Home » Blogging » Lord Justice Leveson’s address in Australia

Lord Justice Leveson’s address in Australia

I hope that readers can forgive me returning to a pet topic of mine but I found this piece about Lord Justice Leveson’s address rather interesting and I am pleased to note that he is saying things about the “new media” that Both Ray and I have been arguing for quite sometime, namely that its users have to be held responsible for the things that they write or  say.

In the super-injunction example, the writ of the law was, perhaps, believed not to run against bloggers and tweeters. This is perhaps an example of the wider phenomenon I mentioned earlier: the belief that the law does not, and cannot apply to the internet. In many ways this is a pernicious and false belief: false because the law can be enforced against those who blog and tweet; pernicious because the idea that the law does not apply to some while it applies to others undermines the rule of law as it is inconsistent with the idea of equality before the law. Procedural justice requires the law to be equally applicable to all.

While Lord Justice Leveson speaks  to the nature of the problem with the “New Media” he does not offer any idea about how individuals may be held responsible for the things that they may publish in a tweet or blog and while he does not go further than mentioning online anonymity in passing  I am saddened that he has not made the logical connection between easy anonymity and the behaviour that it enables and encourages.  personally I think that easy anonymity goes hand in glove with bad behaviour and that Ray’s suggestion that no social media presence without verifiable bona fides should be possible has merit for improving accountability and  civil behaviour. The suing of Twits and Bloggers who have thought that they could ignore the law with impunity is something that we will see far more often in the coming years and we Bloggers will have to be eternally aware of just where the boundaries of the law are if we are to avoid litigation. Personally I have always strived to remain within the bounds of the law because I do understand that doing so is essential for the civility of  social engagement, hopefully those who have thought other wise will be brought to heal by the evolution of the law in the way that it pertains to our ever  increasing online presence.

Cheers Comrades

iamnotanartist_gifparanoia_Small

About these ads

88 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    I think it might be a few years before appropriate legislation is put in place to prevent the anonymous scumbags damaging others online.

    Obviously there needs to be some form of identifiable registration before people can set up a blog or Facebook page. At the moment there are no such controls or requirements, which is a bit like letting an unlicensed and anonymous driver loose on our roads in an unregistered car.

    It’s a fairly simple process and all that’s really required is to enact legislation that requires the publishers to fully identify each forum owner before allowing it to go to air. Once identified, the author/owner of the blog or Facebook page then becomes fully traceable and legally liable for any harassment, stalking or defamation.

    In the meantime though, Iain, I’d suggest not giving them any oxygen or wasting time in responding. We took SW down and that should be enough. Ignore them is my advice.

  2. Tel says:

    At the hight of power of Venice, they went to extraordinary lengths to prevent their government becoming corrupt. However, despite this, money buys power and lots of powerful people are easily offended. Even offended by such a trifling as trade with their competitors for example.

    Because no one could speak their mind honestly in public, masks became very popular…

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Tel

    the trouble with the Net is that for too long wearing masks has been the norm and now that we have reaped the bad behavioural consequences of that.

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    I just heard Greg Jericho (of Grog’s Gamut) on ABC radio saying that regulation of bloggers should only apply to those who have a large audience. Huh? He’s got it back to front – bloggers like him (and to a lesser extent Iain and myself) who blog under our real names and have regular followers are already effectively regulated by the existing laws of libel and other laws. It’s the smaller and anonymous shitbags who create the need for regulation.

  5. Paul Samson says:

    You may be half right Ray, BUT deep in the back of my mind, is the old adage, of the importance of a fair, accurate and FREE press, in all its forms, including blogging ?

    How do you legislate to curtail bloggers, or any other form of media (which is exactly what free speech is, in its essence ?), without curtailing that basic right of free speech ? There are already sufficient laws in place to punish the crazies ?

    A dangerous line to cross, and future ramifications of such a crossing could be dire.

    Do we want that ? Do we want to instill a communist bloc machine form of propaganda, acting as a free press ?

    Not something to look forward to, and a door I would prefer not to walk through, regardless if some politician’s feelings are hurt ?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Paul

    I think that insisting that all twits and bloggers must at least be identifiable to those who provide the online platforms they they use need not be any impediment to free speech but more importantly it will enable a more civil online environment.

