32 replies to this topic

[ex-user]

I was interested to hear via PM
that a new forum has appeared
on the scene.
I was interested to hear of the reasons why.
and I decided to become an 'ex user' of this one
because of what I learned.

It seems there are very few unique users
on this forum who are not moderators
all very 'twee' but not representative of real Burley.
then I learned that some posts never make it onto these pages
not because they contain vulgarities or defamations
but because they don't fit within a certain image
which this forum is supposed to portray,

I am told that it is the aspirations
of the board's owner that is behind that,
I cannot say,
but here is an experiment.
I have yet to meet a Tory who does not believe in a free market
so demonstrate that fact to allcomers by allowing this link to stand
and to all those involved with Burley Community Trust
shame on you for allowing public funds to be spent
on a website
that directly links to this politically motivated facility!
without a disclaimer,
making everyone think this is the true voice of Burley.
Moderators:
examine your own conscience
at a time when the village is under threat
The board's owner has not even posted one single comment!
do not fool yourself into thinking this forum represents Burley
It does not,
it cannot..
It would be acceptable for full ownership and control
to pass to Burley Community Trust,
Meanwhile I will have no further part in biased discussions
that represent only one end.

I dare you to make this a sticky
But of course you will delete.
Either course of action
makes the same point.

Edited by Matt, 08 February 2012 - 12:20 AM.
the 'edit' was the removal of a web link only. Web links promoting your own site are contrary to forum rules unless in your signature - same rules for everyone.

[Steve B]

Bye.

[Zigzag]

I would just like to make it very clear that the Burley in Wharfedale Community Trust does not and never has given financial supported this forum. it is funded and hosted by Matt. The financial support given by the Trust is to the Village web site which is managed and hosted by a committee of local people as a source of information. the only connection is a link from the village site to this forum.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

It is the year of the Water Dragon and if the last few days are anything to go by ...however a Dragon Year also foretells change. Often from the most unlikely places. Whichever way the Forums go there will be those fore and against and some may even join both. Might each learn from the other as that change could be more dire than many realise. What appears to be one thing may well turn out to be something else.

[appropriatebridge]

Post cancelled

[Matt]

Dear all,

I'd just like to make a few things very clear. This village is a place we want to be, and I intend to keep this forum as a placew we want to be, and one where no-one feels intimitated.

This forum is run by me for the benefit of the community. It costs a fair bit to run in both time and money and I'm very grateful to those who help moderate it etc or contribute in any way.

It makes no claims of any kind to bening representative of anything, it's simly a forum for conversation - just like coffee in the parish office, a chat with the neighbours or an evening down the pub. It;s what you make of it, nothing more any nothing less.

It receives no public funding of any kind. As for the allegation that I spend 10 hours a week running an online forum in order to further a political career, put like that I'm sure everyone can see that its patently daft! The only benefit to running it is the positive comments of those who use it and feel it makes a contribution to life in the village. IT was set up years before I became a councillor for the LS29.NET broadband campaign, and I've kept it up since then just because peope asked me to.

There will alsways be a few angry people in any group, and I'm aware that one individual has taken a dislike to this forum and is going on a bit of campaign. That's fine, just not on this forum as it undermines it for everyone else.

There is no party political bias of any kind on this forum and nothing is edited for political reasons. I have no idea what the moderators political views are, not do I care. They volunteer to help out becuase they think the forum is good for the village and those who would say otherwise owe these volunteers a sincere apology. Volunteers should be valued, or we will lose them from all aspects of village life.

What there on this forum is a commitment by all users to decency, respect and building understanding within our community and more widely. I make no apology whatsoever for removing comments, and users, who persist in trying to use this forum as a vehicle to communicate racist views or to intentionally try to bait others into a conversation about ethnicity that is not helpful in any way. I have no problem with mature debate on that topic, but this forum is not the place for it. Such debates are deeply sensitive and need to take place openly, honestly and transparently. Sometimes we have to be prepared to stand for our views without hiding behind anonymity. If you wouldn't start the coversation at your neighbour's christmas party, don't do it here.

Everyone in our online community, as anywhere, has a duty to make it a friendly and welcoming place. Burley, and indeed the whole of Wharfedale, IS a friendly and welcoming place, which I think is why we all live here. Whilst it has the same issues and tensions as everywhere else, we do not have to let them dominate our lives online or off. So racism and libel are not on. Those who do not accept that can find somewhere else to share their views. If that's everyone, well ok, I'll close the forum down becuase I wouldn't want to be part of that community and certainly don't want to faciliate it. I suspect however it is small minority of people, most of whom wouldn't have the courage to own up to their beliefs were it not for the anonymity provided by the internet.

