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

[ViolentPanda]

I'd actually prefer it if you redacted your post in which you quoted my naming of a specific firm. I edited it pretty swiftly after posting.

Well of course you would, Maurice!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I had planned to stay out of this thread, but what Shakespeare Girl said seemed completely inaccurate.

Of course you'd planned to stay out of this thread! To be forced to post because of inaccuracies by inferiors must be so galling!

It's unusual, that's all. There's a general convention that media owners - even bloggers - don't challenge the anonymity of their anonymous posters in public, even if they are quick to pass on IP details to police or lawyers on request. So that's why there's some surprise. I was surprised, even though I thought it was a particularly wanky comment.

A "general convention", eh? The precedents that established this convention being...?

I don't think any purpose is usefully served by identifying the firm and I'm surprised that my request for redaction of the post which quotes mine has been ignored. It wasn't intended to be a permanent post.

Is the fear of legal action causing your bowels to become watery, Maurice? Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!

 

[ViolentPanda]

What fucking horseshit.

Let's leave the subject matter aside. Your posts are so counterproductive to what sensible people like mango5 stated they want to achieve over the weekend. You treat every disagreement as a personal attack on editor and by extension anyone who agrees with him generally.

You are as much the problem - and to the ultimate detriment of the boards - as those you accuse of behaving exactly like you fucking do.

Wind your neck in a bit ffs and maybe all of this will sort itself out.

Obviously having this view will mark me down as the enemy, or a Tory, or a property developer, or posh or any number of things I'm clearly not.

To be fair though, you're pretty much doing what you're castigating el-hairball for doing,in defending your position.

Such a fucking shame.

And do you know what's worse. I've sat on this post for quite a while because I know if I hit post I am done. That's it, I am lumped in as the enemy. Pathetic.

You are?
Better put you on "THE LIST", then.

 

[editor]

It's unusual, that's all. There's a general convention that media owners - even bloggers - don't challenge the anonymity of their anonymous posters in public, even if they are quick to pass on IP details to police or lawyers on request.

I haven't challenged the "anonymity of the poster in public" because I
(a) haven't named anyone - in fact I still don't know who it is and
(b) haven't even named the firm in question

The only person who has attempted to identify the firm publicly is you.

I don't think any purpose is usefully served by identifying the firm and I'm surprised that my request for redaction of the post which quotes mine has been ignored. It wasn't intended to be a permanent post.

Then why fucking post it, you plonker? But to save you any more embarrassment (and possible legal action against you) I will remove it, because I'm good like that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am so glad butchersapron and ViolentPanda have both been the voice of sanity here.

Sanity? How very dare you, Sir!!

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Then why fucking post it, you plonker? But to save you any more embarrassment (and possible legal action against you) I will remove it, because I'm good like that.

As you know, to make the point about identifiability, and I'm really not worried about legal action, more about complicity.

That said, thanks for acting on the request.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are astonishingly aggressive.

If I were "astonishingly" aggressive, I'd have been far harsher to the likes of you and salem. As it is, all I've done is point out the flaws to yours and his whining.

Oh, sorry, is "whining" too aggressive a description?

Not petulant, no. There have been a lot of angry responses stating that the Ed's post was clear and that the poster's company has not been contacted, rather the poster himself. Salem (and I for that matter) don't think its clear. Its pretty easy to clear it up... and give the flak on both sides, I don't think its unreasonable to ask.

it's a question that neither you nor salem and a handful of others chose to ask until the ambiguity was pointed out to you. Prior to that you chose to assume guilt on Editor's part. That, to me, renders your request unreasonable. Some gobshite cunts you off, and then demands that you explain yourself to them? Hardly likely to happen, is it?

 

[Belushi]

Belushi
don't want to have a go but want to ask you if you have concerns about privacy here and whether there has been anything to back this up at all to your knowledge?
(as you liked the quoted post)
cheers

I liked the Editors opening post on this thread because I read it as he'd emailed the person concerned asking if that was the companies official policy; emailing their employer does put a different complexion on it. I've been posting on Urban since 2003 and the mods have never to my knowledge contacted someone's employer so I'm not worried about my posts, but I'm not surprised it's raised some concerns.

 

[salem]

it's a question that neither you nor salem and a handful of others chose to ask until the ambiguity was pointed out to you. Prior to that you chose to assume guilt on Editor's part. That, to me, renders your request unreasonable. Some gobshite cunts you off, and then demands that you explain yourself to them? Hardly likely to happen, is it?

I didn't choose to question the ambiguity because it was obvious what was meant. You misread the comment and made a fool of yourself several times. editor must have been cringing even more then everyone else who was reading the story as he valiantly avoided direct requests to clarify over and over again to avoid showing you up as a fool as you went in with your usual feet first aggression.

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?

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:

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

Oh, and if you'd read editor's post in context, it's fairly obvious to anyone with a GCSE in English that he's talking about contacting the employee, not the employer.

So yeah, you didn't see it as ambiguity . In your mind you were totally right. Except of course where you were totally wrong.

 

[Ted Striker]

"First the came for the Estate Agents, and I did not speak up..."

Bindun?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

It's absolutely about politics. it's about someone making a political statement while posting from the (undeclared) position, and about of an "interested party".

 

[editor]

I liked the Editors opening post on this thread because I read it as he'd emailed the person concerned asking if that was the companies official policy; emailing their employer does put a different complexion on it. I've been posting on Urban since 2003 and the mods have never to my knowledge contacted someone's employer so I'm not worried about my posts, but I'm not surprised it's raised some concerns.