    You see “free speech” is more than just allowing everyone to say anything they please it needs to have the balance of requiring those spoken about the freedom from being defamed and harassed by anonymities because who can be truly free to speak if you know that you will be harassed by the unaccountable as a consequence?

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    It’s the smaller and anonymous shitbags who create the need for regulation.

    Precisely right Ray!

  8. Paul Samson says:

    But hasn’t what you suggested been tried before ?

    I see your point, but again, I seem to recall something about “whistle blowers” legislation, to protect against what you are suggesting ?

  9. Iain Hall says:

    No not in terms of the internet Paul, I liken it to the requirement that those making electoral comment have to announce who is the person authorising the words and images and where they can be contacted.
    In our age of non-stop news and commentary why should blogs or twitter accounts be any different?

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    Do we want to instill a communist bloc machine form of propaganda, acting as a free press ?

    No, and it’s not about some politician’s political feelings. You can certainly have a free press with registered blogs – why not? Freedom of speech does not require anonymity and in fact, it’s the anonymity which contributes to the abuses on the Internet. Maybe you don’t get what this is about, Paul? It’s not about curtailing freedoms to express opinions, it’s about preventing harassment and anonymous abuse of ordinary everyday people.

  11. Paul Samson says:

    I also see your point Iain.
    I seem to remember something about an old law, that states all political ads, during an election campaign, have to have endorsed the name of the issuing person, and the names of all the persons involved in the ads as well.

    It is still a fine line to cross, at least for those that “behave” themselves.
    I see a future, even now, where people are too frightened to say, what needs to be said, for fear of reprisals ? For those that are doing the dirty so to speak, laws are in place now, as well as advanced tracking techniques, to find the offender pretty quickly ? Hasn’t been too successful with the internet though has it ? Look how many internet scammers have been legally brought to task ? Not many is there. There is your long term difficulty ?

  12. Paul Samson says:

    Hang on Ray, haven’t you guys, as blog managers, have the control to delete or alter those responses that cross the line ?

  13. Brian says:

    To my mind, something has to be seriously wrong before we start passing laws restricting freedom of speech. I’m not sure that people calling other people names and causing offence is serious enough for that.

    If someone defames you on the internet, which is another thing altogether, there are legal steps you can take to have it removed and/or to hold them to account. Court orders can force companies like Facebook and Twitter to reveal who is using their services. These methods are probably expensive, but then again so is any defamation action.

    Also, I seem to recall that when you join Facebook, they require you to provide a phone number. That surely is a form of registration and is likely to stop people from misusing their account.

  14. alan says:

    it’s the anonymity that enables free speech often times.

    i am also guessing you know the isp of any offenders anyway.

    needing to know a name is a nonsense of the first order.

    so how about you 2 guys make it a rule that any posters to your blogs have to register their names and addresses, to get the ball rolling.
    don’t forget the fruity one,….GD, will you?
    it would be bye bye blogs in no time, and it will be just you two talking to each another.

    just because you guys use your real names is not justification that others should.

  15. Brian says:

    That’s probably all fair enough Alan.

    The thing that might concern me is the effect of “blogger registration” on employment. So many employers these days are proactive in monitoring the online activities of current and prospective employees. That might be warranted in some cases, such as criminal activity or drug use. But if bloggers are forced to use their real name, I can see some being penalised or overlooked because of their political views. And frankly I think that is a contravention of individual rights.

    I might add that while I find most of “GD’s” views objectionable, it is his right to hold them and express them. I don’t mind that he does so under an alias.

  16. alan says:

    maybe you misread me, i don’t advocate registering for anything, or using real names if one does not want to.

    i was simply saying that to my mind, what these two bloggers want is farcical.

    and the fruity one can keep his anonymity.
    i have no interest in knowing who he is; it’s sufficient that i know what he is.

  17. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Alan anonymity does not enable anything of the sort, because for every person who might use it for honest frankness there seem to be many others who use it as a licence for mischief and malice.
    As for knowing ISPs well it would be nice if that gave reliable trace ability but with Proxy servers and other masking technology that is not always the case.

