[calvin plummers socks]

Mr Mercury, on 24 April 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

It wasn't long enough.

I hope that's an attempt at humour

[Mr Mercury]

calvin plummers socks, on 24 April 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

I hope that's an attempt at humour

Look at my wry smile.

[ash_cfc]

Bring back Spirezine!

[DIFH]

Mr Mercury, on 24 April 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

I was thinking more along the lines of Crown Court!

High Court more like.

[DIFH]

Forever a Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:

That's the problem we can't upset the club!!


Pete needs to decide which side he's on. Turnipe or the fans

Unbelievable comment....

[dim view]

Forever a Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:

That's the problem we can't upset the club!!


Pete needs to decide which side he's on. Turnipe or the fans

'independent' means he doesn't side with fans. I'm not sure you've thought through the argument.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 25 April 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

'independent' means he doesn't side with fans. I'm not sure you've thought through the argument.

The key point being that Pete's acknowledged this place isn't independent as it stands. Presumably due to him.

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 25 April 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

The key point being that Pete's acknowledged this place isn't independent as it stands. Presumably due to him.

Precisely. He's answered the question in the topic with a 'no'.

The chances of finding a moderator of a fans' forum who is independent are nil. This is difficult as posts have been deleted, but what is the nature of the criticism of Pete? Did he make decisions that 'Law.justanswer.co.uk' would reverse?

[Rodney's Moustache]

metallilad, on 24 April 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

And let's be fair. A lot of what gets posted is a truth that gets "Chinese whispered". That is why he is doing what he's doing.
All this bo**ocks about letting people hang themselves is why he is being extra vigilant, whilst I agree that it's a public forum, that the last time I checked we still had freedom of speech some people seem to think that posting up insults & calling names of our board members and CEO is perfectly acceptable.
You call somebody that's not white a racist name it's wrong.
You call somebody who is disabled a name it's wrong.
You defend somebody who commits a crime it's wrong.
Everybody calls for action to be taken against these type of perpetrators (and rightly so) if any of those examples are done. But because it's against the top brass at the club and were not very happy with them we seem to expect that it's our forum and we can say it even if it is grossly exaggerated. And that is my point. All Pete is doing is not only protecting us but also protecting the board, he is doing it in his own time. It's not a power trip it's keeping the name of "Bobs board" going on for us all to use.
It's not really that hard to understand.

So with your logic it's ok to call a white person a racist name?

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 25 April 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

Precisely. He's answered the question in the topic with a 'no'.

The chances of finding a moderator of a fans' forum who is independent are nil. This is difficult as posts have been deleted, but what is the nature of the criticism of Pete? Did he make decisions that 'Law.justanswer.co.uk' would reverse?

I'm referring, as Pete I believe was, about independence from direct interference by CFC. I would be, as would the vast majority of people.

[Johnnyspireite7]

Rodney, on 25 April 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

So with your logic it's ok to call a white person a racist name?

Yeah Honkey!

[Rodney's Moustache]

Johnnyspireite7, on 25 April 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Yeah Honkey!

Shut up snowflake

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 25 April 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

I'm referring, as Pete I believe was, about independence from direct interference by CFC. I would be, as would the vast majority of people.

I have full faith in Pete.

There's interference and there's threats of legal action. As a non lawyer, if he reads a post that he thinks has even the remotest chance of being libellous, then he has to delete it.

If I post demanding AC lists all current creditors and AC tries to threaten him into removing it, I'd expect Pete to tell him to go away.

[Stockholm Spireite]

dim view, on 25 April 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I have full faith in Pete.

There's interference and there's threats of legal action. As a non lawyer, if he reads a post that he thinks has even the remotest chance of being libellous, then he has to delete it.

If I post demanding AC lists all current creditors and AC tries to threaten him into removing it, I'd expect Pete to tell him to go away.

There's also other posts that are being removed subjectively, that are not libellous at all.

I have no problem with preserving order with libel law, but sanitising at the behest of others, or on a personal whim, shouldn't be happening.

Why not respond on the thread and give a poster the opportunity to retract a statement? Surely a public showing of what is and isn't acceptable would be beneficial to all? That way we can all see the line we shouldn't cross

[Dancingwilldoit]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 24 April 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

1- I do not know when the threads will be back as I haven't found time yet to check everything. It is possible more threads will be checked.

2- I made the decision to set the threads to "invisible" although I informed the other moderators. With the exception of one request a few months ago, that I agreed with, I have not been asked to remove any threads/posts by CFC. However as always if I was asked I would, after appropriate discussion, comply; if you want a completely independent forum then go elsewhere. I have always said that if the Club asks for information about those posting (and they have not) then I will supply it; in some cases the Defamation Act 2013 compels this.

3- For the moment I am not going to answer. I hope all I do associated with Chesterfield FC is for the benefit of the Club. Sometimes it is beneficial to protect supporters for the wider good.

Personally I find the above disturbing.

A) It is clear these threads are being removed to close down debate

B) If DA wants to run the forum tell him to put his hand in his pocket and fund it. Otherwise, stay out.

C) I'm not familiar with the Data Protection Act. But either way, I find it alarming that Davros is happy to pass on personal details of posters to the club hierachy.

D) Nothing good ever comes from from self-appointed dictators shutting down debate for 'the wider good'.

The data protection act clearly states that anybody giving personal information (this includes e-mail addresses)to others must;

•have legitimate grounds for collecting and using the personal data;
•not use the data in ways that have unjustified adverse effects on the individuals concerned;
•be transparent about how you intend to use the data, and give individuals appropriate privacy notices when collecting their personal data;
•handle people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect; and
•make sure you do not do anything unlawful with the data.

As nobody on this board has been told that their details may be passed on or shared with others, maybe certain people should think very carefully who is actually acting unlawfully.

[spireitenag]

I can confirm that CFC are well aware of the true identity of a good number of message board members.

[cfc_scott]

Sammy Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

I wonder if there is any connection in the fact that our new friend BS (that's his initials on here by the way, not the acronym of what he posts ;-p) hasn't been on since Friday and the recent 'developments' leading to some threads being sieved?

We know he's been strongly defending DB (many posters will understand or be able to make a very good guess why) and we know he's been looking various posters up on here, on Twitter/Facebook as well as LinkedIn, too (linkedin records who's viewed your profile assuming they have their own account, which he does).

Obviously, I could be wrong and he's just an innocent bystander, who'll dissapear off here, as quickly as he reappeared.

I might be totally wrong here, is there someone on here, getting our names and looking us up for information??

[Goku]

haha id love to know what their documents say about us

[calvin plummers socks]

Goku, on 25 April 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

haha id love to know what their documents say about us

Lol yep.
It's a lower league football club not the Stasi or FBI ;-)

[dim view]

spireitenag, on 25 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

I can confirm that CFC are well aware of the true identity of a good number of message board members.

ha ha.
Pity they are not so aware of the true identify of some of those on their payroll.