Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok.. So we now have a couple of businesses who have expressed their wish that they are no longer

mentioned here on The ED Forum.. Fair enough.


Where does this leave people who have experianced poor service elsewhere. ?


Are they NOT to post negative comments even when justified. ??


Can we really not discuss both good and bad experiances any more ?


What is the way forward. ?


This really needs to be made clear.


Fox

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24337-what-can-we-say-here-on-edf/
Share on other sites

Administrator Wrote:

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

> Oh yes, but I can't remember if they asked for a complete ban or just the removal of a thread.


Complete ban:


Administrator Wrote:

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

> The owners this restaurant have asked that their company is not discussed on the forum. Any

> mention of them, good, bad or indifferent will be removed if/when we become aware of them.

So any business good or bad that would like to get on to the forum's banned list just has to write and tell you that they wish not to be discussed on the forum? It's very clearly the begining of the end for the forum, unless you make a stand your banned list will grow and grow and the forum will loose it's critical edge. Shame.

I don't agree a banned list is going to grow and grow. Why should it if businesses are producing the goods the consumers want? I think plenty are and there is a wide variety to suit most tastes.


I do think that Admin is possibly being overly cautious by adhering to the instructions meted out by one or two businesses. But then I don't know the possible ramifications either. We supposedly live in a world of free speech. If someone on a forum writes something that's untrue then surely it's that person who could be sued for libel. Am I wrong?

There was absolutely nothing that I said that was untrue and I'm absolutely not disgruntled- not in the least bit actually! Of course most of these things come down to one person's word against another although I do have a recording I took of the owner calling me 'thick' and telling me the white coats are coming to get me. Funnily enough she also had a bad review from a completely independent customer on the site Urban Spoon (I know this because she went on and on about it in the shop whilst I was there to myself and all other staff) and demanded they remove it too, threatening them. All the review said is the same as the OP in the original thread that I posted on- that the cakes were stodgy and tasteless and the staff who were doing a great job under the circumstances were being let down by the establishment! She is a bully plain and simple.

"I do think that Admin is possibly being overly cautious by adhering to the instructions meted out by one or two businesses. But then I don't know the possible ramifications either. We supposedly live in a world of free speech. If someone on a forum writes something that's untrue then surely it's that person who could be sued for libel. Am I wrong?"


This whole thing piqued my interest, and from what I can gather BOTH the poster and forum are liable. Most likely the rules governing the rest of the media would apply. If someone doesn't like what a journalist writes thru can sue both the journalist and the paper, and do so quite easily in the UK, where our appallingly relaxed laws allow for the worst kind of 'libel tourism' - but that's another matter, although it's no doubt a factor in Admins mind.


However, I also think it's worrying that businesses are able to be 'blocked' from any discussion, good or bad, if they want. In a recent case the involvement of the police merits the action (as it should), but if they weren't called in, there would be less grounds to cease all discussion.


I've lost track of how many businesses get trashed to one extent or another on here. I hope they recognise the value of community interaction and the benefits it can bring (as some have) and don't play hard (as others have). I also hope Admin knows where to draw the line on this, otherwise there will be nothing left if any business can delete negative feedback placed in the public domain by spitting their dummy.

Administrator Wrote:

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

> So your thread about Le Chandelier, posted after

> the announcement that there should be no threads

> about Le Chandelier, was removed and you want to

> know why?


Oh come on now Admin, you know full well that it was NOT about Le Chandelier (which I will refer to as 'that place', so that should please all & sundry). It was about gagging - which you have done. It raised similar points as showboat, alan m etc above. So, you see Admin, it breached no rules and I again ask that you reinstate my post that referred to 'that place'. It was not libellous nor illegal.

  • Administrator

stacey-lyn, your post was discussing and criticising that place, which I have people not to. You never contributed to the original Kingsdale or "That place" thread so please don't try to stir up the place with talk about "Gagging orders", this is the East Dulwich Forum and a business has asked for itself not to be mentioned. And we already have two threads about what can/cannot be said on the EDF.


To quote me on another post (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,916057,916681#msg-916681): "It's only been a few threads that I've had to remove because of requests/threats from businesses over the life of the forum. I don't just remove negative posts because I want to, I have to be given good reason. I always tell businesses that if I have to remove a negative post then I will remove all other posts in the interest of fairness, that sometimes makes them think again. With Le Chandelier I have been told by the owner that the police have now become involved and so please do not think that I remove posts willy nilly.


Libellous posts, when we are made aware of them, are removed as soon as possible.


Green and Blue, as people have mentioned, knew how to deal with criticism. They posted on here, explained their situation and then held a free wine tasting session for some forum users, especially their critics. Rather than fight they listened and engaged with the critics, a most excellent piece of work.


Anyway I can't answer all posts addressed to me but I hope this clears up some of my actions."


I'm bored of this now, can we just move on.

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...