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



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

"37 social units is 37 too many."

Yep, that's what some twat posting from an IP address associated with a London independent firm of commercial and residential estate agents and surveyors.

He was responding to this Buzz post: Lambeth New Town Hall redevelopment and the fast-shrinking affordable housing provision

I won't name them for now but I've emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 23, 2015)

Would it be mean to say it would be a surprise if there were _any _'London independent firm of commercial and residential estate agents and surveyors' that didn't think like this.  Whether their PR people let them say it out loud is maybe a different matter...


----------



## steeeve (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> "37 social units is 37 too many."
> 
> .



Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

steeeve said:


> Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!


When I googled it a load of companies came up - and not the one I'm talking about!


----------



## steeeve (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> When I googled it a load of companies came up - and not the one I'm talking about!



Did you search with speech marks?


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

steeeve said:


> Did you search with speak marks?


Yes. But to be safe I'll go back and edit the quotes. For now


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 23, 2015)

.


----------



## steeeve (Feb 23, 2015)

I'll not post my "guess" then


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 23, 2015)

i'd not expect any different from an estate agent, tbh.  that's why they'll all be hunted down like the animals they are, come the glorious day.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 23, 2015)

Perhaps email the company they work for too and ask if that's the official company line also?


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 23, 2015)

Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?

However, not very sensible using a work connection to post personal views when they work in that industry - unless they were using a mobile device during their lunch hour over a connection which is made available to everyone (which is pretty unlikely)


----------



## Crispy (Feb 23, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?


They're displayed by default when you're moderating comments (which editor must be doing cos I've never seen single spam comment on his blog)


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Nobody else think it's a bit creepy he checks the IP address of comments?
> 
> However, not very sensible using a work connection to post personal views when they work in that industry - unless they were using a mobile device during their lunch hour over a connection which is made available to everyone (which is pretty unlikely)


They were posting it from their company's HQ. So I want to know if that is their official line. The IP addresses are shown next to the comments as they come up for moderation and it takes about a second to check their source.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> They were posting it from their company's HQ. So I want to know if that is their official line. The IP addresses are shown next to the comments as they come up for moderation and it takes about a second to check their source.



Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy. 
If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time. 

If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2015)

I've posted loads of things on here from an employers WiFi, never doing that again in case it's deemed controversial


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm all in favour of free speech and privacy but not when it comes to a chance to embarrass someone/a firm who are basically the enemy, quite frankly. Editor has no duty to be unbiased, he's not the sodding BBC.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.
> If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time.
> 
> If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?





steeeve said:


> Googling the phrase above identifies them easily enough!


All I got when I Googled was a load of NHS warnings about social drinking.
You can see where Google thinks I'm at.

However I'm with Editor on this. I can't see what's wrong with asking for more information from an incisive right wing spammer.

Give these people a chance and they do criminal damage - like the guys who threw champagne bottles down on the heads of the J18 Anti globalisation demonstrators.

Ha Ha Ha. But potentially lethal. I know I was there!


----------



## steeeve (Feb 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> All I got when I Googled was a load of NHS warnings about social drinking.
> You can see where Google thinks I'm at.
> 
> However I'm with Editor on this. I can't see what's wrong with asking for more information from an incisive right wing spammer.
> ...



You have to search with the phrase in speech marks. I wouldn't agree with doing that generally but would make an exception in this case


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.
> If it's a person working for that company giving his own personal view then that should be fine. The fact that its easy to identify the origin of a comment that you don't agree with doesn't make it OK for you to then expose him (either publicly or to his own company). I bet most people on these boards post from work from time to time.
> 
> If someone comments in support of social units, do you check the IP address and email their company too to check that its the company's official line?


Because I was disgusted that someone would go to the effort to make such an unpleasant comment given the context of the article. So I wondered who it was. Is that OK with you?

+errant quote removed


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan U said:


> I've posted loads of things on here from an employers WiFi, never doing that again in case it's deemed controversial


Mr Over Reaction steps in to stir the pot with a load of nonsense.

Was I talking about this site? No.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Because I was disgusted that someone would go to the effort to make such an unpleasant comment given the context of the article. So I wondered who it was. Is that OK with you?



Why did you quote me there? I wasn't having a dig I was serious.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> Why did you quote me there? I wasn't having a dig I was serious.


Sorry that was accidental! Have edited post.


----------



## RoyReed (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Yes but why would you check the source? I also find it a bit creepy.


It's just a standard thing to do when you're checking comments on a blog to see whether they're spam or not. Not creepy, just something you have to do.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 23, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> I'm all in favour of free speech and privacy but not when it comes to a chance to embarrass someone/a firm who are basically the enemy, quite frankly. Editor has no duty to be unbiased, he's not the sodding BBC.



I always thought that the comments section was to foment discussion. If you try to embarrass those whose view you disagree with using your powers as editor, you just limit comments to bland notes of approval. In which case, why have a comments section at all?


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Mr Over Reaction steps in to stir the pot with a load of nonsense.
> 
> Was I talking about this site? No.



Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proven that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

"37 social units is 37 too many."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proved that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.


Right thing to do with these scummers.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2015)

Almost like a social war isn't happening.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proven that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.



If they had any sense and cared they'd protect themselves in a manner that wouldn't allow them to be exposed wouldn't they?

