As most of us know, Trolls are people who annoy and abuse other users so much that they are usually banned from Internet discussion sites. Posting an opponent's real world name and address would get a troll automatically banned by most websites and ISPs, but not apparently by the British Army Rumour Service (www.arrse.co.uk). When Rob McCartney complained to the site administrators that another user had published his name and address on their website, they agreed that it was a breech of their site policies. However, they took no action against the troll. Instead ARRSE (yes, that's what they call themselves) decided to terminated Rob's account.

ARRSE claims to be independent and allow “reasoned argument” by everyone interested in the British army. Rob has posted a number of articles on the Indymedia news website about fraud and corruption on Ministry of Defence Equipment contracts. “Members of the armed services are the principle victims of this” says Rob “so I wanted to bring the facts to their attention”. He started an ARRSE discussion thread called “Did corruption kill the Nimrod 14?” to discuss his latest article ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399295.html).

Around 3,500 people read the discussion. Some users were sympathetic. 'Bakersfield', who appeared to be involved in MOD procurement himself, said "Really interesting history on BATES, which I knew nothing about. But I know it goes on and the thread title is the dead giveaway”.

However, the forum moderator angrily demanded that Rob prove his claims. He duly provided a lengthy list of references to Parliamentary answers and a National Audit Office report, including page and paragraph numbers. Immediately another user jumped in to dismiss this as “mere rumour and supposition”, while another published his name and address. “As I pointed out in my complaint”, says Rob “I don't mind giving my real name, but publishing my name AND address was clearly an attempt to intimidate me and a breech of the ARRSE rules”.

Rob says “It looked suspiciously like the forum moderator was using another identity to troll. Whether or not that was the case, ARRSE have shown which side they are on. Clearly, they do not have the interests of ordinary service personnel at heart. If they did, they would be outraged at the fact that the MOD and politicians were protecting companies accused of fraud. Instead they showed hostility to me for trying to expose this corruption”.

Rob was also criticized for posting his article to the Indymedia website, which one user denounced as “a bunch of commies”. “I pointed out that most ISPs and websites would remove material without a legal fight if they received a complaint . Indymedia however, has an honorable record of resisting censorship. My decision to post to Indymedia has been fully vindicated by the action of ARRSE in closing my account and removing the thread I started”.

Ends.

Extract from complaint to ARRSE site admin:

Unsworth and JustLoitering are guilty of the following breeches of the ARRSE standards laid out at  http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=78709.html. (The full posts are listed at the end of this message). (Your link “Please click here for to see the ARRSE Complaints Policy and Procedures” doesn't work).


Posting Standards Applicable To All Boards, point b. “Use of real names.“

Unsworth attempted to intimidate me by giving my real world name and address.
JustLoitering's constant goading to identify my exact role on BATES is a not very subtle way of doing the same thing.

I actually don't mind giving my real name, but I do object to people trying to use blackmail and intimidation when they don't have any valid points to make.


Posting Standards for Serious boards, point c. “Non-contributory posting ie pointless ranting.“

Unsworth obliquely admits he hasn't even read the Hansard reference I gave. (If he had read it he wouldn't be asking for a URL. He'd either give a URL or quote the text). Yet he claims to be offering an 'expert interpretation' of it which conflicts with what I said.

JustLoitering dismissed the detailed series of references I gave (to a National Audit Office report and parliamentary answers) as “nothing but hearsay and supposition”.