    Oh and BTW I know precisely who GD is in the real world

  18. alan says:

    I know you know, because I have read you writing that you did previously.

    what about me wanting to sue him for the 10 cents he owns, for calling me a creep?
    haha.

  19. GD says:

    Tell me your name and address lowercase alan and I’ll gladly send you the 10 cents, you cre*p :)

  20. alan says:

    no need to block out the ‘e’, unless you want me to sue for added pain,suffering and hurt feelings!
    haha.

    isn’t alan a name fruity one?

    home suburb is langwarrin, very close to cruden farm, owned by the now deceased beautiful person, who was my idol.

    need any more clues fruity one?

  21. GD says:

    gutless creep, you stalk Iain but hide yourself :(

  22. alan says:

    you’re always good for a chuckle fruity one.
    i don’t think you have the foggiest idea about much at all.
    it must be difficult living with all those hang ups, delusions, and prejudices you have.
    so i am not only a stalker extraordinaire, but i am hiding myself to boot.
    hahaha.
    i think some more fruit must have been added to the mix lately.

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    Alan & Brian, you two just don’t get it, although I’d suggest that’s because you don’t want to get it, but that’s another story. Of course bloggers like Iain & I can ‘block out’ anonymous scumbags if we want to – and we often do – but the point about registering in order to open a blog or Facebook page is to prevent anonymous people starting one up with the sole purpose of harassing & defaming others. Um, there’s not a lot we can currently do about that sort of behaviour which isn’t exactly a nice thing to do, don’t you think? It’s also illegal. So … what exactly are your two’s thoughts about that? Do tell. I’m interested.

  24. Brian says:

    Alan & Brian, you two just don’t get it, although I’d suggest that’s because you don’t want to get it, but that’s another story.

    I’m not sure what veiled comment you’re making there. It’s not that I “don’t get it”, it’s that I don’t agree. They are two different things.

    I’ve already given my view above. Personally I object to having to supply identification to foreign companies like Facebook and Twitter just so I can use their services.

  25. alan says:

    ditto for me brian.

    as for facebook and twitter,i won’t use them, and there must be something about them that i don’t understand, because i can’t see why they are apparently so popular.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    I object to having to supply identification to foreign companies like Facebook and Twitter just so I can use their services.

    I didn’t mention Twitter but why would you object to giving identification to Facebook in order to establish a web page from where you could otherwise anonymously slag off at real identities? Same goes for starting a blog with WordPress.

    Do you agree that people shouldn’t set up anonymously authored hate blogs or facebook pages and, if so, how would you propose to stop them?

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Brian
    I think that the point that should be made clear is that what we are proposing would not require that a user’s identity would have to be publicly displayed on any page just available in the event of unacceptable behaviour. The fact is you are without a doubt the sort of person who would have absolutely NOTHING to fear from what we propose because you have always behaved like a perfect gentleman even when you are at odds with the opinions of others.

    Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.

  28. GD says:

    ditto for me brian. as for facebook and twitter,i won’t use them, and there must be something about them that i don’t understand, because i can’t see why they are apparently so popular.

    There’s a lot that you don’t understand, lowercase alan. Perhaps it’s best you don’t worry your silly little head about it. Best you leave the important matters to the adults.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    GD
    You missed a bit ;)

    Best you leave the important matters to the adults. or you wont get anything from Santa…. :lol:

  30. GD says:

    Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.

    couldn’t have said it better myself

  31. GD says:

    There is no Santa, lowercase Al supports the Muslims, get with the program Iain…

  32. Iain Hall says:

    Santa does not care about the God you worship or endorse GD, only if you are naughty or nice…
    Oh hang on that still means that lower case alan is in trouble doesn’t it?

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    what we are proposing would not require that a user’s identity would have to be publicly displayed on any page just available in the event of unacceptable behaviour

    Exactly , Iain. And that overcomes any objections like Brian’s on the ‘right to privacy’ and on fears about your employer knowing your political views, etc.

    Look guys, it’s a no-brainer and there is simply no valid argument against blog owners having to be identified and registered before being allowed to blog. Same goes for Facebook. I’m not sure about Twitter because I don’t regard that as being as potentially damaging as permanent websites can be. Twitter is here and then gone – and who takes it seriously?