If you make a stupid fucking comment in public then you are enabling you're own downfall if that comment winds someone up enough to shine a light back on you....and has the ability to do so.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 23, 2015)

As a general point, deliberate astroturfing in comment sections by companies or their PR firms (particularly on local sites where there are fewer comments overall) is absolutely rife. You'd be mad _not_ to look at IPs on a regular basis.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2015)

Yeah I get why people do, just had issue with the identification bit. 

What if it puts off people wanting to whistleblow at Lambeth, for example. 

Seems to me a prime place to do it but might be off putting if the impression was given ips were being used in that way. 

Maybe I am over thinking it


----------



## xenon (Feb 23, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> If they had any sense and cared they'd protect themselves in a manner that wouldn't allow them to be exposed wouldn't they?
> 
> If you make a stupid fucking comment in public then you are enabling you're own downfall if that comment winds someone up enough to shine a light back on you....and has the ability to do so.



Given the issue I don't hav a problem with Editor's response to the cretin.

Anyway I thought most company IT policies covered something about not using company facilities to do something which might expose them to risk / damage to reputation.


----------



## xenon (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan U said:


> Yeah I get why people do, just had issue with the identification bit.
> 
> What if it puts off people wanting to whistleblow at Lambeth, for example.
> 
> ...



Hopefully they'd be using a proxy or sommat. Or at least email the blog owner first to get some assurances. not just drive-by splurging.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2015)

Drive-by splurging


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Not really an over reaction though is it.


It is unless you have lived in a vacuum and hadn't noticed the fact that we are ridiculously stringent on privacy here and have never done such a thing ever.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2015)

Dan U said:


> Yeah I get why people do, just had issue with the identification bit.
> 
> What if it puts off people wanting to whistleblow at Lambeth, for example.
> 
> ...


You are. I haven't actually identified the person.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Not really an over reaction though is it. You have the power to identify people's place of work (if they post from work) and you have proven that you have no issue with calling them out and contacting their company for a response to personal comments that you disagree with. If the comments were official, they'd have signed them off with the company name.



That is how these parasites think. Its official. You don’t get to be one of them if you do not think like that.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

The thing I do not understand from article is this:



> then Town Hall sites will produce just 37 affordable rented flats. (Calculation – 40% of 196 is 78 “affordable” homes. 70% of 78 is 37).



My maths is a bit shaky but is 70% of 78 more like 55 flats?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

And to show that is how these bastards think I was reminded of a recent article in Evening Standard




> 'No social housing' in our luxury tower block, boasts developer in advert for Greenwich flats





> An advert on the website of the London and Hong Kong based agent Fraser & Co, which is hosting the launch event at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, highlights the fact that the development is “a fully private block with no social housing”.
> 
> The absence of affordable housing is listed as a major attraction, along with its proximity to a planned Abbey Wood Crossrail station, opening in 2018.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 24, 2015)

How can you tell what the company is from the IP? I thought an IP address was basically just numbers and dots...


----------



## fishfinger (Feb 24, 2015)

Wolveryeti said:


> How can you tell what the company is from the IP? I thought an IP address was basically just numbers and dots...


Those numbers and dots are the address, and can be looked up quite easily. In the case of a domestic user, they will just give details of the ISP. In the case of a business, the IP address will usually give the owners (company) name.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2015)

Wolveryeti said:


> How can you tell what the company is from the IP? I thought an IP address was basically just numbers and dots...


but those numbers and dots have meaning.

next.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 24, 2015)

*considers causing havoc on pieminister's blog comments section, via greggs wifi*


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this either. When it's someone doing a shady edit of a wikipedia article fair enough but grassing someone up to their boss because they post something that doesn't agree with you is not on.

So an estate agent doesn't like provision of social housing, that is nothing surprising. There is no news here. 

If the PR team say anything - which they probably won't if they see what happens any time a company tries to engage here - they'll just say it was an employee and doesn't reflect our views, words will be said etc etc.

Sometimes the most interesting posts are those which give a little insight into the 'other side', sadly this place is getting more homogeneous by the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

Interesting. Disagreement = homogeneity.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting. Disagreement = homogeneity.


I don't follow. I mean that if we stifle people because they present an opposing view then we end up with a list of people just saying the same shit in agreement. Even the mega argument threads tend to come down to minor disagreements on semantics.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> I don't follow. I mean that if we stifle people because they present an opposing view then we end up with a list of people just saying the same shit in agreement. Even the mega argument threads tend to come down to minor disagreements on semantics.


You're suggesting that disagreement = homogeneity when it actually suggests the exact opposite.

As for this prick, fuck him - there's a war on.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this either. When it's someone doing a shady edit of a wikipedia article fair enough but grassing someone up to their boss because they post something that doesn't agree with you is not on.


Perhaps you missed the bit where I clearly stated that I didn't give enough information to identify the person.

And by posting up about it, I did indeed give a "little insight into the 'other side."


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> If they had any sense and cared they'd protect themselves in a manner that wouldn't allow them to be exposed wouldn't they?
> 
> If you make a stupid fucking comment in public then you are enabling you're own downfall if that comment winds someone up enough to shine a light back on you....and has the ability to do so.



This extract in the Guardian makes interesting reading on that point. Social media can be a fucker. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Perhaps you missed the bit where I clearly stated that I didn't give enough information to identify the person.