This elephant is an illusion. If you choose to believe the illusion, you may. Just not here.

Matt

[appropriatebridge]

Maybe I am feeling more argumentative today than usual but I take issue with some of the things above.

To begin with, Ex-user kicked this thread off on 3 January 2012. Yet it is not until 5 February 2012, around 5 weeks later that MP chooses to edit it. I cannot remember what it said in the first place so I do not know what has been changed but this smacks a little of rewriting history in the manner of 1984!

I agree that Burley is a great place with much more community spirit than many and I certainly appreciate this forum being provided but is to its detriment that it seems to be so scared of difficult topics. To say it is “…just like coffee in the parish office, a chat with the neighbours or an evening down the pub.” Then veto discussions on difficulties racial concentrations might cause for instance is illogical. This suggests the author has never been in a pub!

Having read the reasoning behind TrueBurley’s setting up, I do not find his/her thoughts particularly disturbing. Any forum benefits from some controversy and as long as the points are properly argued, logically countered and maybe re-argued surely this is just a reflection of life – and the pub analogy. I agree that straightforward rants are inappropriate, whether they concern race, politics, religion etc or anything else. I would prefer that hatchets be buried and we just have one all inclusive forum (preferably this one which is a proven success) where all views are valued and respected even if some court controversy.

I think it is a little hypocritical to criticise anonymity when the moderators of this forum and indeed everyone who makes it a success are also anonymous.
Finally, for MP to say in essence, “If I cannot have my own way I will close the forum down” is like a child not wanting anyone else to play with its toy!

Actually, I do not think it is really right for an individual to have to fund/administer the forum. In this day and age, I would expect a village of Burley’s size to have an on line forum provided by the Parish Council. In Burley it could be the Burley-in-Wharfedale Community Trust perhaps. Its terms of reference include “Provides facilities and services to benefit all residents of the community”. A village forum would easily fall into that category and there must be enough trustworthy IT savvy people with the time/inclination around to run it. I think it is time for what is after all a community forum to be handed over to the community to run it. However I do applaud Matt Palmer for setting it up in the first place and for maintaining it. No doubt it takes more effort than us mere users appreciate.

[Lucerosie]

I have some sympathy with Matt on this point. As the owner of a large website myself I'm aware that it's my door that will be knocked on if something on my site is deemed to be racist. I don't like racism - but I certainly don't want the hassle that those who knock on the door would bring.

BUT - I don't like censorship either. I'd much rather people spoke their mind and saw whether or not public opinion was with or against them. Surely there are more problems caused by stifling mention of a subject (''Whatever you say, don't mention...) than having a reasonable discussion? Anything inflamatory can be moderated but I'd prefer that we didn't make people feel that there are subjects which can't be mentioned.

[Matt]

To ab, lucerosie, and others,

It's really getting to the point where I'm spending so much time dealing with one or two people with an agenda (and endless conversations about imaginary censorship etc) that it's becoming unsustainble. 4 hours tonight spent on this that I could have spent doing something for the community.

I'd love to hand this forum over to the parish council or community trust, it eats time and money, it's a legal minefield and I spend most of my time dealing with the 1% of people who are trying to bait others, promote intolerance, or simply cause problems. Unfortunately local community groups are far too sensible to take it on.

To be clear then, if you can persuade one of these bodies to take it over I'm entirely happy with that. I've asked in the past.

However, there will be no further discussion of racism and ethnicitiy on this forum as it's clearly simply too emotive an issue for online discussion boards. As soon as someone brought that topic up, an otherwise positive online community became inward looking, critical and negative. Possibly there's no way back, but I'd be sorry about that.

It infects everything if we let it - if you look at the comments on the T&A's website you'll see that even if the article is abut the weather, most of the time everything degenerates into bitter exchanges about race. Well, I spend enough time trying to deal with this issue all across the district and I'm not going to let it wreck this online community. I'd rather not have the community at all.

By all means have that conversation in other ways or in other places, but not on here. I spend a lot of time convincing others that the conversation does need to be had, but there are ways to go about it. It's nearly ruined this site, one I and others spent 10 years building and contributing to.

I'm happy to run it if you do, if not I won't; and if you have a problem with the way I run it, give me a ring or come and see me and we can talk about it in person, face to face.

As for anonymity, everyone knows precisely who I am. I stand behind both my comments and my actions as is surely obvious.

Ultimately I'm accountable to the whole community for the impact this forum has. So yes, it has to operate within the parameters I'm prepared to accept and if that's not wanted I can't run it. I'll be sorry about that because it's done some great things but it's inevitable.