    Anyone who objects to having to register before starting a blog is probably suspect as to their motives.

  34. GD says:

    Ray. I agree

  35. GD says:

    Oh hang on that still means that lower case alan is in trouble doesn’t it?

    yep, he’s naughty, worse still, he’s a creepy stalker with ‘behavioural problems’

  36. Brian says:

    Look guys, it’s a no-brainer and there is simply no valid argument against blog owners having to be identified and registered before being allowed to blog.

    There is, it is called the right to privacy. Registering to start a website or blog is one thing, but providing sensitive personal information (or proof thereof) is another altogether. I object to having to send information like my full name, address, birthdate, driver’s license number or credit card details to big companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google, just so I can use their ‘free’ services. That information can and occasionally has been misused.

    On the question of displaying a site or page owner’s real name “in the event of unacceptable behaviour”, that’s all well and good. But I can see that being misused in a similar way that anonymity is misused. On what grounds would a site owner’s personal details be released, simply because someone asks for them? Or will a court order or subpoena be required? If it’s the latter, then frankly that’s not that different from what we have now.

    As for Twitter, I do not spend a lot of time on it but it can be as venomous as any other medium. If someone tweets “John Smith is a pedophile” to 5,000 followers then surely that is just as defamatory as a blog post to the same effect.

    The fact is you are without a doubt the sort of person who would have absolutely NOTHING to fear from what we propose because you have always behaved like a perfect gentleman even when you are at odds with the opinions of others.

    Thanks Iain, but that’s not what the wife says!

  37. Ray Dixon says:

    I object to having to send information like my full name, address, birthdate, driver’s license number or credit card details to big companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google, just so I can use their ‘free’ services

    Just because it’s a “free service” doesn’t make it any less potentially open to abuse. Do you object to having to supply similar identifying information to:

    Open a bank account?
    Obtain a passport?
    Hire a car?
    Obtain a loan?

    Your concerns about misuse of the information are insignificant compared to the damage that some people inflict by the anonymous free use of a blog and they do not outweigh that.

    On what grounds would a site owner’s personal details be released, simply because someone asks for them? Or will a court order or subpoena be required?

    I’d suggest it would be something between those two extremes you cite. It shouldn’t be released by just asking but then again, it shouldn’t require a court action either. There would obviously need to be a formal complaint process. The point is that, as it now stands, WordPress does not even ask for your real name and could not really help identify someone using a proxy server anyway, but if they were registered …..

    Why the resistance, Brian? Unless you run or contribute to an anonymous blog it wouldn’t effect you. Most people running blogs are not offending and would have no such objection in my opinion. Not as strong as yours. What you’re effectively doing is defending scumbags on the basis of their so-called freedom of speech and privacy rights.

  38. Paul Samson says:

    You’re examples are fine Ray, but you are missing a vital point.

    All of your examples are also covered under massive privacy legislation. The holders of such information, if they were to release your information, would be crucified under laws in place.

    The difference, is that blog details are not covered under such privacy legislation, due to the very fact that blogging is an “open” environment.

    That’s the part that is liable to be abused, and quite rightfully, everyone should be wary when placing their privates, for all to see, on the internet.

    Remember an important point about our legal system.
    Everyone, has a presumption of innocence, until PROVEN guilty.
    Unfortunately, that includes the scumbags ?

  39. Brian says:

    Just because it’s a “free service” doesn’t make it any less potentially open to abuse. Do you object to having to supply similar identifying information to: Open a bank account?

    No. But they are financial transactions and those checks and balances are in place to prevent fraud. I’m not sure “being offended by nasty creeps” is in the same ball park as criminal activity.

    Your concerns about misuse of the information are insignificant compared to the damage that some people inflict by the anonymous free use of a blog

    No they are not. Privacy and freedom of speech are different issues and one does not necessarily outweigh the other.

    I’d suggest it would be something between those two extremes you cite. It shouldn’t be released by just asking but then again, it shouldn’t require a court action either.

    Well what then? Because frankly I can’t see much in the middle. If you leave it up to the courts and/or police, it’s too difficult. But if you allow individuals access to that information, even if they have to follow some kind of process, then it’s going to be misused just as anonymity is misused.

