Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Bend over

Phil McCavity | 09.04.2015 19:29

Want to see an example of the collective completely bottling it and letting a lawyer give it large up their backside ?

 https://lists.indymedia.org.uk/pipermail/moderation/2015-March/001589.html

Whatever happened to open publishing here ?

Phil McCavity

Comments

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments

saw that

09.04.2015 21:06

they were big and brave until the lawyer got serious and then they backpedaled like fuck not much solidarity or guts

H

FYI

09.04.2015 21:48

Well you see the posts were not supported by any evidence, they were just allegations and not news. Now even if there had been any evidence to support what was posted the problem for the poster was that they had run a web site that had sold fake IDs and stuff . So the poster basically had already shot themsrelves in the foot before any post was posted - because even if credible evidence had been produced it could be easily dissmissed as a fake - given the history of the poster with a web site selling fake documents.

Dumb really - the most interesting part of that story for me was that allegedly MPs and security services had used the site and bought fake IDs, credit records and that, but again no evidence was produced to support the allegations, and again even if any 'evidence' had been produced it could be easily dismissed because of the association with selling fakery.



2%

@ - 2%

10.04.2015 04:19

Well that's good try at defending your capitulation but that's not how open publishing works iand that's not what happened here. Questioning the credibility of an accuser is an old State trick when they want to divert attention from the accusation at hand, shame on you as a radical, progressive group to use it here.

Reading the email chain it is obvious the original posts should have stayed up and the accused given an opportunity to provide their position via the comments instead having received a standard lawyer threatening letter you quickly gave in and did everything you were told to do.

What happened to the founding principles of Indymedia ?

Captain Nemo

Non-News

10.04.2015 10:50

You can see that way if you like
The "articles" and accusations are available elsewhere on the internet on the accusers own web site in fact.

They were non-news and hidden as such.

i.e. Editorial Guideline
Non-news: posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc.

This post should be hidden under those guidlines too - you should take it up on the moderation list -

2%

Non News ?

11.04.2015 07:05

Well except it's not is it ? Allegations of a serious and important matter have been made backed up by some evidence, allegations that the mainstream media would be too scared to cover so it would be logical to see Indymedia as the right place to see the story and the writer would in the past have expected the support of the collective in ensuring lawyers are unable to bully whistleblowers into silence. What happened here was the opposite in that as soon as the standard playbook lawyer threat email was sent you decided to simply give in and even ran through the newswire deleting all references to the story. This shows a lack of judgement, solidarity and dare I say it courage.

Judith

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Mistake

11.04.2015 07:51

The mistake the poster made was in not linking the accusation to one certain ethnic group with a dislike of pork, if he had done that one of the collective members here would have ensured the newswire had it as a featured promoted centre page story regardless of its truth or credibility.

Carl
mail e-mail: carl.delivire@canto.de

Non-News

11.04.2015 08:57

>>>>Well except it's not is it ? Allegations of a serious and important matter have
>>>>been made backed up by some evidence,

No backed up by absolutely no evidence whatsoever
The posts in question weren't about MP's and Security Services using the fake ID site. Clearly you haven't read the e-mail thread.

The post about that is still up and it's here

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494724.html

2%

2%

11.04.2015 10:39

Please stop trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand.

This is about the collective failing to live up to what the users of the newswire have a right to expect. This was not some massive threat to your existence or liberty by a major government organisation instead it was a couple of standard threat emails from a lawyer and your capitulation in the face of that. I thank the Earth that individuals like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange show more courage in upholding truth and liberty during the current attempts by governments to control the media. As Indymedia is not really a newswire anymore it can still have a role as a Wikileaks style whistleblower site but not if the collective are going to give in so easily and to such small pressure.

Judith

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Belgians distort the truth

11.04.2015 10:48

Judith you're talking bollocks so fuck off

Belgian
- Homepage: telnet in belgium

Non-News and Inaccurate

11.04.2015 10:55

the posts were hidden because they were non-news and inaccurate we then collectively decided to remove the content as per the request of the lawyers.
i.e. they were first hidden under editorial guidelines because they were
1.Non-news: posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc.
and
2 Inaccurate: posts that are inaccurate or misleading.

Frankly I can't be arsed as a volunteer to fight for hidden articles its a pointless waste of time

2%

2%

11.04.2015 11:28

Clearly our views differ, I remain surprised at the decision the collective took, I expected more but if that is the choice made then so be it. There is little point is us both going on about it.

On an unrelated point how did somebody at Indymedia know I am posting from a hotel in Belgium, are i.p. details again being recorded on the newswire ?

Judith

NSA GCHQ Randomness

11.04.2015 11:39

Dunno

Must be some spooks looking at who's connected to the site and showing off?

2%

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments