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

[editor]

an estate agent presents a differing opinion and you go to the extraordinary action of contacting him/his employee (please clear this up) potentially endangering his job. Free speech blah blah blah

Am i missing something here?

What any of that got to do with the moderation policies here? How were they "shoddy"?

you go to the extraordinary action of contacting him/his employee (please clear this up)

Somebody wake up Captain Dozy please.

 

[ddraig]

an estate agent presents a differing opinion and you go to the extraordinary action of contacting him/his employee (please clear this up) potentially endangering his job. Free speech blah blah blah

Am i missing something here?

for the 20th time it is NOT ON THIS SITE
why don't you go and post it in the comments on Brixton Buzz instead, or give it up, it's so transparent.

and if it is just the fact that you feel estate agents need defending then catch a grip!

 

[elmpp]

Not here no. Didn't allude to that did I.

The editorial decision to do that on OTHER site was shoddy. To say the least.

 

[editor]

Not here no. Didn't allude to that did I.

The editorial decision to do that on OTHER site was shoddy. To say the least.

So absolutely nothing to do with shoddy moderation then? That was the word you used. Not 'editorial.'

 

[elmpp]

Are you proud of it?

E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling

 

[ViolentPanda]

this is another example of the self-righteousness so rife around here excusing some pretty shoddy editorial behaviour. He's an estate agent -> anything goes.

Interesting how you project your own self-righteous behaviour onto others.

 

[editor]

Are you proud of it?

E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling

I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T.

But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.

Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you proud of it?

E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling

So you've not bothered to read the thread?
if you had,you'd know editor's expressed opinion.

As usual,you're shoddy.

 

[ddraig]

they can't see through all the froth and red mist!

 

[killer b]

yeah, they're totally hysterical.

 

[ddraig]

sorry boss! (of course it is me and i can't see it)

 

[elmpp]

I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T.

But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.

Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?

This proves my point - because that cunt had it coming you did no wrong. Self-righteousness.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Am i missing something here?

positive personality characteristics.

 

[Santino]

"froth and red mist"

 

[ddraig]

"froth and red mist"

oooh i wonder "what" you could mean

 

[Santino]

oooh i wonder "what" you could mean

I meant el-ehrairah resorting to telling another poster that s/he has no positive personality characteristics. Literally none.

 

[el-ahrairah]

i must be literally the worst person on urban. what sort of person could possibly be so rude to another person on the internet, who would do that?


the only people allowed to be rude around here disagree with the editor. everyone else is resorting to things. literally.

 

[Santino]

i must be literally the worst person on urban. what sort of person could possibly be so rude to another person on the internet, who would do that?


the only people allowed to be rude around here disagree with the editor. everyone else is resorting to things. literally.

Must everything be so black and white?

 

[el-ahrairah]

first its a red mist, now it's all in black and white. i could probably do you other colours by request but i haven't yet been persuaded of the necessity on this thread because its ended up the same old bollocks. any reasonable questions have been asked and answered and discussed, we're back to the sniping and wrecking again here.

i'm sure elmpp appreciates the support though.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T.

But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.

Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?

Tbf I've got to admire your lack of giving a fuck

Guess it just makes me anxious that kind of shit, cos y'know, someone doesn't like your point of view, someone thinks you should stfu, and it's all too easy to expose or threaten or shame people into keeping quiet. And I despise that more than estate agents.

 

[SpamMisery]

In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?

He has collected personal information (in this instance their political views) which is absolutely fine; but - crucially - hasn't complied with the following 'fairness' regulations on processing that data, as set down by the Information Commissioners Office:

• handle their personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect; and
• above all, not use their information in ways that unjustifiably have a negative effect on them.

Interestingly, it also notes that "a decision to share personal data with another organisation does not take away your duty to treat individuals fairly. So before sharing personal data, you should consider carefully what the recipient will do with it, and what the effect on individuals is likely to be."

I'm not sure how the DPA translates to anonymised forum posts and it's not an easy read across, but interesting stuff none the less. Surely this sort of thing has happened before and some legal nerd can link me to the precedent?

Right, time to cook dinner!

 

[killer b]

no it doesn't breach the DPA, don't be ridiculous.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That is really reaching.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

IP addresses and the Data Protection Act
http://www.out-law.com/page-8060

basically the answer is no.

 

[editor]

In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?

In all seriousness, you need to think before you type.

 

[SpamMisery]

Thanks editor, I'll bear that in mind in future

 

[SpamMisery]

IP addresses and the Data Protection Act
http://www.out-law.com/page-8060

basically the answer is no.

btw, I wasn't talking about the IP address, the personal data in this context is the posters political opinions. The reason I said its a difficult read across is that the opinion is openly stated but from a position of assumed anonymity

[EDIT] although link you posted had this to say "If you wish to use IP addresses to identify or build a profile on each of your visitors as an individual, even if they are never identified by name, you should assume that the Data Protection Act applies. Only a court can decide for certain whether or not this is a processing of personal data to which the Act applies and there have been no court rulings on this point to date."

 

[killer b]

probably best just to stop tbh. you haven't a clue, we know.

 

[SpamMisery]

No you're right, that's why I didn't become a data protection expert

 

[Gramsci]

You seem to be massively missing the point. This isnt about politics. Its about whether its right or wrong for the Ed to contact a poster's place of work and ask whether a post that he didn't like, made from their office, was the official company line.
The particular comment was ridiculous but that's neither here nor there. Questioning the Ed's use of access to IP addresses for this purpose has bought so many rushing to the Ed's defence but they get all shouty about class war and bastard estate agents. It's become a U75 obsession.

No I am not missing the point.

You are with your shouty attacks on Ed.