    Why the resistance, Brian? Unless you run or contribute to an anonymous blog it wouldn’t effect you.

    Because I don’t agree Ray. I’m aware that some people use the internet to spread hate and vitriol about other individuals, politicians, races, etc. But it has always been thus, that’s what some people do. Trying to stop them by imposing identity controls that frankly I think are ‘unpoliceable’ and sound a bit too Orwellian just won’t work.

    On the other hand, if you were arguing that Facebook, Twitter or WordPress should be more proactive in shutting down hateful sites, like those targeting police, teachers or other people, I’d certainly agree.

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    Paul, you’re way out of the ball park with all that. No one’s details would be shown on the Internet – it would simply be a matter of registering yourself with the relevant authority before you can open a blog. Don’t you accept that you have to be identified and registered to drive a car on our roads lest you break the law? There’s no real difference.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    At present all one needs is a working email address to start a blog on Google or WP and that means that these entities have no idea just who is using their service, frankly I would think it would serve well enough if having required real identifies to use them and that these companies would only be required to release that information pursuant to a court order.
    Thus the privacy of users could be maintained but real redress would be possible should the need arise.

  42. Brian says:

    That sounds like a fair proposal Iain. However I suspect that if hateful people intend to misuse the service, they will enter false details anyway. I think what Facebook does now is reasonable, they ask for a phone number and then send a verification text to the phone before approving your account.

  43. Paul Samson says:

    Email is not that secure. We have many instances of people being hacked.

    Ray, precautions are already in place for what you are suggesting. As far as I know, (I have no blog), but, don’t you need a fixed ip address to open up a blog, the same as a normal web page, so as search engines can find you ? If so, you can be quickly traced through that fixed ip address ?

    Certainly, drivers have to be trained and tested, but the reasons for that are not just money raising, or for identification purposes. Poor drivers kill people as well as themselves, many others maimed, which cost the state, and taxpayers many millions of dollars a year. All that unregistered blogs can do is upset someone, or perhaps hurt their professional reputations. For those making it up as they go, which is what you are referring to, usually it all comes back to bite them in the …. eventually ?

  44. Iain Hall says:

    There certainly are hateful people who would find a way arround any safeguards Brian but it would require a fair bit more effort to act maliciously without the fear of consequences so I think that it would substantially reduce the level of animus on the Net, which would be a good thing. More importantly the the “anything goes” mindset would quite rightly be challenged and hopefully discredited forever.

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    Paul, there are no such precautions in place and your suggestion about fixed IPs is pure fantasy. To start with you don’t need a fixed one – mine’s not due to the LAN I’m on up here. And then there are proxies. And then how do you get the IP anyway unless the blog is registered? Getting a blog is far too easy and there are presently no checks or balances in place and no way of finding someone who doesn’t want to be found, regardless of what they do. Your ideas show that you’re right out the window about this and that it’s rather pointless responding to you. Besides, if you don’t own or inted to own a blog (or you don’t contribute or inrtend to contribute to an anonymously authored hate blog) it does not effect you.

  46. Paul Samson says:

    Ease up man, you sound like you’re going to have a coronary ? ;)

    http://ocportal.com/docs9/tut_trace.htm

    Give that a read, and perhaps you may change you’re mind ?
    It’s a how-to guide on doing just as I suggested. As a blog owner, as far as I know, you have a master page, that gives you all sorts of information, that the user cannot see. For instance, I have a program installed here, that tells me everytime a site is trying to track me, and my internet patterns. In fact, everytime I come here, it clicks over another, and warns me of such.

    Every ip is registered. We all have modems, with username and password, and as soon as that modem is switched on, it goes through an authorised phase, and clears that user, issues them with an ip address, and the internet comes up. The isp’s have computerised logs, as to who was assigned a port, and when.

    Gotcha !
    Simple as that.

  47. Iain Hall says:

    I wish that It was as simple of that Paul however experience has shown me that it isn’t.
    That said IP addresses can be useful in unmasking scum-bags if you can compare them to those used by known individuals Its just not the complete answer by any stretch of the imagination.

