For the comment below, posted under this article, I now see that ‘Sorry… Your Account has been Disabled’

by Tony_J

Friday, June 24 2011, 10:47AM

“Not PC Crown again, by any chance? A fellow who has a habit of overstepping his authority and then denying any suggestion of impropriety…”

Which prevented me from posting this…

It will be his word against the officer’s as for what wording was used, Alfredo, and believe me, the latter’s count for more, even against all four of the family members. Only filming the encounter would count for anything. Complaining to the police authority is a waste of time. I know exactly which city centre beat officer behaves this way, having had experience of his dishonestly, but TiG don’t like names being named. Happy enough with this one, TiG? Or was that just another case of a post temporarily vanishing?

I can imagine it going down something like in the clip below. I almost felt sorry for the officers involved, because the bloke filming *was* a bit full of himself, but you could see they came over with every intention of cowing him, wanted to nail him that much harder when he stood up to them, and were totally unprepared to have their complete lack of *any* grasp of the laws concerned challenged:

I do have more evidence of Stephen Crown’s dishonesty. Although I ripped up the warning order he thrust at me on my doorstep a year or so ago, I kept the pieces, and when I assembled them again, I realised that he only filled it out half-way. So the ‘man’ who didn’t block me from closing my door with his foot, and therefore had no reason to worry about the digital camera I then took out of my pocket, somehow had a reason to not finish his paperwork.

We know, sadly, that while it would be comforting to think that all police officers are honest, responsible upholders of the law, a grubby minority commit all kinds of felonies, from fraud to assault, and the police authority will bend over backward to protect them. Good to know ‘Matty’ Holmes can always be relied upon to shield the rotten apples, too.


Reply to TiG’s email:

I haven’t broken any of your rules in the first place. Prove otherwise or re-instate my account.

Bearing false witness against somebody is still a criminal offence, isn’t it?

Cheers, Joe Kilker

Sent: 24/06/2011 11:15:08 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: content removed from This is Gloucestershire

Unfortunately we have had to remove a comment you have posted on an article headlined Welsh family questioned under anti-terror laws on Gloucester day trip because it breached our rules, which state that users must not post comments which are defamatory, false or misleading.

This is the comment which was removed:

Not PC Crown again, by any chance? A fellow who has a habit of overstepping his authority and then denying any suggestion of impropriety…

As you have already received two warnings from us for breaking our rules on previous occasions, you have been suspended from commenting on the site for a month. If we are made aware that you have contravened our rules again, you can expect to be banned permanently from submitting comments to the site.

Note: of the two previous warnings, one was for repeating a councillor’s claim that the people who bought the Colwell Centre from Gloucestershire County Council were ‘shadowy’, or words very much to that effect, and the other was for noting that various ‘individuals’ who spoke up for councillor Usman Bhaimia shared similar grammatical querks. These are both pathetic justifications for warns.

BTW, if I could post, I would tell mummyhare that it’s the ‘FFS’ that is being censored, not ‘FF’. FFS, TiG…

Well overdue for another update:
I didn’t re-register after having my account disabled for the ‘crimes’ above, but I had tried to during the re-vamp, when it seemed the old account wasn’t valid anymore, as ‘TrollhunterX’. So after TiGs action above, I tried my Starredark address and it worked!

I got a couple of days out of that before they canned it, with the claim that I ‘re-registered a day after being suspended for a month for breaching our rules on several occasions, including twice posting defamatory comments and discussing the removal of content.’

I know that TiG will turn a deaf ear to a technical argument about exactly when I registered as ‘TrollhunterX’, and one of the ‘defamatory’ comments was that the local Labour party made ‘inaccurate or at best misleading statements’. Really offensive stuff like that. They are currently ignoring my last email, and also ignoring comments which, whether spoken in earnest or jest, are far more abusive than anything I have written. I’m thinking of the ‘Beat the Burglar’ story, featuring posts by ‘Colin_Minge’ (TiG’s software is crazy keen to asterisk words like ‘arse’, even if they’re part of an acceptable, larger word, but user-names are a free-for-all. ‘Matty’ Holmes won’t accept my suggestion that it’s his staff, not the concept of ‘reactive moderation’ which will ensure good behaviour.

Which brings me to something someone (Poppy P?) said on the boards. The email I did get about my awful behaviour was entitled ‘content removed from This is Leicestershire’. Obviously the person tasked with judging the suitability of content wasn’t even a TiG staffer, if they even live in this country. Is this why the moderation, and filtering of language, is so bizarre?