Rights and freedoms....

Doug · 06-01-2006, 15:00

What just happened? Did democracy and right of freedom of speech just die in Accrington? Is discussion in the public interest no longer to be tolerated?

I did not agree with the original content of the post that was recently removed, I like others, was concerned about the possible damage to the club’s reputation and the gate. Now I am more concerned that the right to discuss these matters have been removed from the public domain.

What you fail to realise is that the real damage perpetrated by the Observer by running the story “In the Public Interest” in the first place. I expect that the person(s)’ who removed the thread and those who called for it’s removal are now running round like idiots buying up and or, destroying copies of the said observer.

The best possible way of avoiding negative publicity is to not rise to it. Banning the right of others to voice there concerns is not the way forward. What you’ve just asked for and got is nothing more than censorship.

Len · 06-01-2006, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

What just happened? Did democracy and right of freedom of speech just die in Accrington? Is discussion in the public interest no longer to be tolerated?

I did not agree with the original content of the post that was recently removed, I like others, was concerned about the possible damage to the club’s reputation and the gate. Now I am more concerned that the right to discuss these matters have been removed from the public domain.

What you fail to realise is that the real damage perpetrated by the Observer by running the story “In the Public Interest” in the first place. I expect that the person(s)’ who removed the thread and those who called for it’s removal are now running round like idiots buying up and or, destroying copies of the said observer.

The best possible way of avoiding negative publicity is to not rise to it. Banning the right of others to voice there concerns is not the way forward. What you’ve just asked for and got is nothing more than censorship.

I’m sorry to hear that Doug but I suspect that you talking about a thread that was posted in the Accrington Stanley section and as you know Accrington Stanley Football Club Fans have there own section here at Accringtonweb.com. Accrington Stanley forums also have there very own moderators and disciplines and also abide by our rules. Unfortunately I am unable to help you as I am a moderator of the Accyweb side and not Accrington Stanley.
I thought I would post this because you are bringing Accyweb into disrepute by having posted what you did.

Respect

Doug · 06-01-2006, 19:44

Len, if I have brought the site into disrepute I humbly apologise, it’s not what I intended are wanted. I also apologise to all of Accrington Webs Moderators and members if any offence was caused by this thread.

The point I wanted to make was I felt it was wrong for the post to be pull on the ground that were stated, we have had many discussions about contentious posts in the past and it as been generally agreed that people had the right to express there concerns and opinions openly, today I felt that the objections of a few posters had brought the post to a premature end.

I would also extend my apology to the individual, who had taken the decision to withdraw the thread, having now read the article in the observer with hindsight I wouldn't have responded in the manner in which I did.

Again, my sincere apologies………

garinda · 06-01-2006, 23:34

The moderators are doing a job, which I'm sure is pretty thankless sometimes, so thanks.

Point noted Len, about the mods on the Stanley section, but they do also have access to the rest of the site too. I saw BBK reading my question that I asked earlier about old posts.

I too was a bit suprised to see the thread Doug mentioned pulled. Does make you wonder about power going to some peoples heads.

shakermaker · 07-01-2006, 00:50

Doug; I believe it was right to remove that particular thread. That issue has been overly-discussed to the point of absurdity, and there is no reason at all why the matter should still be connected to Accrington Stanley Football Club.
I'm afraid that is a very sensitive topic around Stanley fans, and it is now more about damage limitation to the club by keeping it as far away as possible.

garinda · 07-01-2006, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Doug; I believe it was right to remove that particular thread. That issue has been overly-discussed to the point of absurdity, and there is no reason at all why the matter should still be connected to Accrington Stanley Football Club.
I'm afraid that is a very sensitive topic around Stanley fans, and it is now more about damage limitation to the club by keeping it as far away as possible.

I heard it was you that asked for it's removal Shakey, and that's your right. It being discussed here still won't bury the story when it's featured in the local press.

shakermaker · 07-01-2006, 00:59

As I said; its now a matter of damage limitation.