  48. Paul Samson says:

    Maybe not, but it would be a great place to start ?
    It has been my experience, that nothing is impossible, if your isp is responsible, and cares anything about it’s reputation ?

    Admittedly, it would take a court order, to get the list of who was at what port, and when, but tracing down of these cretins is difficult, but not impossible.

  49. Ray Dixon says:

    Paul – here’s the thing: When someonoe starts up a new WordPress blog the IP is not viewable to anyone else. So all your carry on about using IPs to eradicate hate blogs is hot air. If that worked then it would be working already.

  50. Paul Samson says:

    Hot air huh ?
    Perhaps you need to do a bit of reading, rather than believe everything you think you know ?

    Of course it is not visible, you have to ask the server for it, or download one of the many number of tools, to do the job for you. They’re out there, all you need to do is a google. There are hundreds of them.

    Try reading http://evertb.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/tracking-a-troll/

    Btw, that didn’t stop your action against that blog, that you “made disappear” not so long ago ?

    Told you I was a long time viewer.

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh for God’s sake, WordPress are not going to give you a blog owner’s IP address and there are no other “tools” for finding one unless the blog owner is stupid enough to also put a comment on your own blog, but even then he’d probably use a proxy. As for SW, that was only was taken down because the owner had given verbal clues as to his identity and was concerned about being exposed as the stalking scumbag that he is. Well, actually he was shitting bricks. You’re way off the mark here.

  52. Paul Samson says:

    Hmm, not the story walking the bricks.

    So, you consider st*lking him, as perhaps he did you (?), threatening to expose him on the net, because he didn’t agree with you, justified ? I don’t know the specifics, not interested, just the ramifications.

    You continue to ignore evidence, defending your supposed incorrect “facts”, to support an argument lacking any cogency whatsoever ?
    Why can’t you just admit you could be wrong and be done with it.

    Would certainly increase a dwindling reputation, or is it the reputation of being the internet’s biggest “know it all” more important to you ?

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    So now you’re defending SW and claiming that I “stalked” the anonymous scumbag running it? I thought there was more to your stance than you were letting on.

  54. Paul Samson says:

    I am not defending anything, other than the concept of free speech !

    As to my stance, wtf are you on about ? Regardless of whether they (or you) were right, or wrong, everyone has the right of free speech, without interference, especially from you sir.

    Lets face it Ray, you haven’t exactly got the best of reps on the internet either. When was the last time you, (or Iain for that matter), were told to “shut down” under threats of god knows what ?

    Who died and made you leader protem of the blogosphere ?

  55. alan says:

    QUOTING Mr Hall: “Lower case Alan on the other hand, has as they would say about wayward schoolboys, “behaviour issues” and he could clearly benefit from the steadying effect of accountability for the things he says and does.”

    What ‘behaviour’ issues would they be?
    There is absolutely nothing that I have done that needs accounting for, and if anybody thinks I have, then they are seriously deluded.

    The fruity one on the other hand, is in need of serious help.

    for instance there is this gem…….

    ‘There is no Santa, lowercase Al supports the Muslims, get with the program Iain…’

    I would be surprised if I have ever mentioned Muslims on this, or any other site.
    I certainly would not support them, or any other religion, because they are all off with the fairies in my opinion.
    Probably not as much as GD himself though.

    Merry Christmas fruity one.

  56. Iain Hall says:

    Alan
    cruising past my house is the act of Stalker and it certainly qualifies as a “behaviour Issue” in my book

  57. GD says:

    cruising past my house is the act of Stalker and it certainly qualifies as a “behaviour Issue” in my book

    agreed

  58. Ray Dixon says:

    Setting up an anonymous hate blog on which to slander, deride & stalk others is not “free speech”. If you support that type of free speech you are supporting scumbags – which seems entirely self evident going by your tone.

    When was the last time (you) were told to “shut down” under threats of god knows what ?

    The next time will be the first.

    And I’m not claiming to be the leader of anything – I’m just expressing my opinion on the issue as you are yours. Obviously you just can’t handle someone disagreeing with you so you revert to denigrating their character, as you’ve attempted to do here. Why don’t you just admit you’ve got some kind of misguided grudge and move on?

