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

[salem]

But this took place on another site.

Oh come on pull the other one.

brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.

 

[ddraig]

Oh come on pull the other one.

brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.

they are not the same
the person or company has not been mentioned
what is the problem?

 

[editor]

Oh come on pull the other one.

brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.

You argument is deeply, deeply flawed. The vast majority of threads here have no equivalent post on Brixton Buzz. Sharing an IP address does not mean the sites are the same or run the same way. One is a forum. The other is not.

 

[salem]

They are the same legal entity. Someone has been grassed up to their boss because they said something which the higher powers (which is the same on both sites) don't agree with.

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?

 

[salem]

Even click the 'forum' tab on Brixton Buzz and you get this page which lists threads from here.

 

[editor]

Even click the 'forum' tab on Brixton Buzz and you get this page which lists threads from here.

Yes. It's called a 'link'. The web is full of them.

 

[editor]

They are the same legal entity.

Ah, an expert.

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?

Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.

 

[salem]

Yes. It's called a 'link'. The web is full of them.

Yes and this link illustrates the connection between the sites clearly. You have a 'forum' tab on brixtonblog which brings you to the threads on here.

Ah, an expert.

If you say so. But you'd agree that you are the registered owner of both urban75.net and brixtonblog.com? I used the term legal entity not to try and sound like an expert but because it's the right term to use.

Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.

I've posted here for over a decade and tbh I took it as a given that things posted here would be treated privately regardless of whether the site management agreed with the content or not. I understand that IP addresses have been disclosed in the past where someone is in danger but I never thought that someone would get grassed up to their bosses because they said something that went against the grain.

It creates an uncomfortable imbalance of power and one that is open to abuse. We all know the site is ultimately a benevolent dictatorship (and I understand that's just a matter of practicality) and on the whole the balance has been reasonable in my time here. It's for that reason I'm calling you out on this. It's undermined my confidence in the site.

FWIW I work from home and tend to avoid posting anything controversial anyway so I'm not directly affected but I have no doubt there are lots of people on here who post from work, university or even countries where they could get in trouble for the content of their posts. I'm uncomfortable that the few people with access to IP addresses could cause trouble if they wanted purely because someone has opposing views.

I think you've opened a can of worms here and if your main defense is that it was on brixtonblog then I think you need to make the definition between the two a bit clearer because right now I can't see any reason why this couldn't happen with a post here.

To repeat my question in post #64

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?

 

[el-ahrairah]

37 social units is 37 too many.

i think that all social renters are massive bumfaces.

viva cameron, nuke the poor.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Almost like a social war isn't happening.

TBF, posters such as spammisery and passivejoe are at least revealing which side they're on.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Absolutely. You also have to be a bit of a knobshine to not realise that using company time, software and hardware is not a secure method of personal communication, and at the very least can leave you open to disciplinary proceedings from an employer.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah I get why people do, just had issue with the identification bit.

What if it puts off people wanting to whistleblow at Lambeth, for example.

Seems to me a prime place to do it but might be off putting if the impression was given ips were being used in that way.

Maybe I am over thinking it

I think you are. Frankly, it's more likely to be encrusted institutional customs or a "buy-off" culture that stop people whistle-blowing, rather than anything as mundane as the above.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Absolutely. You also have to be a bit of a knobshine to not realise that using company time, software and hardware is not a secure method of personal communication, and at the very least can leave you open to disciplinary proceedings from an employer.

If you can get sacked for talking shit on facebook....you can certainly get sacked for using company tools to talk shite on facebook (and other forms of socials medium)...

 

[ViolentPanda]

They are the same legal entity. Someone has been grassed up to their boss because they said something which the higher powers (which is the same on both sites) don't agree with.

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?

Actually, no-one has been "grassed up to their boss", as you'd know if you'd actually fucking bothered to read the buzz story comments and this thread.

Try harder not to be an ignorant dick,eh?

 

[souljacker]

If they have an IP address registered to them rather then their ISP they'll almost certainly have a setup that logs employees internet usage. It'll be trivial to trace it back to the employee.

Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.

But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you can get sacked for talking shit on facebook....you can certainly get sacked for using company tools to talk shite on facebook (and other forms of socials medium)...

Quite. It's not as if there isn't a constant stream of stories about people being sacked or otherwise disciplined for "bringing the company into disrepute" via electronic media, or "misuse of company property".

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Dem dimwits

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.

But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.

Not as much good as having the soles of their feet beaten with a cane, but we can't have everything, so dole and loss of Mini it is!

 

[Pickman's model]

Not as much good as having the soles of their feet beaten with a cane, but we can't have everything, so dole and loss of Mini it is!

in the absence of the bastinado, the strappado an acceptable alternative.

 

[salem]

Actually, no-one has been "grassed up to their boss", as you'd know if you'd actually fucking bothered to read the buzz story comments and this thread.