The local press have brought down ASFC's reputation so far over the past year so we need to do our best to raise the good name of the club in our bid to bring in supporters instead of deterring them.

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe this is the view of most of the Stanley fans.
Just look how many people pounced on that thread within minutes saying that the thread starter was out of place.

Make love not war.
(lol how cheesy was that!)

garinda · 07-01-2006, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

As I said; its now a matter of damage limitation.

The local press have brought down ASFC's reputation so far over the past year so we need to do our best to raise the good name of the club in our bid to bring in supporters instead of deterring them.

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe this is the view of most of the Stanley fans.
Just look how many people pounced on that thread within minutes saying that the thread starter was out of place.

Make love not war.
(lol how cheesy was that!)

I agree, but as one who 'pounced' on the thread to state my opinion, I feel agrieved that my right to free speech was removed, and I speak as a fan, and don't pull rank by saying that you've been a fan for longer than I have, I know that.

You can't preach freedom of expression, and then deny it when you don't think it suits your cause.

shakermaker · 07-01-2006, 01:08

No I see your point completely; and I would prefer for the thread to stay up there for people to see what the people of Accy think about the matter BUT in leaving it up there; it again draws attention to a reputation-damaging topic which has been discussed on the forum a long time ago...and doesnt really need to be brought up again.

garinda · 07-01-2006, 01:10

Circulation Accy Observer -15,000

People that would have viewed the thread a lot less.

I'm not going to restate what I wrote in the thread, you removed that right.

Doug · 07-01-2006, 01:12

15,000 copies of the Observer are in circulation, it’s beyond any control that can be administered on this site. And that’s what’s absurd about this issue.

Damage limitation is a matter for the club and they know what they doing, if the chap hadn’t wrote the letter in the first place this issue would have been dealt with in a proper manner without fan’s declaring abstention.

My post wasn’t about this unfortunate incident; it was about the freedom to express concern without prejudice. It would have been enough to close the thread and leave at that. The issue had already been discussed in a more damaging manner in another thread that no had objected too or requested closure on.

I would be grateful if people didn’t try and hi-jack this post too highlight the former issue. This is about all those areas were the few influence decisions that we’re all old enough to hold an opinion on.

Just a point of note, I was a Stanley fan back in the dark old days, just because I’ve recently re-declared my support doesn’t mean I’m not concerned about the club the same as everyone else.

shakermaker · 07-01-2006, 01:14

It wasn't a one man mission! Several people agreed which is why the thread was removed - no one would have given one iota of a f**k if it was just me calling for the thread to be scrapped as you well know.

I'm not going to argue about it because it's in the past; and im sorry if I personally have caused you any aggreivance but I believe it was in the best interest of Accrington Stanley Football Club.

garinda · 07-01-2006, 01:15

I hope you don't think I haven't 'hi-jacked' this thread. It is a bit hard not too, without discussing the issues it was removed for.

garinda · 07-01-2006, 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

It wasn't a one man mission! Several people agreed which is why the thread was removed - no one would have given one iota of a f**k if it was just me calling for the thread to be scrapped as you well know.

I'm not going to argue about it because it's in the past; and im sorry if I personally have caused you any aggreivance but I believe it was in the best interest of Accrington Stanley Football Club.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Brushing something under the carpet or hiding it on here by means of censorship, unfortunately doesn't make it go away.

garinda · 07-01-2006, 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

It wasn't a one man mission! Several people agreed which is why the thread was removed - no one would have given one iota of a f**k if it was just me calling for the thread to be scrapped as you well know.

I'm not going to argue about it because it's in the past; and im sorry if I personally have caused you any aggreivance but I believe it was in the best interest of Accrington Stanley Football Club.

Rereading this thread neither Doug or myself mentioned the content of the thread that was removed. You have.

Shot yourself a bit in the foot there, unless you get it removed.