It's a difficult issue and it's only going to get harder. The trick is to recognise it but also to look past it; to not let it dominate and thereby undermine all the positive stuff that's being done.

Talk of censorship etc. is complete nonsense, and I'm sure that the 99% know it. It's about community. People, do you want this forum or not?

Matt

[Steve B]

It's valued, Matt. You certainly have my support. (Just don't expect me to vote Conservative, ha ha!) As one who took particular offence at certain previous posts containing sweeping generalisations relating to racial background (that don't warrant further discussion), I think the forum has dealt with some tricky issues very well. All the best to you and your moderators. The Community Trust (or whoever) would never want to take this forum on, so good for you for sticking with it.

[Lucerosie]

I accept what you say, Matt. You are, after all, the webmaster and the problems stop with you. I do think though that it's a great pity that the subject can't be discussed without it becoming a rant.

[appropriatebridge]

Matt, on 07 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

To ab, lucerosie, and others,

It's really getting to the point where I'm spending so much time dealing with one or two people with an agenda (and endless conversations about imaginary censorship etc)

Just for the record, I don't have an agenda (except I would just like The Stones sorting out). I only respond now and again where I feel have something worth saying. I am not racist or any other "ist". Generally I have been quite happy with the way this forum is run but I think it is a mistake to try to pull a cuddly blanket over issues which are uncomfortable and I think are best discussed responsiby in the open. Having said that, it is your forum so your mistake (in my view). So let's leave it there. Overall, I only want what is best for the village.

[Matt]

Lucerosie, on 08 February 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I do think though that it's a great pity that the subject can't be discussed without it becoming a rant.

I do, too. If we could find a way to do this it would solve a lot of problems much more widely than Burley. I was discussing the need to do this only this Monday with the Labour communities spokesman (my opposite number on the Council); we both agree the need, the problem is how. It's possibly the hardest problem we have at the moment. On Monday I'm saying we need to do exactly what ab is suggesting below, and on tuesday I'm saying we can't do it here. It makes me unconfortable too.

appropriatebridge, on 08 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think it is a mistake to try to pull a cuddly blanket over issues which are uncomfortable and I think are best discussed responsiby in the open.

I agree with you, and wish wholeheartedly I didn't have to.

appropriatebridge, on 08 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Just for the record, I don't have an agenda (except I would just like The Stones sorting out).

The stones is a good agenda... and the first forum topic with over a million page views I noticed yesterday. I'mn hoping that the hydroelectric plant will help with this by reducing water levels far quicker than the council can raise the stones.

appropriatebridge, on 08 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I only respond now and again where I feel have something worth saying. I am not racist or any other "ist".

Sorry if I gave a different impression, it's not you or lucerosie I'm concerned about. I appreciate that you (and many others) honestly want to have a sensible and necessary debate about a difficult topic.

[catbazza]

Unfortunatly I have missed this topic after owing to a sudden sojourn for 2 weeks in hospital but I am now back & found this topic compulsive reading; I agree with a lot of the comments made here so I will have my tuppence worth.
Let bygones be bygones as the subject which has created the topic is now no longer with us on our forum & can rant to his hearts content on his own site, it did come to me from various sources that he was trying to poach members to his site but I pesonally did not get any invitation from his site (of which I would have refused if I had).

To Matt Palmer I would really miss you if you did eventually depart our forum as I have been with you for most of time since you set it up, as to politics & censorship, a load of rubbish & I would say that never seen any politics put forward on the forum except for some entered by other members.

Censorship, only where it was needed because in most cases they were either ethnic or racial as this forum is viewed world wide & also by all ages including children who can also interpret what a couple of letters interspersed with a few stars means.

Who else would take over the forum & finance it if Matt were to hand it over?. Keep it going Matt.

Rant over.

[PhilD]

appropriatebridge, on 08 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think it is a mistake to try to pull a cuddly blanket over issues which are uncomfortable and I think are best discussed responsiby in the open.
I agree with you, and wish wholeheartedly I didn't have to.

But tell us Matt - why do you have to?