If they have an IP address registered to them rather then their ISP they'll almost certainly have a setup that logs employees internet usage. It'll be trivial to trace it back to the employee.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You're suggesting that disagreement = homogeneity when it actually suggests the exact opposite.


No I'm not. I'm suggesting that the shooting down of disagreement = homogeneity. But ironically we've come down to an argument about semantics.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As a general point, deliberate astroturfing in comment sections by companies or their PR firms (particularly on local sites where there are fewer comments overall) is absolutely rife. You'd be mad _not_ to look at IPs on a regular basis.



Didn't know it had a name. I can see that it could be a problem but on the flip side, all genuine personal opinions should be allowed and I guess if you work in property development then you're likely to be morally ok with your business's aims so it may well be an honest personal opinion. 
I'm not particularly tech-literate... can IP addresses be hidden or disguised?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> No I'm not. I'm suggesting that the shooting down of disagreement = homogeneity. But ironically we've come down to an argument about semantics.


So disagreeing = homogeneity. Agreement i suppose = heterogeneity. 

But let's face it, you just meant to insult a load of posters who aren't up to your exciting standards.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> If they have an IP address registered to them rather then their ISP they'll almost certainly have a setup that logs employees internet usage. It'll be trivial to trace it back to the employee.


I couldn't give much of a fuck to be honest. An estate agent gloating about the already massively reduced lack of social housing provision and wanted poor people to get none at all? Fuck him. And if they do trace the cunt, good. Maybe he'll think twice before posting such offensive stuff from his work computer.

And please don't confuse the comments section of that site with these boards because they are entirely different things.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You're suggesting that disagreement = homogeneity when it actually suggests the exact opposite.



I thought he was saying precisely the opposite. That disagreement prevents homogeneity.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> I thought he was saying precisely the opposite. That disagreement prevents homogeneity.


I disagree.

But of course, what he really meant was that disagreeing _with him_ = evidence of homogeneity.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So disagreeing = homogeneity. Agreement i suppose = heterogeneity.
> 
> But let's face it, you just meant to insult a load of posters who aren't up to your exciting standards.


Post #44 I said "Sometimes the most interesting posts are those which give a little insight into the 'other side', sadly this place is getting more homogeneous by the day."

i.e it's interesting to have opposing views even if not agreed with, sadly it appears to me that the views are becoming more samey.

Homogeneous definition, composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind; not heterogeneous.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, as far as I can see I've used the words correctly. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, just a general view that a discussion board gets more boring the more everyone sings to the same tune.



butchersapron said:


> But of course, what he really meant was that disagreeing _with him_ = evidence of homogeneity.


Not at all. I disagree with what the estate agent said, I'm a fucking 30 year old bloke, born in London who is still moving from shitty flat share to shitty flatshare and has no chance of settling down, having kids or any of that stuff I imagined I'd be doing by now because of the fucked up property situation. I'm fairly sure that I won't magically get somewhere to live by 40 either and the chances are I'll die alone in a shitty bedsit. Believe me I don't agree with the estate agent in the least.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Post #44 I said "Sometimes the most interesting posts are those which give a little insight into the 'other side', sadly this place is getting more homogeneous by the day."
> 
> i.e it's interesting to have opposing views even if not agreed with, sadly it appears to me that the views are becoming more samey.
> 
> ...


You appeared making your disagreement known (the previous disagreement throughout the thread seems to to have passed you by as well) declaring that there is no room for disagreement. Both your disagreement and the aforementioned disagreement of others doesn't suggest homogeneity - unless your disagreement with options and action taken is a product of that homogeneity. Which would mean disagreement =  homogeneity.

But really you just wanted to suggest that others posters are pale sheeple types all mooing the same tune didn't you? Despite no poster beings stifled or prevented having a contrary view to anyone else. You do realise this isn't about a poster on the boards don't you? It doesn't seem clear to me that you do.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Post #44 I said "Sometimes the most interesting posts are those which give a little insight into the 'other side', sadly this place is getting more homogeneous by the day."


But this took place on another site.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

Here's one way of dealing with the housing crisis - get rid of the govt body that produces the figures highlighting it.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> But this took place on another site.


Oh come on pull the other one.

brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Oh come on pull the other one.
> 
> brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.


they are not the same
the person or company has not been mentioned
what is the problem?


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Oh come on pull the other one.
> 
> brixtonbuzz.com and urban75.net are both registered to the same person, both hosted on the exact same machine (i.e IP address are perfect matches) and the stories on brixtonbuzz usually reference a thread here and vice versa (just as they do in this case). In both cases you have access to the IP address of posters.


You argument is deeply, deeply flawed. The vast majority of threads here have no equivalent post on Brixton Buzz. Sharing an IP address does not mean the sites are the same or run the same way. One is a forum. The other is not.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

They are the same legal entity. Someone has been grassed up to their boss because they said something which the higher powers (which is the same on both sites) don't agree with.

So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

Even click the 'forum' tab on Brixton Buzz and you get this page which lists threads from here.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Even click the 'forum' tab on Brixton Buzz and you get this page which lists threads from here.


Yes. It's called a 'link'. The web is full of them.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> They are the same legal entity.


Ah, an expert.


salem said:


> So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?


Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Yes. It's called a 'link'. The web is full of them.



Yes and this link illustrates the connection between the sites clearly. You have a 'forum' tab on brixtonblog which brings you to the threads on here.



editor said:


> Ah, an expert.


If you say so. But you'd agree that you are the registered owner of both urban75.net and brixtonblog.com? I used the term legal entity not to try and sound like an expert but because it's the right term to use.



editor said:


> Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.



I've posted here for over a decade and tbh I took it as a given that things posted here would be treated privately regardless of whether the site management agreed with the content or not. I understand that IP addresses have been disclosed in the past where someone is in danger but I never thought that someone would get grassed up to their bosses because they said something that went against the grain.

It creates an uncomfortable imbalance of power and one that is open to abuse. We all know the site is ultimately a benevolent dictatorship (and I understand that's just a matter of practicality) and on the whole the balance has been reasonable in my time here. It's for that reason I'm calling you out on this. It's undermined my confidence in the site.

FWIW I work from home and tend to avoid posting anything controversial anyway so I'm not directly affected but I have no doubt there are lots of people on here who post from work, university or even countries where they could get in trouble for the content of their posts. I'm uncomfortable that the few people with access to IP addresses could cause trouble if they wanted purely because someone has opposing views.

I think you've opened a can of worms here and if your main defense is that it was on brixtonblog then I think you need to make the definition between the two a bit clearer because right now I can't see any reason why this couldn't happen with a post here.

To repeat my question in post #64

_So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?_


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

37 social units is 37 too many.

i think that all social renters are massive bumfaces.

viva cameron, nuke the poor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Almost like a social war isn't happening.



TBF, posters such as spammisery and passivejoe are at least revealing which side they're on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> If they had any sense and cared they'd protect themselves in a manner that wouldn't allow them to be exposed wouldn't they?
> 
> If you make a stupid fucking comment in public then you are enabling you're own downfall if that comment winds someone up enough to shine a light back on you....and has the ability to do so.



Absolutely. You also have to be a bit of a knobshine to not realise that using company time, software and hardware is not a secure method of *personal* communication, and at the very least can leave you open to disciplinary proceedings from an employer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Dan U said:


> Yeah I get why people do, just had issue with the identification bit.
> 
> What if it puts off people wanting to whistleblow at Lambeth, for example.
> 
> ...



I think you are. Frankly, it's more likely to be encrusted institutional customs or a "buy-off" culture that stop people whistle-blowing, rather than anything as mundane as the above.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Absolutely. You also have to be a bit of a knobshine to not realise that using company time, software and hardware is not a secure method of *personal* communication, and at the very least can leave you open to disciplinary proceedings from an employer.



If you can get sacked for talking shit on facebook....you can certainly get sacked for using company tools to talk shite on facebook (and other forms of socials medium)...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> They are the same legal entity. Someone has been grassed up to their boss because they said something which the higher powers (which is the same on both sites) don't agree with.
> 
> So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?



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?


----------



## souljacker (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> If they have an IP address registered to them rather then their ISP they'll almost certainly have a setup that logs employees internet usage. It'll be trivial to trace it back to the employee.



Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.

But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> If you can get sacked for talking shit on facebook....you can certainly get sacked for using company tools to talk shite on facebook (and other forms of socials medium)...



Quite. It's not as if there isn't a constant stream of stories about people being sacked or otherwise disciplined for "bringing the company into disrepute" via electronic media, or "misuse of company property".


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 24, 2015)

Dem dimwits


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

souljacker said:


> Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.
> 
> But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.



Not as much good as having the soles of their feet beaten with a cane, but we can't have everything, so dole and loss of Mini it is!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not as much good as having the soles of their feet beaten with a cane, but we can't have everything, so dole and loss of Mini it is!


in the absence of the bastinado, the strappado an acceptable alternative.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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?



editor has said that he's emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it. He know's who they are because as a site mod he can see their IP address and if they are a company which has their own name listed against their IP address rather then their ISP then it means they are big*. It also means that there is going to be a very good chance they are logging employee internet usage and as such he has quite likely grassed the person up.

*Ed also helpfully gave us a big clue in the BB comment who the company is and they are indeed a big name.

So yes I did read the fucking buzz story and thread.



souljacker said:


> Thats not necessarily true and I doubt most estate agents would have this in place. They could even have a guest wifi and the message could have come from anyone.
> 
> But thats not the point. The point is estate agents are scum and a lengthy period on the dole and having to sell his fucking Mini would do the cunt some good.



Maybe, but clearly he thinks it's an employee otherwise why ask if it's official policy in a tone which is clearly meant to show he has the upper hand.

And your second line is exactly the kind of thing which concerns me, we let the site management decide who they dish out punishment based on their personal views. You can't see the bigger picture here because all you can see is the boogie man?


----------



## superfly101 (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Ah, an expert.
> Give me your grounds - any grounds - for thinking they wouldn't enjoy the same kind of privacy as you and all the other posters here have enjoyed since the site began.


Well the precedent has well and truly been set!

Post a comment that YOU personally do not like too any BB article and expect;

1; that comment to be broadcast not only on that site, but on every other site you have an interest in. Plus tweeted to x amount of your followers via twitter.

2; you will then contact the persons employer stating so publicly (thus raising the stakes for them) for "comment". This could result in an investigation, disciplinary action and even the termination of their employment. Which seem not to give a flying fuck about?