The chances of the actual person responsible being located are fairly slim - even if they do trace the IP address to a specific computer, there's always the oft-used and hard to disprove "someone else must have done it for a laugh" cop out.

But if he is located and asked to stopped posting gloating and offensive material about poor people being deprived of social housing in his company time, I won't be shedding any tears for him.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I didn't choose to question the ambiguity because it was obvious what was meant. You misread the comment and made a fool of yourself several times. editor must have been cringing even more then everyone else who was reading the story as he valiantly avoided direct requests to clarify over and over again to avoid showing you up as a fool as you went in with your usual feet first aggression.

So yeah, you didn't see it as ambiguity . In your mind you were totally right. Except of course where you were totally wrong.

I note that you've been selective in which of my posts you've quoted. Nary a sign of the one early on where I emphasise that "my" interpretation is based on context.

Two words: Textual analysis. You take a text apart and analyse the meaning through the context of the content. Occam's Razor is used to discern the most likely meaning. The most likely meaning of the word in question, in the context it was set in, is the one I proffered.
Please note again that my analysis (something I'm trained to do) isn't about my opinion over yours, it's about content and context.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have estate agent workers joined the ranks of bailiffs, screws and the OB now?

Only those who condemn themselves out of their own metaphorical mouths.

 

[ViolentPanda]

baffled why anyone would defend this shit tbh. It's a fairly simple principle to live by, don't dob people in to their boss.

Where do you draw the line on your personal principle of "don't dob people in to their boss", killer?
From where I'm sitting, that sort of catch-all "principle" is as big a bunch of sweaty scrotal sacs as "don't talk to the Old Bill", "don't grass" or "all coppers are bastards" - prejudices masquerading as reasoned comment.

 

[passivejoe]

i'm just quoting this so that you can't delete it and i can come back to it whenever i want a laugh.

this is definitely going in your file

Take it you disagree.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All cogs in a machine diametrically opposed to the needs of those who require social housing.

I think it'd be fairer to say "all people who have an interest that isn't served by the concept or the reality of social housing", as there are plenty of other machines out there that are just as inimical.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course it was the company. You don't email an individual asking for their "official" take on things.

Why "of course"? Based on your opinion, or do you have a subtantive reason to believe that your claim is accurate?

 

[ViolentPanda]

We're all fucking cogs in that machine.

Yes, we are, and like cogs we're all locked in place. It's how we address what locks us in place that gives meaning to our individual coggage.

 

[passivejoe]

If I were "astonishingly" aggressive, I'd have been far harsher to the likes of you and salem. As it is, all I've done is point out the flaws to yours and his whining.

Oh, sorry, is "whining" too aggressive a description?

it's a question that neither you nor salem and a handful of others chose to ask until the ambiguity was pointed out to you. Prior to that you chose to assume guilt on Editor's part. That, to me, renders your request unreasonable.

I read it one way, someone else pointed out an alternative meaning. I tend not to read every sentence searching for potential misunderstandings and then posting to ask for clarification.

Some gobshite cunts you off, and then demands that you explain yourself to them? Hardly likely to happen, is it?

I wouldn't say that was just highlighting whining you aggressive arsehole. Nor is it an honest representation of what happened.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's interesting because of course it isn't just estate agents that contribute to social cleansing.

Nope, it's also local party political (as in the mainstream, rather than the fringe parties) attitudes that contribute, among other things. In editor 's ward, at least one of his councillors (it may be two) have publicly expressed opinions that say (to paraphrase) "we have too much social housing in this ward". In other words, normalisation of an attitude of "private good, public bad", with all the accompanying social implications.

 

[mauvais]

"First the came for the Estate Agents, and I did not speak up..."

Bindun?

Then they came for the original wide staircase with ornate balustrade to a mezzanine landing, and there was no-one left to speak for me

Fortunately I was able to bravely gazump my way out of there, and when they came for the estate agents a second time, I said, 'they're over there, at 109.71.122.57'.

 

[killer b]

Where do you draw the line on your personal principle of "don't dob people in to their boss", killer?
From where I'm sitting, that sort of catch-all "principle" is as big a bunch of sweaty scrotal sacs as "don't talk to the Old Bill", "don't grass" or "all coppers are bastards" - prejudices masquerading as reasoned comment.

I covered that later in the thread - obviously there's exceptions. Posting some smirking nasty shit on the comments of a blog isn't one of them, IMO.

 

[passivejoe]

It's absolutely about politics. it's about someone making a political statement while posting from the (undeclared) position, and about of an "interested party".

I'm not sure that makes any sense.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Why "of course"? Based on your opinion, or do you have a subtantive reason to believe that your claim is accurate?

Its simple deductive reasoning.

Why would you privately email an individual to ask for their public opinion, when they have already expressed their opinion publicly? Why would anyone give a fuck about this tossers opinions? How would an individuals email address be identified by IP? If he signed up with his work email (not likely) why all the cloak and dagger to ID his work?

I don't really care what happens to the knobber. Arguably, Ed did the right thing (eg if we accept that racist views could/should be reported to someones boss, if ID'd through IP, then privacy is indeed not guaranteed), but if some people feel a bit uncomfortable at the idea, I don't think they should be belittled in the way they have been on this thread. The concern is a fair one.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

About treating user data appropriately.

I repeat, which line has been crossed? What you've written there is no response to that question.

 

[elmpp]

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.

 

[ddraig]

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.

your only aim on this thread is to attack editor
why?

 

[editor]

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.

What "went on" here exactly? What "shoddy" editorial policy was implemented here?

 

[elmpp]

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?