What annoys me most about politicians (of all persuasions) is that they will do almost anything to avoid taking a stance on anything outside of motherhood and apple pie as the Americans say - until they have hung up their boots that is - and then all of a sudden seem to morph into intelligent reasonable individuals

come to think of it until a sudden flurry of posts over the last week or so, you have apparently been unable or unwilling to express views on just about anything - despite direct requests from various forum members on a number of occasions

Edited by PhilD, 11 February 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[Steve B]

_{Am I missing the point here? I thought this was a forum that was for people of the area to use to discuss local issues. Although it is provided and financed by Matt, my understanding is that it is not meant to be a platform from which he aims to present his own political views or further his own political career. So he decides not to post for a while? Or answer a few direct questions? He doesn't have to; this forum is not necessarily meant as a tool for questioning "Matt the Councillor", although he is of course going to give his opinion now and again. He has a separate website for his political side, I think. I say give the poor fellow a break. If I'd have been him, I'd have been considering pulling the plug a long time ago.However, he's forunately stuck with this forum, and it's reasonably successful. Unlike the "dead in the water" alternative forum that that other bloke flounced off to create...}

Edited by Steve B, 11 February 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[PhilD]

Steve B, on 11 February 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

_{Am I missing the point here?}

Yes

[appropriatebridge]

PhilD, on 11 February 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

appropriatebridge, on 08 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think it is a mistake to try to pull a cuddly blanket over issues which are uncomfortable and I think are best discussed responsiby in the open.
I agree with you, and wish wholeheartedly I didn't have to.

But tell us Matt - why do you have to?

What annoys me most about politicians (of all persuasions) is that they will do almost anything to avoid taking a stance on anything outside of motherhood and apple pie as the Americans say - until they have hung up their boots that is - and then all of a sudden seem to morph into intelligent reasonable individuals

come to think of it until a sudden flurry of posts over the last week or so, you have apparently been unable or unwilling to express views on just about anything - despite direct requests from various forum members on a number of occasions

The basic problem over this issue I feel is not that it is controlled by Matt as an individual but by Matt the Councillor. He has to work with other Councillors and you only have to look at the make-up of Bradford Council to see that if, on an open forum, he allowed discussions on anything remotely critical of ethnic minorities, it could cause him problems in those working relationships. He also has to show an overall public responsibility or risk bringing his office into disrepute. That is why I think it would be better if the forum was taken out of the political arena altogether, not so that people can have a go at ethnic minorities or have abusive rants at anyone, more that everyone would feel more confident that discussions generally were a little more free. However, if no-one else is prepared to do it, we have to work on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread.

I understand less why discussions/comments on other some issues have been pulled (religion and the parking on Langford Road/Manse Rd/Aireville Terrace - I can't remember which - for example). Having said that, discussions on religion are largely pointless as everyone has their own views and I have never seen anyone change those view as a result of discussion. Negative comments in relation to any Muslim issues - even worldwide as opposed to local - would of course run into the same problems as in my first paragraph.

The problem in this over politically correct world is that no-one has to be upset even if harsh words are sometimes justified.

Lets just be grateful for the half loaf!

[PhilD]

appropriatebridge, on 11 February 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

The basic problem over this issue I feel is not that it is controlled by Matt as an individual but by Matt the Councillor. He has to work with other Councillors and you only have to look at the make-up of Bradford Council to see that if, on an open forum, he allowed discussions on anything remotely critical of ethnic minorities, it could cause him problems in those working relationships. He also has to show an overall public responsibility or risk bringing his office into disrepute. That is why I think it would be better if the forum was taken out of the political arena altogether, not so that people can have a go at ethnic minorities or have abusive rants at anyone, more that everyone would feel more confident that discussions generally were a little more free. However, if no-one else is prepared to do it, we have to work on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread.

I understand less why discussions/comments on other some issues have been pulled (religion and the parking on Langford Road/Manse Rd/Aireville Terrace - I can't remember which - for example). Having said that, discussions on religion are largely pointless as everyone has their own views and I have never seen anyone change those view as a result of discussion. Negative comments in relation to any Muslim issues - even worldwide as opposed to local - would of course run into the same problems as in my first paragraph.

The problem in this over politically correct world is that no-one has to be upset even if harsh words are sometimes justified.

Lets just be grateful for the half loaf!

AB

I think you have just described my point perfectly - we have a locally elected representative who feels that he cannot engage in adult discussion on certain topics in case others take offence (and by inference having a negative effect on his political ambitions)

what happened to consulting with and taking account of the views of those who may (or may not have) elected him in the first place?

"Political correctness" = censorship of free speech

[Lucerosie]

PhilD, on 11 February 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

AB

I think you have just described my point perfectly - we have a locally elected representative who feels that he cannot engage in adult discussion on certain topics in case others take offence (and by inference having a negative effect on his political ambitions)

what happened to consulting with and taking account of the views of those who may (or may not have) elected him in the first place?

"Political correctness" = censorship of free speech

Phil - I think we should hesitate to blame Matt's reluctance to have race issues discussed on here on his political position. I would like us to be able to discuss ANYTHING freely but Matt is the webmaster and he is legally responsible as an individual for what is published on this site. Can any of us really blame him if he is unwilling to take that risk? As the owner of a large website myself I know that it's a risk I wouldn't be willing to take.