I don't see any disclaimer on the BB comments section stating that you reserve the right to contact an employer if you don't like their comment. Nor do I see any disclaimer stating that you will start a witch hunt across every site you have an interest in, nor tweet that witch hunt to your followers via Twitter?

Now if it was offensive or discriminatory - homophobic, racist etc -  we'd say good on you Ed go for it.

But wilfully attempting to start a witch hunt and get somebody sacked for that comment? 

You're an absolute shambles if you think any of this is reasonable behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> editor has said that he's emailed them to ask if that's their official take on it. He know's who they are because as a site mod he can see their IP address and if they are a company which has their own name listed against their IP address rather then their ISP then it means they are big*. It also means that there is going to be a very good chance they are logging employee internet usage and as such he has quite likely grassed the person up.
> 
> *Ed also helpfully gave us a big clue in the BB comment who the company is and they are indeed a big name.
> 
> So yes I did read the fucking buzz story and thread.



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:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> Well the precedent has well and truly been set!
> 
> Post a comment that YOU personally do not like too any BB article and expect;
> 
> ...



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


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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:


Well we've interpreted it differently then.

"I won't name them for now but I've emailed *them *to ask if that's *their *official take on it."

You think editor means he emailed the person who posted the comment to see if their comment was their official take on it? That would be a little odd. You think "I won't name them for now" means he is going to name the individual or the company? Odd that he hasn't refuted that point.

Perhaps editor could clear it up. Did you email the person who posted the comment directly or the company they work for?


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> Now if it was offensive or discriminatory - homophobic, racist etc -  we'd say good on you Ed go for it.


In the context of the article (you've read it, right?) it was deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> _So if they posted that exact same post here you'd respect their privacy?_


Fuck's sake. Unless you've had your head up your arse for the past ten years you already know the answer to that.


----------



## Enviro (Feb 24, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> ...But wilfully attempting to start a witch hunt and get somebody sacked for that comment? ...



That was not ed's intention as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no naming and shaming has yet occurred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Well we've interpreted it differently then.
> 
> "I won't name them for now but I've emailed *them *to ask if that's *their *official take on it."
> 
> You think editor means he emailed the person who posted the comment to see if their comment was their official take on it? That would be a little odd. You think "I won't name them for now" means he is going to name the individual or the company? Odd that he hasn't refuted that point.



I "think" it because it's consonant with the rest of what's said - the *context* indicates the individual, not the employer. 
And why should he have to refute points made by sarky pissants who could just have easily have asked that question without all the po-faced judgemental crap?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Enviro said:


> That was not ed's intention as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no naming and shaming has yet occurred.



A fact that appears to have been missed by those who are happy to rush to judgement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> In the context of the article (you've read it, right?) it was deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate.



The more judgemental posters don't seem to be "doing" context currently.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Perhaps editor could clear it up. Did you email the person who posted the comment directly or the company they work for?




It was me who suggested contacting the company btw. In light of them being such massive offensive dickheads, I don't care.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, posters such as spammisery and passivejoe are at least revealing which side they're on.



Thats ridiculous. Its not about sides. Its about fairness. Notwithstanding the content of the comment in question, in my opinion its not right that the Editor dobs a commenter in to his company about a comment he made from work. Not when he was within his rights to say it on a public forum and surely within his rights to keep his identity private. 
Its a leap but say he lost his job as a result? Say he wasn't in the property industry but a tube worker commenting on job losses and pickets and the Ed. took against his position... would it then be fine for the Editor to dob him in to TFL?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

You have to make the comparison fair/likely/realistic ffs. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Say he wasn't in the property industry but a tube worker commenting on job losses and pickets and the Ed. took against his position... would it then be fine for the Editor to dob him in to TFL?


Because that's REALLY likely to happen, isn't it? 

How much do you want to bet that this twat hasn't lost his job?


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Well we've interpreted it differently then.
> 
> "I won't name them for now but I've emailed *them *to ask if that's *their *official take on it."
> 
> ...


Was it the individual or the company you emailed editor ?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

imaginary scenarios, unlikely hypotheticals, just two of the tools of the piss poor wind up merchant.

editor, what if it was hitler who made that comment and now you've got him sacked so that he's going to get mad and go back in time and do the holocaust?  how do you feel now?  you're literally responsible for the deaths of 11 million people.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Because that's REALLY likely to happen, isn't it?
> 
> How much do you want to bet that this twat hasn't lost his job?



Its less about this individual instance than the fact that you're willing to use your ability to identify posters to cause trouble for them if you don't like their view point. In my view, moderators should be fairly balanced and foster discussion, not take revenge someone whose post irritated you. 
I think its an abuse of power. Yes you have the right to do it but I don't think you should.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

Indeed. This thread has got too ridiculous to continue with. No one has lost their jobs. At best, the loathsome shitsmudge of an estate agent got a well deserved slap around his chops for being so offensive.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Its less about this individual instance than the fact that you're willing to use your ability to identify posters to cause trouble for them if you don't like their view point. In my view, moderators should be fairly balanced and foster discussion, not take revenge someone whose post irritated you.


He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Its less about this individual instance than the fact that you're willing to use your ability to identify posters to cause trouble for them if you don't like their view point. In my view, moderators should be fairly balanced and foster discussion, not take revenge someone whose post irritated you.
> I think its an abuse of power. Yes you have the right to do it but I don't think you should.


