and maybe helpful to getting people to play nicely on this blog.

Ones that are permanently deleted are, I suspect, removed for other reasons than they are just off-topic

Complain about this comment
223. At 11:38am on 15 Oct 2008, balhamu wrote:
#218

You're right.

Which is why, within reason, the mods let them go

Complain about this comment
224. At 11:44am on 15 Oct 2008, U1777075 wrote:
Moderation seems to be taking a time at the moment.

Is that because all good things should be taken in it?

Discuss

Complain about this comment
225. At 1:30pm on 15 Oct 2008, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
#220

You are quite right that this government is about to restore the link to wages and break the link with RPI.

However, my employer will retain the link to RPI. I wonder how long it will be before the government say that they want to abolish RPI altogther because it is no longer valid and that in future all reference to RPI in any agreements will be amended to read CPI instead.

I wonder if there are moves afoot to do the same with Index Linked Gilts, it has happened before when the 1929 government made War Loan Irredeemable.

Complain about this comment
226. At 1:51pm on 18 Oct 2008, IainMacMaster wrote:
The government's preoccupation with 42-day detention is a further manifestation of its total disregard for the presumption of innocence, and cavalier attitude to miscarriage of justice.

It all started with Tony Blair. One did not have to be an expert in body language to see him almost shudder in horror when be mentioned miscarriage of justice, usually whilst paying lip-service to it.

The government's record since 1997 in the field of criminal justice has been to make it easier for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to obtain convictions, with few, if any, safeguards in place to prevent injustice.

Unfortunately, juries, once a bastion against miscarriage of justice, have taken the message, encouraged by a tabloid press, obsessed with victims of crime, as these provide a far greater readership and, from the government's point of view a larger number of voters, than the victims of injustice.

Reverting to the immediate 42-day issue, the difference between that and 28 days is not merely a further 14 days incarcerated in overcrowded prisons where the conditions are wholly inappropriate for anyone not convicted and sentenced to imprisonment (and largely not fit for convicted prisoners, come to that). Every day of imprisonment is a day when you are not at your job earning money, a day when you may not have the money to pay the rent or council tax, and a day when you don't have the immediate support of your family and friends at a time when you most need it.

Can one's employement and home survive one being out of circulation for 28 days? They may do; however, every additional day makes it more likely that your employer will decide, perhaps reluctantly, that he can no longer employ you if you aren't working, and your landlord or mortgage lender feels that payment default can no longer be tolerated.

Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

I said it before

Comments

About this blog

Subscribe to Nick Robinson's Newslog

Elsewhere at the BBC

TV/Radio reports

Latest politics news

Latest: Reporters' blogs

Latest: Reporters' blogs

BBC News blogs

More from this blog...

Topical posts on this blog

Being Discussed Now

Archives

Categories

Latest contributors

Explore the BBC

Popular links

A to F

H to L

M to Sc

Sp to W

BBC links