Metropol

David Cameron has, according to the BBC propaganda site,

<http://news.bbc.co.UK/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4613988.stm>

added that the news that someone who was on List 99, which should have banned him from working with children

But DFES Circular number 11/95 clearly and explicitly states --

<http://www.dfes.gov.UK/publications/gui ... list99.htm>

It should be emphasised that not all those on the list are perceived to be a danger to children.

Does David Cameron, the admitted nicotine addict,

(see the Murdoch propaganda sheet entry at <http://www.timesonline.co.UK/article/0, ... 65,00.html>)

speak with forked tongue?

Sput wrote:

Interesting to note the appearance of this briefly.

I don't know anything about that, so feel free to speculate wildly.

In the interests of cooling our little hot-bed before we all start to sweat, I will clear a couple of things up.

I deleted the posts pertaining to Neil.

Neil was offended by the comment and asked me to look at it.

We'll put aside the legalities here. Matters of libel are not exactly clear on internet boards. In order to defame someone's character, one should know more about it that the cursory registration information required to sign up and post at Metropol.

We'll have to rely on common sense.

Applying some to this situation I think it is fairly obvious what was being implied by the "list 99" comment, regardless of the semantics. I think it was in poor taste, not least because Neil works in education, but also because he is one of our more gentle and courteous members. Jamez apologised, I removed it and that's that.

This brings us on to a larger discussion.

Jamez was appointed as mod following Sideshow Ed's relentless and blistering attacks. It was clear to all who visited that this was more that just the odd sniping remark and was, arguably, more of a stalking exercise.

At the time I was not able to ban users, and Martin was unavailable to do so. That's why it went on so long. Now that I am in a position to remove users, we shouldn't find ourselves in this position again; but in fact things seem to be more vitriolic.

Jamez wrote:My role as mod is SIMPLY to stop trolls and robot usernames posting crap on here. You're all welcome to slag off, accuse and fight with anyone you like.

I have seen a couple of threads being locked in the heat of argument, only to be unlocked later; as well as a poll which appeared and disappeared through the night (due I wondered because of the result).

This is the thing with moderator status. There are advantages to it, and it does take a little time to get used to. And maybe a bit more lip-biting than one is used to.

But that's what we need here people - just a touch more lip-biting.

Let's try to move forward with a sense of humour and goodwill. Think of each other as members of the board. All this title business is making everyone too sensitive.

Just remember; I'm the boss.

Gavin Scott wrote:I have seen a couple of threads being locked in the heat of argument, only to be unlocked later; as well as a poll which appeared and disappeared through the night (due I wondered because of the result).

i didn't see this, i was out last night... what was the poll and what was the result?

Gavin Scott wrote:I think it was in poor taste, not least because Neil works in education, but also because he is one of our more gentle and courteous members. Jamez apologised, I removed it and that's that.

it wasn't only bad taste, it was inexcusable and the comment should not have been made. this behavour sends out a terrible message to new members and casual posters.

why is jamez allowed to continue to post as a moderator when the way he lashes out (eg fuck off, troll boy) is no more eloquent than slideshow ed's postings, and he was banned?

his behavior cannot be justified

Gavin Scott wrote:Let's try to move forward with a sense of humour and goodwill.

Just remember; I'm the boss.

Ahem!

I'LL decide when (and if) you can say that, if you don't mind!

I don't want to stir things up any further, but would just like to add that I did what I felt was good practice to avoid anything becoming more heated at the time. I didn't respond to Jamez's comment on this thread, but just had a quiet word with Gavin - and I appreciate his speed in dealing with things.

I'm grateful for a couple of fellow Metropolers who spoke up against the post. I would maintain that, from my experience on forums, it's counter-productive to post in the heat of the moment when something has riled you, or to repeat allegations made in a thread.

Sorry if that makes me sound like a killjoy - I hope I'm anything but. I actually typed up quite a heated response and then decided just to close the window and not post it, which I sometimes find to be an adequate way for me to vent.

Dr Lobster* wrote:i didn't see this, i was out last night... what was the poll and what was the result?

It was "Should Jamez be relieved of his duties?" and was about 6 to 1 in favour when I saw it.

i just wonder what it's actually going to take before that happens.

he's already posted sexually explicit pictures of lee stanley, made disgusting inappropriate allegations and aggressively responded to forum members.

why is he allowed to do this with impunity and everybody else has to put up with it and bite their tongue? enough is enough.

Corin wrote:David Cameron has, according to the BBC propaganda site,

<http://news.bbc.co.UK/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4613988.stm>

added that the news that someone who was on List 99, which should have banned him from working with children

But DFES Circular number 11/95 clearly and explicitly states --

<http://www.dfes.gov.UK/publications/gui ... list99.htm>

It should be emphasised that not all those on the list are perceived to be a danger to children.

Does David Cameron, the admitted nicotine addict,

(see the Murdoch propaganda sheet entry at <http://www.timesonline.co.UK/article/0, ... 65,00.html>)

speak with forked tongue?

From the Education Act, 2002

142 Prohibition from teaching, etc.

(1) The Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales, may direct that a person-

(a) may not carry out work to which this section applies;

(b) may carry out work to which this section applies only in circumstances specified in the direction;

(c) may carry out work to which this section applies only if conditions specified in the direction are satisfied.


(2) This section applies to-

(a) providing education at a school,

(b) providing education at a further education institution,

(c) providing education under a contract of employment or for services where the other party to the contract is a local education authority or a person exercising a function relating to the provision of education on behalf of a local education authority, and

(d) taking part in the management of an independent school.


(3) This section also applies to work of a kind which-

(a) brings a person regularly into contact with children, and

(b) is carried out at the request of or with the consent of a relevant employer (whether or not under a contract).


(4) A direction under this section may be given in respect of a person only-

(a) on the grounds that the person is included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14) (list of individuals considered unsuitable to work with children),

(b) on the grounds that the person is unsuitable to work with children,

(c) on grounds relating to the person's misconduct,

(d) on grounds relating to the person's health, or

(e) in the case of a direction given by virtue of subsection (2)(d), on grounds relating to the person's professional incompetence (or on a ground mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d)).

Thanks MarkN for providing the details of the relevant act.

(1) The Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales, may direct that a person-

So it is very clear that the Secretary of State does not have to give a direction, but that the Secretary of State can, if the Secretary of State chooses, give a direction provided that it meets one of the criteria under (4)

(4) A direction under this section may be given in respect of a person only

and one of these may be nothing more sinister than

(d) on grounds relating to the person's health

So once again the Bliar administration has crafted legislation which gives them powers at their own interpretative discretion, since who decides what are the grounds relating to a person's health?

meh


indifferent, but all the "fat virgins" and "i have abit cock" get a bit wearing.

Cheese Head wrote:"i have abit cock"

Is that like an abit motherboard?