The Political Thread

[Old Tankie]

Some of the posts regarding Sharkey's situation and the naming of an individual and his work address really are scraping the barrel.  The guy can't defend himself and we only have one person's account that this has actually happened.

A couple of week's ago we had a thread on here about why we liked this Forum.  For me, it is because people are generally reasonable.  Now, as far as I'm concerned, that's gone.  How can you name an individual on here?  He's not a celebrity and, I repeat, how can he defend himself?  I'm amazed the Mods have let this stand.  I'm not saying he is, but, Sharkey could be talking a load of bollocks.

[TordelBack]

The guy can't defend himself...

Defend himself from what, exactly?  Is someone using the police to break into his home, manhandle him, invent imaginary crimes, damage and sequester his property and leave him living in a borrowed tent?

You're probably correct that we should moderate the way we are using Rebellion's forum, it's not a matter they have any responsibility for but obviously that's not the way these things are viewed, but if even half of what Shark says is accurate (and I'd go closer to 90%) he's been subject to pretty inhumane and counterproductive treatment, and this bloke gets paid to be responsible for it.  Mentioning that fact, repeatedly, is hardly an extreme response - it's not like anyone is giving out personal information, or laying down a fatwa: he has a public official role, and the manner in which he carries out his duties is a matter of concern to anyone prepared to be concerned.

[Old Tankie]

My point is, TB, how do you know Sharkey's 90% correct, he might be 10% correct and 90% wrong and it has opened the official up to possible abuse, because Sharkey's put the guy's details on here.  No one would have had a clue who was dealing with Sharkey's case otherwise.  I'd have more respect for the namers and shamers if they had the bottle to put their own real names and work addresses on here.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I think Tankie has a point.

What exactly, do you hope will happen if you post The Man's details on the web?

Is it a good thing?

[TordelBack]

Guy A who you have at least some indirect personal knowledge of claims he has been abused.
Guy B who you don't know at all probably won't get any abuse.

Which one elicits your concern?

I appreciate the general principle that internet lynch mobs are a bad thing.  I just don't see how this is one.  I also think that the full names and professions of most people who have commented so far are known to almost everyone here: this isn't 4chan.  Also, please note, our outrageous internet actions of cut-and-pasting someone's name and work address were not undertaken in the course of our work, or for money. 

While irrelevant to the matter at hand, I should point out that Shark is a valued contributor to many fan publications that celebrate 2000AD and its characters and indeed its creators.  His well-being and his tribulations are very much on topic for this forum.

EDIT:

What exactly, do you hope will happen if you post The Man's details on the web?

People will take note of the way one particular aspect of the system is run, and make their feelings known to and with respect to the person responsible?

My actual concern here is whether this business helps Sharky's situation. It may well be that it does not, but so far this seems to be his choice.

[Old Tankie]

I do not agree with you.

[Hawkmumbler]

EDIT:

What exactly, do you hope will happen if you post The Man's details on the web?

People will take note of the way one particular aspect of the system is run, and make their feelings known to and with respect to the person responsible?

My actual concern here is whether this business helps Sharky's situation. It may well be that it does not, but so far this seems to be his choice.

WITH A HUNDRED ROLE'S PF TP!!!

'I joke of course.'

[Professor Bear]

I suspect the copy and pasting might just be a running gag and not actually a socialist conspiracy, though I agree with Tankie that we should be wary of creating straw man arguments.
And as TB points out, some of us have dealings away from the forum.

[The Legendary Shark]

I understand and 49% agree with what Tankie says. I did think long and hard about naming the official and his work address and I understand that it is a risk for myself and maybe even for Mr Jackson. But...
.
He is a public servant and must therefore be accountable to the public.
.
If the public body Mr Jackson works for, whose ostensible role is to help and support the public, are happy to allow this kind of behaviour without any apparent concern then who else is going to scrutinise the way these bodies and their employees act?
.
I have published no personal details about Mr Jackson that are not a matter of public record.
.
I have not published anything that Mr Jackson has written or said to me or anyone else except in the most general terms, if at all (I'm only 90% certain of this one).
.
I can't deny that base anger led to a petty desire for some form of revenge, of which I am not proud.
.
This isn't Twitter and I don't think many boarders bother with this thread anyway. This is the only place on the internet where I regularly post about this stuff and look upon it more as a gathering of like-minded friends than a populist drivel site like Facebook.
.
I trust the people on this thread to treat this information wisely. As I said, I consider you all to be friends who would not use this information to make matters worse for me - whether I'm entirely correct or utterly deluded, which I have to concede is a possibility (although it feels like reality).
.
If Mr Jackson wishes to reply, this is a public forum, all he has to do is register an account (and convert to 2000AD of course - I bet he'll adore Judge Dredd - and if he does I will publically and unconditionally forgive him everything).
.
I f Mr Jackson wishes to take me to court for what I have written and disclosed about him then he is perfectly free to do so as a private individual.
.
I've been unlawfully detained, imprisoned, shouted at, manhandled, abused and lost my home.  As I have said in the past, my own actions have led to this point and I take full responsibility for my part in this merry dance - but it does take two to tango and Mr Andrew Jackson, Rent and Money Advice Service Manager, WLBC, Elson House, 49-51 Westgate, Sandy Lane Centre, Skelmersdale, is my dance partner.
.
The address may not even be entirely correct as all my documentation is sealed up inside my flat and I'm posting from memory.
.
I had a lot of time to weigh the pros and cons in that police cell.
.
But, even with all that said, Tankie is right to raise these concerns and proves my point about the people regular to this thread being responsible people.

[Trout]

I agree with Tankie (for the first time ever). I feel bad for Shark but I don't like the idea of someone being defamed in this way when they have no right of reply.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I agree with Tankie (for the first time ever).

[The Legendary Shark]

And in the name of balance:

My name is Mark John Howard. I currently do not have an address but the address of the flat from which I was evicted is:
13 Hesketh Avenue
Banks
West Lancashire
PR9 8BH.
.
There are several people on this board who can verify that and I give them full permission to so if deemed necessary.
.
I want this address back and aim to get it.
.
Now they'll know where to put the Blue Plaque when I shuffle off :-D

[Trout]

You know what, Shark? I'm glad you're getting support on here at a tough time but I think you should be thinking twice about what you're posting. Maybe step back a bit?

But hang in there. It's got to get better soon.

[TordelBack]

I'm way out of my depth here, legally speaking. Trout and a few others here would have a far better understanding of what constitutes defamation under the law, and I defer to them, but I'm disheartened to think that ostensibly true assertions - or at least those presented in a factual manner - about the actions of public officials cannot be made without constituting defamation. 

On that basis, perhaps this really isn't the venue for this discussion, and perhaps Shark should be more cautious about what he posts - this may not be twitter, but it's only one mouse click away, and his welfare is the real, serious issue. 

[Trout]

perhaps this really isn't the venue for this discussion

Yup.