*IT'S NOT ON HERE!! YOU ARE QUITE SAFE HERE
UNDERSTAND??*


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 24, 2015)

There's a few people posting on this thread who don't understand how the Internet works.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

More and more often, I find I'm surprised by the Editor's obsession with money. Generic posts and news items end up with snarky references to people's wealth.


editor said:


> He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site.



Why does that make a difference? Do you hold yourself to a different moral standard when you click on the BBuzz tab on your computer?


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Indeed. *This thread has got too ridiculous to continue with*. No one has lost their jobs. At best, the loathsome shitsmudge of an estate agent got a well deserved slap around his chops for being so offensive.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> There's a few people posting on this thread who don't understand how the Internet works.


Could you elaborate on that?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

i think if editor was going to use his power to fuck things up for various posters, it might have happened by now.  but, i seem to recall that during the whole ernestolynch being a dickhead for years period, editor followed around pk and others deleting posts that identified his real name, position, and school that he worked at.

instead of losing the sad wanker his job, which considering some of his posts, would have been easily done.

so i don;t think you have anything to worry about posting on urban75.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> More and more often, I find I'm surprised by the Editor's obsession with money.


Ah, with your poor arguments failing to gain traction, you're hoping to make it more personal now by throwing around some daft ad hominems. Tut tut. Very poor show.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> More and more often, I find I'm surprised by the Editor's obsession with money. Generic posts and news items end up with snarky references to people's wealth.



a politically leftish commentator who talks about wealth in a neo-liberal capitalist society during a period a local gentrification?

fucking hell, call the hangman.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

this is just more attacks on the editor's politics disguised as moderation issues.	waaa waaa editor says mean things about estate agents, waaa waaaa editor says mean things about landlords, lets see if we can paint him as making all our personal data available, lets see if we can paint him as undertaking vengeance against people he doesn't like.	 pathetic stuff.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

it was more fun around here when i was haranguing the editor for being a wet liberal.  now its necessary to defend even his wet liberalism from the tide of toryism and gordon geckos.  this is a microscosm of politics in the UK as a whole.  the labour party moves to the right, is attacked for being left wing by the right, moves further to the right because its too cowardly to stand and fight.  in the end we get milliband arguing with cameron about who hates foreigners more.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 24, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> Well the precedent has well and truly been set!
> 
> Post a comment that YOU personally do not like too any BB article and expect;
> 
> ...


Do us all a favour, fuck off.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Could you elaborate on that?



If  you post on the Internet and don't make an attempt to hide your IP, then assume that where you post from is not private. Especially if posting from work.


----------



## elmpp (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Ah, with your poor arguments failing to gain traction, you're hoping to make it more personal now by throwing around some daft ad hominems. Tut tut. Very poor show.


Utterly defeated with valid points he does head for the high ground


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> If  you post on the Internet and don't make an attempt to hide your IP, then assume that where you post from is not private. Especially if posting from work.


Perhaps it's time for a sticky in the main forum then. Especially as people post politically sensetive posts, posts about drugs etc. I'm sure plenty of 'good' people post from work/university and now it's not a case of if the management here are prepared to tell tails to teacher but whether you sit on their moral compass.

It's a broader issue and I'm disappointed at how many people think it's just about evil estate agents.


----------



## superfly101 (Feb 24, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Do us all a favour, fuck off.



lol


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Perhaps it's time for a sticky in the main forum then. Especially as people post politically sensetive posts, posts about drugs etc. I'm sure plenty of 'good' people post from work/university and now it's not a case of if the management here are prepared to tell tails to teacher but where you sit on their moral compass.


*IT'S NOT HERE!*


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Perhaps it's time for a sticky in the main forum then. Especially as people post politically sensetive posts, posts about drugs etc. I'm sure plenty of 'good' people post from work/university and now it's not a case of if the management here are prepared to tell tails to teacher but where you sit on their moral compass.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

Any chance on clarification here? (Third time lucky!)


salem said:


> Was it the individual or the company you emailed editor ?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Perhaps it's time for a sticky in the main forum then. Especially as people post politically sensetive posts, posts about drugs etc. I'm sure plenty of 'good' people post from work/university and now it's not a case of if the management here are prepared to tell tails to teacher but whether you sit on their moral compass.
> 
> It's a broader issue and I'm disappointed at how many people think it's just about evil estate agents.



As I said - there are a few people posting who don't understand how the Internet works.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Any chance on clarification here?


Given the fact that you've completely misrepresented everything I've said thus far and keep on persisting with misinformation even after you've been corrected, I think I'll give it a miss, ta.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Given the fact that you've completely misrepresented everything I've said thus far and keep on persisting with misinformation even after you've been corrected, I think I'll give it a miss, ta.



Way to avoid giving an answer.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Ah, with your poor arguments failing to gain traction, you're hoping to make it more personal now by throwing around some daft ad hominems. Tut tut. Very poor show.



I apologise for that comment. I actually thought I'd deleted it before adding the quote and the other line. Sorry.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 24, 2015)

I blame Thatcher


----------



## Manter (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> This extract in the Guardian makes interesting reading on that point. Social media can be a fucker. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson


That's really interesting, thanks


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Thats ridiculous. Its not about sides. Its about fairness. Notwithstanding the content of the comment in question, in my opinion its not right that the Editor dobs a commenter in to his company about a comment he made from work. Not when he was within his rights to say it on a public forum and surely within his rights to keep his identity private.
> Its a leap but say he lost his job as a result? Say he wasn't in the property industry but a tube worker commenting on job losses and pickets and the Ed. took against his position... would it then be fine for the Editor to dob him in to TFL?



It's absolutely about sides. You took sides the moment you decided to attack editor and give your support to an misanthropic estate agent (his comment, if nothing else, being misanthropic).  If you were interested in fairness, you'd have taken the misanthropy and classism inherent to his remark into account. You didn't, so you're either confused as to what "fairness" means, or you're disingenuous.
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.	   

I reckon your username must be an abbreviation of passive-aggressive joe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You have to make the comparison fair/likely/realistic ffs. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless.



Like much of what he's posted on this thread, in my opinion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Didn't know it had a name. I can see that it could be a problem but on the flip side, all genuine personal opinions should be allowed and I guess if you work in property development then you're likely to be morally ok with your business's aims so it may well be an honest personal opinion.
> I'm not particularly tech-literate... can IP addresses be hidden or disguised?


IPs can be hidden but it's surprising that people often don't. Perhaps it's just the shit ones that get noticed.

It is pretty essential to look at the source of peculiar drive-by comment bombing, particularly when there are lots of comments saying similar things. I'm not sure whether this particular comment was part of a general strategy to make it look like there are real people who actually don't like the idea of affordable housing, or whether it was just some cunt of an estate agent posting on his own initiative, but odd "coincidences" like this are worth highlighting publicly; just like it might be worth mentioning that, say, comments from local residents approving of a new Tesco appearing on a local blog criticising it all seem to have IPs coming from a PR company hired by Tesco.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> If  you post on the Internet and don't make an attempt to hide your IP, then assume that where you post from is not private. Especially if posting from work.



I'm an old fart, yet I've always been aware of this from the first time I used a networked computer 20 years ago. I won't go as far as to say that people ignorant of this get what they deserve, but it hardly takes much effort to cover yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Utterly defeated with valid points he does head for the high ground



Oh look, another of the "let's have a dig" merchants. Grow up!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> Perhaps it's time for a sticky in the main forum then. Especially as people post politically sensetive posts, posts about drugs etc. I'm sure plenty of 'good' people post from work/university and now it's not a case of if the management here are prepared to tell tails to teacher but whether you sit on their moral compass.
> 
> It's a broader issue and I'm disappointed at how many people think it's just about evil estate agents.



It's nothing to do with the forums here, except with regard to this particular thread. The comment was made on another site.
You should stop letting your self-righteousness assert itself so strongly. that way you could avoid showing yourself up as a berk with posts like the above.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Way to avoid giving an answer.



Why do you think you deserve one? You went on the attack, as did salem, and now you're being petulant that your demands aren't being met? Just how fucking entitled are you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I blame Thatcher



Shame she's dead. Blaming a deader isn't as much fun as blaming a live sorceress.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> As I said - there are a few people posting who don't understand how the Internet works.


o
I'm not sure if that's intended as a dig at me however I know exactly how the internet works, it's what I do for a living and I have access to dozens of sites. As a result I take privacy very seriously. A line has been crossed here and it's not about an estate agent it's the principle. But go on drop the underhand comments and say what you mean.

But please again, if youve got


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Given the fact that you've completely misrepresented everything I've said thus far and keep on persisting with misinformation even after you've been corrected, I think I'll give it a miss, ta.


Go on answer the fucking question.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> o
> I'm not sure if that's intended as a dig at me however I know exactly how the internet works, it's what I do for a living and I have access to dozens of sites. As a result I take privacy very seriously. A line has been crossed here and it's not about an estate agent it's the principle. But go on drop the underhand comments and say what you mean.
> 
> But please again, if youve got



Even less excuse for it then


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 24, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> this is just more attacks on the editor's politics disguised as moderation issues.	waaa waaa editor says mean things about estate agents, waaa waaaa editor says mean things about landlords, lets see if we can paint him as making all our personal data available, lets see if we can paint him as undertaking vengeance against people he doesn't like.	 pathetic stuff.


Aye that some pricks have wanted on about this rather than the real issue of scum like this wanting to destroy social housing says everything you need to know about them. Fucking wastes of space destroying what could have been a good thread.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> o
> I'm not sure if that's intended as a dig at me however I know exactly how the internet works, it's what I do for a living and I have access to dozens of sites. As a result I take privacy very seriously. A line has been crossed here and it's not about an estate agent it's the principle. But go on drop the underhand comments and say what you mean.
> 
> But please again, if youve got


only dozens?? 
didn't anyone tell you there are millions and millions of sites out there?
and how come part of your post is missing if you're so good at this internet game?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> More and more often, I find I'm surprised by the Editor's obsession with money. Generic posts and news items end up with snarky references to people's wealth.
> 
> 
> Why does that make a difference? Do you hold yourself to a different moral standard when you click on the BBuzz tab on your computer?



More and more I am noticing some poster's obsession with Editor. I find I am surprised they are so blatant about it and don't realise how ridiculous they seem.

Snarky references to people's wealth are completely valid when those people are looking down their noses and sneering at those with less/in social housing/signing on etc...