  59. alan says:

    It’s impossible to cruise past your house.
    What would be wrong is if I posted your address all over the net.
    But driving down a street and then turning around and going back out again straight away, is hardly a hanging offence.
    And Iain you need to buy a new book.
    if you call that stalking, you are as seriously deluded as the fruity one is.
    But whatever rocks your boat,……go for it.

  60. alan says:

    And I am either moderated or I am not.
    Make up your mind, I have a fair idea of what sets off your….”Your comment is awaiting moderation.”.
    Pretty weak IMO.

  61. Iain Hall says:

    Lower case alan
    If you use a trigger word your comment will be moderated automatically on this occasion the trigger was “stalking”

    But driving down a street and then turning around and going back out again straight away, is hardly a hanging offence.

    May not be a hanging offence but it is one that is way creepy and enough to encourage me to be suspicious of your motives.

  62. GD says:

    I am either moderated or I am not

    Well no, perhaps you should read the comments policy. You can read, can’t you?

  63. alan says:

    don’t forget that capitals should always be used to start a sentence fruity one!

    so i followed your orders fruity one, and read them, and while i can understand why some words are a no no, what would be the point of blocking a simple word like that?

    and what is a ‘bloger’?

  64. Iain Hall says:

    Alan
    Its my prerogative to have any words that I please trigger moderation and I am under no obligation to explain my choices to you or anyone else.
    Deal

  65. alan says:

    of course you aren’t, but then again,i can also think it’s ridiculous, which i do.

    the ‘b’ one must have some special connotation to you, because it’s not even a word.
    did somebody accuse you of doing it?

  66. Iain Hall says:

    Alan
    What part of I am under no obligation to explain my choices to you or anyone else. is beyond your comprehension?

  67. alan says:

    interesting that you are so touchy on the subject.
    you can blame the fruity one for directing me there!

  68. Ray Dixon says:

    Amazing how “alan” is so fascinated with Iain. Is it a love thing?

  69. Iain Hall says:

    Maybe so Ray but sadly for lower case alan I don’t bat for the other team, but then again he might…

  70. Ray Dixon says:

    So …. he was cruisin’ for a bruisin’ then, Iain?

    Or maybe he just wanted a nice cup of Earl Grey?

  71. alan says:

    i prefer ginger & lemon tea, home made, thank you.

    but never fear, he is all yours ray, so you don’t need to be jealous.
    with those avatars, you guys are plainly suited to each other.

  72. Ray Dixon says:

    I couldn’t handle the beard, alan. It’d bristle.

  73. Iain Hall says:

    You know what Ray I have met other bloggers in “real life” before shared a cuppa and had a most Jolly time had Alan suggested that we meet for a tea or even a Latte I would have thought nothing amiss however for him to act like a burglar casing my joint is actually rather creepy.

  74. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s the point that “alan” doesn’t seem to get, Iain. I’ve had similar things happen. In two (separate) cases the ‘bloggers’ actually stayed in our holiday units without explaining who they were (ie that they knew me via the internet) and then used information gained to deride me elsewhere on other blogs. “alan” did much the same to you by boasting about his ‘secret mission’ here. It’s pathetic and if he’s genuine he should apologise.

  75. Iain Hall says:

    Precisely the point there Ray, perhaps “alan” fears discovering that I am not as “evil” as he wants to believe I am.

  76. alan says:

    off with the fairies springs to mind.
    the fruity one is in good company.

    so where else have i ‘derided’ iain on the internet?
    that was good for a chuckle.

    a nice deft tactic change though.
    well done guys.
    could you sign up for melbourne, we need the help

    the problem for you two, is that you both have very big history on the net, a goodly proportion of which is not only laughable, but rather sad thinking that supposedly grown men are reduced to that.
    not to mention ray must have a legal mind like no other in history!

    so they say…”what is alan doing googling us”
    it’s actually a natural reaction when you are directed somewhere to have a read.
    it’s interesting to see what else might be out there, but of course i was totally overwhelmed with hits, and i guess i only clicked on a minute fraction of them.

