"37 social units is 37 too many" says estate agent about Lambeth's shrinking affordable housing

[editor]

"37 social units is 37 too many."

Yep, that's what some twat posting from an IP address associated with a London independent firm of commercial and residential estate agents and surveyors.

He was responding to this Buzz post: Lambeth New Town Hall redevelopment and the fast-shrinking affordable housing provision

I won't name them for now but I've emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it.

 

[8ball]

Would it be mean to say it would be a surprise if there were any 'London independent firm of commercial and residential estate agents and surveyors' that didn't think like this. Whether their PR people let them say it out loud is maybe a different matter...

 

[steeeve]

"37 social units is 37 too many."

.

Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!

 

[editor]

Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!

When I googled it a load of companies came up - and not the one I'm talking about!

 

[steeeve]

When I googled it a load of companies came up - and not the one I'm talking about!

Did you search with speech marks?

 

[editor]

Did you search with speak marks?

Yes. But to be safe I'll go back and edit the quotes. For now

 

[not-bono-ever]

.

 

[steeeve]

I'll not post my "guess" then

 

[el-ahrairah]

i'd not expect any different from an estate agent, tbh. that's why they'll all be hunted down like the animals they are, come the glorious day.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Perhaps email the company they work for too and ask if that's the official company line also?

 

[SpamMisery]

Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?

However, not very sensible using a work connection to post personal views when they work in that industry - unless they were using a mobile device during their lunch hour over a connection which is made available to everyone (which is pretty unlikely)

 

[Crispy]

Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?

They're displayed by default when you're moderating comments (which editor must be doing cos I've never seen single spam comment on his blog)

 

[editor]

Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?

However, not very sensible using a work connection to post personal views when they work in that industry - unless they were using a mobile device during their lunch hour over a connection which is made available to everyone (which is pretty unlikely)

They were posting it from their company's HQ. So I want to know if that is their official line. The IP addresses are shown next to the comments as they come up for moderation and it takes about a second to check their source.

 

[passivejoe]

They were posting it from their company's HQ. So I want to know if that is their official line. The IP addresses are shown next to the comments as they come up for moderation and it takes about a second to check their source.

Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.
If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time.

If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?

 

[Dan U]

I've posted loads of things on here from an employers WiFi, never doing that again in case it's deemed controversial

 

[lazythursday]

I'm all in favour of free speech and privacy but not when it comes to a chance to embarrass someone/a firm who are basically the enemy, quite frankly. Editor has no duty to be unbiased, he's not the sodding BBC.

 

[CH1]

Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.
If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time.

If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?

Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!

All I got when I Googled was a load of NHS warnings about social drinking.
You can see where Google thinks I'm at.

However I'm with Editor on this. I can't see what's wrong with asking for more information from an incisive right wing spammer.

Give these people a chance and they do criminal damage - like the guys who threw champagne bottles down on the heads of the J18 Anti globalisation demonstrators.

Ha Ha Ha. But potentially lethal. I know I was there!

 

[steeeve]

All I got when I Googled was a load of NHS warnings about social drinking.
You can see where Google thinks I'm at.

However I'm with Editor on this. I can't see what's wrong with asking for more information from an incisive right wing spammer.

Give these people a chance and they do criminal damage - like the guys who threw champagne bottles down on the heads of the J18 Anti globalisation demonstrators.

Ha Ha Ha. But potentially lethal. I know I was there!

You have to search with the phrase in speech marks. I wouldn't agree with doing that generally but would make an exception in this case

 

[editor]

Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.
If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time.

If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?

Because I was disgusted that someone would go to the effort to make such an unpleasant comment given the context of the article. So I wondered who it was. Is that OK with you?

+errant quote removed

 

[editor]

I've posted loads of things on here from an employers WiFi, never doing that again in case it's deemed controversial

Mr Over Reaction steps in to stir the pot with a load of nonsense.

Was I talking about this site? No.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Because I was disgusted that someone would go to the effort to make such an unpleasant comment given the context of the article. So I wondered who it was. Is that OK with you?

Why did you quote me there? I wasn't having a dig I was serious.

 

[editor]

Why did you quote me there? I wasn't having a dig I was serious.

Sorry that was accidental! Have edited post.

 

[RoyReed]

Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.

It's just a standard thing to do when you're checking comments on a blog to see whether they're spam or not. Not creepy, just something you have to do.

 

[passivejoe]

I'm all in favour of free speech and privacy but not when it comes to a chance to embarrass someone/a firm who are basically the enemy, quite frankly. Editor has no duty to be unbiased, he's not the sodding BBC.

I always thought that the comments section was to foment discussion. If you try to embarrass those whose view you disagree with using your powers as editor, you just limit comments to bland notes of approval. In which case, why have a comments section at all?

 

[passivejoe]

Mr Over Reaction steps in to stir the pot with a load of nonsense.

Was I talking about this site? No.

Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proven that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.

 

[butchersapron]

"37 social units is 37 too many."

 

[butchersapron]

Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proved that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.

Right thing to do with these scummers.

 

[butchersapron]

Almost like a social war isn't happening.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proven that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.

If they had any sense and cared they'd protect themselves in a manner that wouldn't allow them to be exposed wouldn't they?

If you make a stupid fucking comment in public then you are enabling you're own downfall if that comment winds someone up enough to shine a light back on you....and has the ability to do so.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

As a general point, deliberate astroturfing in comment sections by companies or their PR firms (particularly on local sites where there are fewer comments overall) is absolutely rife. You'd be mad _not_ to look at IPs on a regular basis.