"37 social units is 37 too many" says estate agent about Lambeth's shrinking affordable housing
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
Yeah. It's not just that either tho. It's also about being able to make a comment without having your livelihood threatened. Even if that comment is offensive.
If the 37 comment was by a company then fair game. It wasn't tho.
Freedom of speech. Upheld by urban (so long as your saying what we think). Pathetic. And dangerous.
blameless77
Well-Known Member
This definitely comes under the banner of personal attacks. Why pretend you're doing this because of some point of principal??
mauvais
on reddit or something
Not sure about that per se - it's not logically that far from the nonsense of 'never grass'.
If you are going to do it, though, it'd probably help if it was part of a coherent plan or idea that you could stand by, rather than a random, personal reaction that you then shrink from.
<arnie> Ven I said I vasn't interested in zuh argoo-ment, Iiiii liiiiied </arnie>
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
A handy list of which workers aren't working class or are exempt from the working class for the purposes of class war would be helpful, please.
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
So estate agents fucking over those who need social housing doesn't fit your definition? Fine if so, but you'll have a job convincing me.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It depends if it was some idiot working in the office, or an estate agent boss, surely?
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
All cogs in a machine diametrically opposed to the needs of those who require social housing.
Of course it was the company. You don't email an individual asking for their "official" take on things.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
We're all fucking cogs in that machine.
shifting gears
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to leave for work but speak for yourself - I can safely say my job doesn't involve screwing over disadvantaged people.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Right, so what you're saying is that estate agent workers have joined the ranks of the bailliffs, screws and OB then.
he asked him if it was the view taken by his company. The official line. Not unreasonable was it. All this handwringing bollocks about oh I should b able to say what I want in the middle of a highly contentious situation, without any sort of challenge or questioning all possible comeback. Y. You wouldn't expect that in real life.
Has he done that though?
where's the handwringing? What people are objecting to is fairly simple: the editor has alerted a company that someone in their office has posted a comment on his blog. That's all we know atm - but the consequence of that could be that some idiot kid in the office loses his job for misuse of company internet or similar. That might not be the consequence, but it's a clear risk - do you think that's a reasonable thing to risk?
Are you representing the company's views in this post.
In the extremely unlikely event that someone did lose their job, they would just go back to their gold mansion and eat caviar all day so I don't see the problem.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
and lets face it, absolutely no-one will lose their job over this. the worst that will happen, absolute worst, is that some estate agent will send editor and email claiming to have been hacked or promising that the perpetrator has been punished and they're all going to have a snigger about it in the office bar over fizzy water.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
the rule that you don't dob people in to their boss is not one that is widely applied in the world, nor is it one that is always a good idea, nor is it one that you can have an expectation of when you go through life. and probably not in the posting t&cs on brixton buzz.
also, its a silly rule unless applied in conjection with other appropriate caveats.
i dob people in to their bosses all the time, because those people are providing substandard care to vulnerable adults. i might do so -raise concerns- if they expressed opinions that went against what i think someone doing social care should have about people. i'm a right fucking blakey but that's part of my job to try and identify problems with the care.
so its not as cut and dried, same as that never grass bullshit.
also, its a silly rule unless applied in conjection with other appropriate caveats.
i dob people in to their bosses all the time, because those people are providing substandard care to vulnerable adults. i might do so -raise concerns- if they expressed opinions that went against what i think someone doing social care should have about people. i'm a right fucking blakey but that's part of my job to try and identify problems with the care.
so its not as cut and dried, same as that never grass bullshit.
soupdragon
Well-Known Member
My only concern at this point is why more isn't being made of this. Can't we just name and shame the company? Doesn't Brixton Blog feel the urge to run this as a news item and name the company? I think official clarification from the company is needed! All you people worrying about one job when the point is that thousands of people are losing their homes, being shipped out of London. Anyone who thinks U75 is some kind of straightforward neutral forum is deluded.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
it also occurs to me that editor has been dobbing anonymous cowards as long as this board has been here. there used to be something called the grovel gallery where people who sent him anonymous abuse had their IPs traced and their details publicly posted. it's long been part of his MO that doesn't affect people who don't send him anonymous abuse.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
i wouldn't have done it myself , but i don't really care that he did, certainly not enough to have commented on this thread if it wasn't for the fact that it rapidly turned into another pack of vultures. it might have made an interesting point of discussion though, except that many of those involved don't want discussions, they want blood.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Put it this way. Imagine you said something intemperate about social workers as a comment on a Guardian article, or denigrated coders on a comment on the Register, or suggested that East Anglians were six-fingered on the Norfolk Clarion website. You'd be enormously surprised if the editorial staff then made public information about you which you'd allowed them to see, in the reasonable expectation that it would be kept private ( as posts on those sites don't as a rule include identifying information). You'd then be utterly astounded if the editors of those publications then emailed your boss. We don't yet know if this has happened, and it's odd that the matter has not been clarified. If it has, I'm relaxed that the company has been named. If it hasn't, and only the individual has been contacted, I'd again request that my quoted post is redacted in line with my immediate edit.
Various people here are pretending that this is an issue about naivety and online privacy. It's not. It's about reasonable and common expectations that media owners will behave proportionately and only reveal personal data when it's clearly their duty to do so.
Various people here are pretending that this is an issue about naivety and online privacy. It's not. It's about reasonable and common expectations that media owners will behave proportionately and only reveal personal data when it's clearly their duty to do so.
Last edited:
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
that's probably the most interesting question of the whole thread actually. i'm starting to think that they have!
soupdragon
Well-Known Member
But it isn't any of those and this isn't Norfolk.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
No, it seems to be a far more suspicious community with a greater dislike of outsiders and incomers.