  77. alan says:

    oh, and i would not be too happy if i was an open book either

  78. Ray Dixon says:

    I didn’t say you derided Iain anywhere but here, “alan” – learn to read. Look, maybe if you stopped being an anonymous troll and posted under your real name you’d start to see why those who do have had a gutful of people like you. Give it a try. What’s stopping you? Oh … no balls?

  79. alan says:

    your problem is that you would not know the truth if it bit you on the arse.

    if you choose to believe i am not called alan, then that’s not my problem.
    not to mention it’s completely irrelevant.

    and let’s get this straight, how easy is it for iain to ban me if he has had a ‘gutful’?
    go on iain, i dare you!!!
    i will be absolutely devastated when he does, they will have to put me on suicide watch.
    sorry, i forgot, he has to keep his enemies close…..benny hill stuff.
    hahaha

    anyway, apart from the 3 stooges, i have nothing as far as i know, negative about me anywhere on the net.
    you and your tag team partner on the other hand………….

  80. Iain Hall says:

    Alan
    Frankly I see no reason to ban you at present because I see you as being rather like bad case of jock itch, something that will return without constant vigilance, so I would rather be able to know that you are posting under this nick instead of having you invent a new identity that I have to detect in the future. I do reserve the right to edit your comments to make you look sillier if you push the envelope too far though.

  81. alan says:

    stop the crapola iain.
    did i reinvent myself when you banned me previously?
    quite simply, it’s not going to happen, i already know what i set out to know.
    ban me and i am simply banned and gone.
    do you think i could give a stuff?
    your problem is that you need more than just ray, and the fruity one, and you know it.

    you have already edited previously, and guess what?
    who cares?
    it just shows that you are dishonest, but i already know that anyway.

    and as for ray…….apologise for what?
    for being at fault for not telling my real name is mohammed and not alan?
    just what right do you have to know may i ask(even though you already do)?
    perhaps you can read me my rights, being a legal expert and all!!!

  82. Iain Hall says:

    Alan
    I am disinclined to ban you because that is what you really want.

    That said I have yet to see you contribute anything meaningful to any thread where you post a comment I do however live in hope that one day you might do so.

  83. alan says:

    what tripe, i don’t need to be banned, i can just stop posting.
    so what has ‘want’ got to do with it?

    anyway i just found a new sandpit that i may add the odd post to if they will allow me.

    and the recent ‘meaningful’ would not have happened, except that it was response to your tag team partner and yourself.

    do you know that there is absolutely nothing favourable about you two on the net.
    does that not say something?
    everybody can’t be wrong….can they?

    i think you NEED each other, because you have nothing else.

  84. Iain Hall says:

    How dull you are alan… sigh

  85. Ray Dixon says:

    “alan”, where I have said that I wanted to know your identity? I haven’t and, once again, you have purposely twisted what I’ve said. I only suggested you try posting under your real name because, by doing that, you might finally learn how the highly personalised snark that anonymous trolls like you engage in is not only inappropriate, it’s also downright childish and pathetic. Btw, even if your first name is “alan” (and I don’t give a shit if it is), you are still essentially anonymous. I’m buggered if I know what you get out of this but you come across as someone with real inadequacy problems. I suggest a course in self esteem might help – it’s never too late to start feeling better about yourself.

    Iain, it’s your blog mate, but I’d put this snivelling coward of a troll on permanent moderation and only allow through those comments that are not the type of personalised snark he thrives on. He’s a pain in the arse just out to stir you (and I) up …. and quite obviously he’s already writing about it ‘elsewhere’. Why feed the trolls by responding to them? No one else does.

  86. Iain Hall says:

    I have added lower case alan to the moderation filter Ray so if he offers anything of interest then I will allow it otherwise I’ll bin his nonsense.

  87. Ray Dixon says:

    Good idea, Iain. Quite frankly, I’m fed up responding to trolls like “alan” and I think the only policy that will work is a ‘no tolerance’ one – ie. no personalised/trolling comments get through. He’s not here to add to the debate on the various topics you bring up – he’s here to keep reflaming the old blog wars. And I’d suggest totally ignoring anything written anywhere else too – it’ll die off if it’s not fed.

  88. Iain Hall says:

    Well at least I can’t be accused of acting too quickly on things like this.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: