Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I notice the whistleblowing thread about Orca Local has disappeared.


I appreciate that this may be perceived as convenient, but for me it would mark the point when the EDF jumped the shark.


I notice they have a sponsored link.


The fact is that anyone who makes up fake IDs is a confidence trickster, if we can no longer make this observation in a public forum, then what, frankly, is the point?


Three points to quality media - inform, inspire, entertain. I think you just boshed them, along with a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable.


This may well be my last post on the forum, so I'd like you to know that I love you all.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/11655-whistleblowing/
Share on other sites

I was very unhappy with the ORCA person and disatisfied with the way she explained her conduct on facebook and how she came to try to friend me there as I am quite protective of my privacy.


I hope her decided to sponsor the forum wasn't an attempt to stifle discussion.


The thread had descended into namecalling though.

  • Administrator

I can assure you the sponsorship had nothing to do with it. A complaint was received yesterday via the Report this Message feature stating that posts were potentially libellious and defamatory. As the report came at the end of the day and I was in the pub I put the message on 'hidden' status until I can read it properly and make a decision.


I agree that taking the message down purely because they are a sponsor is wrong.


Now I'm just going to have a shower, have some breakfast and then have a read of the Orca thread and see what all the fuss is about.

  • Administrator

OK, I have read the thread and posts and found nothing wrong so I have unhidden the thread. I have asked for clarification on what parts of the thread are "slanderous and libelious" [sic].


I know the forum's not perfect but my actions are honest and people can question my actions, unlike se23.com's forum where there was actually a message saying something like "there will be no messages posted questioning the running of the forum". I know that sometimes I do err on the side of caution a bit too much, especially when it comes to personal security and local businesses, the latter usually to save on the emails from irate owners and potential hassle.

  • Administrator

I'm probably going to remove it following HAL90000000's post, and if he gives me some sensible advice.


Sometimes I wish some people would send me a friendly PM and say "Hey Admin, you're actually wrong and could rectify the situation like this" instead of posting a message and not bringing my attention to it. It does not come across as friendly gesture.

I have posted on the thread itself wth some relevant case law. I have some experience as a site mod elsewhere with those who threaten legal action if they don't like a particular discussion. But if a statement is true, then that is always a defence.


http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/5176-Bulletin-Boards-Slander-Or-Libel.htm


"Mr Justice Eady said that the comments were likely to be considered as 'fair comment' i.e. they cannot be considered as defamatory if they are posted without malice and represent the posters honest views...Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. ... Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them."


"

Administrator Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes I wish some people would send me a

> friendly PM


Do you mean me? I didn't PM you because I knew immediately after I posted the original suggestion that JF had made a formal complaint. And the thread disappeared very quickly thereafter.

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mr Justice Eady ...



... did though make it clear that "I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim...I am focusing only on these particular circumstances."

 

Have been thinking about this while I was dozing earlier.. I think Huguenot's "con artist" comemnt is OTT and not borne out by the evidence and should be removed.


I think Jennifer's "crime" has been to wade through FB looking for people who have an ED connection, then not just try to "friend" them herself in order to add them to her ORCA fB list, but to enrol "Autumn Ridlon" (who does seem to be a real person albeit with a rather skethcy profile.) Possibly both her profile and the other one night have belong to other ORCA frnachisees or something like that? Anyway, it's having these (American?) profiles getting involved that has made people focus on the nature of the whole business, and then being able to raise the issue here on the EDF it has been noticed that it'a a concerted campaign on FB.


I really dislike this form of marketing and will steer well clear of the whole orca thing as a result. Is it a"con"? I don't think so.

  • Administrator

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Administrator Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sometimes I wish some people would send me a

> > friendly PM

>

> Do you mean me? I didn't PM you because I knew

> immediately after I posted the original suggestion

> that JF had made a formal complaint. And the

> thread disappeared very quickly thereafter.


Yes I did mean you, especially your comment "PM the Admin and ask him to remove this thread because it is defamatory and libellous." Perhaps I am being over-sensitive but it would have been much appreciated if you had PM'd me yourself to tell me you believed there was something illegal on the forum.

  • Administrator

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PS:

>

> I really don't like it when threads

> turn...well...oh f-uck it...what's the point...

>

> Actually, I feel like leaving the forum too...


I feel the same way to about this thread too Ladymuck, shall we leave together? Only joking about leaving of course, otherwise some would consider it blackmail but ffs, it's a friendly local forum, can we please keep it at that?


And thank you to those who contributed sensibly.

Administrator Wrote:

----------------------------------

> it would have been much appreciated if

> you had PM'd me yourself to tell me


In this case, doing so may have interfered with the aggrieved party's ability to seek legal redress.


> it's a friendly local forum, can we please keep it at that?


Pray tell: what is so friendly about stomping a local businesswoman's reputation into the ground on the strength of a paranoid aversion to spam?


Perhaps we should leave the abuse online as a permanent reminder of how friendly we can be - what do you think?

No, it's not a 'no' from HAL9000. Please don't interpret my (admittedly peculiar) posting style as a sign of unfriendliness.


In this case, I felt that a serious issue had to be dealt with in a serious manner. I congratulate Admin for making the right decision, by the way.


I feel nothing but warm, friendly feelings towards everyone on the forum and especially towards its Administrator and moderators. I'm not out to 'get' anyone and have no hidden agenda. I think the EDF is a wonderful local resource and would never do anything to disrupt its smooth running.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> Fuschia, truth and fair comment are not the same

> thing.


But the first is an absolute defence and the second can be too. Factual tatements regarding the person's actions are justifiable... claling her a con artist wasn't, on reflection, IMO

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what was the person doing on FB?


Creating non-existent FB 'users' as a means to approach people and attract business.


Disgraceful stuff, really. She should fall into line with the rest of the advertising and business world and tell the whole truth - and nothing but the truth.


A. Winchester,

Dulwich.

We were going to call this episode Huguenot Jumps the Shark but Spielberg pointed out that it's already been done so we decided to go one better with Huguenot Jumps the Orca - what do you think?


Anyway, don't blame me: it was Huguenot's idea that the forum has, "a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable".

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...