Try harder not to be an ignorant dick,eh?

editor has said that he's emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it. He know's who they are because as a site mod he can see their IP address and if they are a company which has their own name listed against their IP address rather then their ISP then it means they are big*. It also means that there is going to be a very good chance they are logging employee internet usage and as such he has quite likely grassed the person up.

*Ed also helpfully gave us a big clue in the BB comment who the company is and they are indeed a big name.

So yes I did read the fucking buzz story and thread.

Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.

But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.

Maybe, but clearly he thinks it's an employee otherwise why ask if it's official policy in a tone which is clearly meant to show he has the upper hand.

And your second line is exactly the kind of thing which concerns me, we let the site management decide who they dish out punishment based on their personal views. You can't see the bigger picture here because all you can see is the boogie man?

 

[superfly101]

Ah, an expert.
Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.

Well the precedent has well and truly been set!

Post a comment that YOU personally do not like too any BB article and expect;

1; that comment to be broadcast not only on that site, but on every other site you have an interest in. Plus tweeted to x amount of your followers via twitter.

2; you will then contact the persons employer stating so publicly (thus raising the stakes for them) for "comment". This could result in an investigation, disciplinary action and even the termination of their employment. Which seem not to give a flying fuck about?

I don't see any disclaimer on the BB comments section stating that you reserve the right to contact an employer if you don't like their comment. Nor do I see any disclaimer stating that you will start a witch hunt across every site you have an interest in, nor tweet that witch hunt to your followers via Twitter?

Now if it was offensive or discriminatory - homophobic, racist etc - we'd say good on you Ed go for it.

But wilfully attempting to start a witch hunt and get somebody sacked for that comment?

You're an absolute shambles if you think any of this is reasonable behaviour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

editor has said that he's emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it. He know's who they are because as a site mod he can see their IP address and if they are a company which has their own name listed against their IP address rather then their ISP then it means they are big*. It also means that there is going to be a very good chance they are logging employee internet usage and as such he has quite likely grassed the person up.

*Ed also helpfully gave us a big clue in the BB comment who the company is and they are indeed a big name.

So yes I did read the fucking buzz story and thread.

Yeah, you read it so fucking well, that you took editor's e-mailing of the individual (if you'd read the site properly you'd know that you have to post your individual e-mail address) to mean he was e-mailing the plonker's boss.

Well done, you dick! facepalm:

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well the precedent has well and truly been set!

Post a comment that YOU personally do not like too any BB article and expect;

1; that comment to be broadcast not only on that site, but on every other site you have an interest in. Plus tweeted to x amount of your followers via twitter.

2; you will then contact the persons employer stating so publicly (thus raising the stakes for them) for "comment". This could result in an investigation, disciplinary action and even the termination of their employment. Which seem not to give a flying fuck about?

I don't see any disclaimer on the BB comments section stating that you reserve the right to contact an employer if you don't like their comment. Nor do I see any disclaimer stating that you will start a witch hunt across every site you have an interest in, nor tweet that witch hunt to your followers via Twitter?

Now if it was offensive or discriminatory - homophobic, racist etc - we'd say good on you Ed go for it.

But wilfully attempting to start a witch hunt and get somebody sacked for that comment?

You're an absolute shambles if you think any of this is reasonable behaviour.

He's contacted the employee, not the employer.
Looks like you're the shambles, although you think you're superfly.

 

[salem]

Yeah, you read it so fucking well, that you took editor's e-mailing of the individual (if you'd read the site properly you'd know that you have to post your individual e-mail address) to mean he was e-mailing the plonker's boss.

Well done, you dick! facepalm:

Well we've interpreted it differently then.

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

You think editor means he emailed the person who posted the comment to see if their comment was their official take on it? That would be a little odd. You think "I won't name them for now" means he is going to name the individual or the company? Odd that he hasn't refuted that point.

Perhaps editor could clear it up. Did you email the person who posted the comment directly or the company they work for?

 

[editor]

Now if it was offensive or discriminatory - homophobic, racist etc - we'd say good on you Ed go for it.

In the context of the article (you've read it, right?) it was deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate.

 

[editor]

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?

Fuck's sake. Unless you've had your head up your arse for the past ten years you already know the answer to that.

 

[Enviro]

...But wilfully attempting to start a witch hunt and get somebody sacked for that comment? ...

That was not ed's intention as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no naming and shaming has yet occurred.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well we've interpreted it differently then.

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

You think editor means he emailed the person who posted the comment to see if their comment was their official take on it? That would be a little odd. You think "I won't name them for now" means he is going to name the individual or the company? Odd that he hasn't refuted that point.

I "think" it because it's consonant with the rest of what's said - the context indicates the individual, not the employer.
And why should he have to refute points made by sarky pissants who could just have easily have asked that question without all the po-faced judgemental crap?

 

[ViolentPanda]

That was not ed's intention as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no naming and shaming has yet occurred.

A fact that appears to have been missed by those who are happy to rush to judgement.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In the context of the article (you've read it, right?) it was deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate.

The more judgemental posters don't seem to be "doing" context currently.