Next you will be telling us that it's wrong to out DWP workers who sneer and abuse claimants online or racist police who owt themselves online...seriously, why do you think this is okay?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 24, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Way to avoid giving an answer.



Why should he answer you? You have constructed a strawman by misrepresenting his posts and interests.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 24, 2015)

salem said:


> A line has been crossed here



Which line is that?


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 24, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> IPs can be hidden but it's surprising that people often don't. Perhaps it's just the shit ones that get noticed.
> 
> It is pretty essential to look at the source of peculiar drive-by comment bombing, particularly when there are lots of comments saying similar things. I'm not sure whether this particular comment was part of a general strategy to make it look like there are real people who actually don't like the idea of affordable housing, or whether it was just some cunt of an estate agent posting on his own initiative, but odd "coincidences" like this are worth highlighting publicly; just like it might be worth mentioning that, say, comments from local residents approving of a new Tesco appearing on a local blog criticising it all seem to have IPs coming from a PR company hired by Tesco.



totally agree! Apart from the fact that this happened on a different platform than urban, I can't see where ed has publicly named or identified this person or the estate agency. Urban has always been somewhere you can be anonymous and the only times I've ever know of mods having used ip addresses are where there has been a danger to someone. Generally a poster in distress and then it's always been well handled


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

shakespearegirl said:


> I can't see where ed has publicly named or identified this person or the estate agency.



He quotes the firm's tagline; it's fairly easy to identify from that, and would certainly have made TK feel nervous.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2015)

agree shakespearegirl, and that's what makes this misrepresentation that bit more disgusting

(and of course there are sides in this ffs)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda ...Good....Name and shame them. They are part of a massive problem and perpetuate it.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> He quotes the firm's tagline; it's fairly easy to identify from that, and would certainly have made TK feel nervous.


I don't actually, but thank heavens you're here.

So who is the firm then?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> So who is the firm then?



Scottish town; British novelist, first name Peter.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

One poster has suggested that the offending post was akin to astroturfing, or seeding community blogs with corporate messages disguised as citizen comment. That's unlikely to be the case if it's the firm I believe it is, which has a division offering "development services" to clients with a "diverse product range" of affordable housing, and would presumably shout about this in the unlikely event that TK's unpleasant post became a cause celebre.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> --? Please feel free to delete.


No, if you want to publicly accuse them, you go right ahead.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. If you describe a firm in its own language, you run the risk of identifying it.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> i'm not accusing anyone of anything. If you describe a firm in its own language, you run the risk of identifying it.


Seems to be me that you're the one doing al the 'identifying' and the going even further by adding fascinating details about the claimed company's set up.

Even though my search didn't bring up the company concerned, I edited my post within minutes when another poster told me he could identify them. So the words are different. 

Anyway, this is a classic case of a poster with well known beef coming in late in the day to stir things up. Not interested any more.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> One poster has suggested that the offending post was akin to astroturfing, or seeding community blogs with corporate messages disguised as citizen comment. That's unlikely to be the case if it's the firm I believe it is, which has a division offering "development services" to clients with a "diverse product range" of affordable housing, and would presumably shout about this in the unlikely event that TK's unpleasant post became a cause celebre.


One poster has also seen some really appallingly incompetent instances of attempted astroturfing from people who one would have expected to know better, or at least be a bit better at it given how much they will be charging.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Seems to be me that you're the one doing al the 'identifying' and the going even further by adding fascinating details about the company's set up.
> 
> Even though my search didn't bring up the company concerned, I edited my post within minutes when another poster told me he could identifiy them.



I'm going by what's on Brixton Buzz at the moment, so your edit definitely didn't go far enough. The details about the affordably housing set-up don't include a telling and googlable phrase.

I edited out the name once you had had an opportunity to see it; are you minded to redact the post that quoted mine? Perfectly happy to delete the references to towns and authors as well.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Feb 24, 2015)

I googled the "37" phrase as the only links I could find were brixton buzz and this thread. If a numpty like me can't identify it then it's not very obvious


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

shakespearegirl said:


> I googled the "37" phrase as the only links I could find were brixton buzz and this thread. If a numpty like me can't identify it then it's not very obvious



That's not the phrase we're talking about.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2015)

shakespearegirl said:


> I googled the "37" phrase as the only links I could find were brixton buzz and this thread. If a numpty like me can't identify it then it's not very obvious


Indeed.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

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.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 24, 2015)

Why are some people so against calling nutwats on what they say? Why are some people so obsessed with protecting the reputation of firms that are ripping shreds out of London/the rest of the UK/elsewhere?


----------



## maomao (Feb 24, 2015)

It is true that if you replace the single quotes round the phrase in editor 's response on Brixton Buzz with double quotes and Google it it does identify the firm named above on this thread pretty clearly but I don't see why that would be a concern? Even if he'd named them directly I don't know why it would be a concern, it's hardly libel.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are some people so against calling nutwats on what they say? Why are some people so obsessed with protecting the reputation of firms that are ripping shreds out of London/the rest of the UK/elsewhere?



because calling people on their opinions is only allowed if you're a tory prick calling editor on his.  everyone else has absolute freedom of speech.  and actually, editor is worse than hitler for not having made estateagents75.com for them post on, which clearly shows his bias.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

maomao said:


> It is true that if you replace the single quotes round the phrase in editor 's response on Brixton Buzz with double quotes and Google it it does identify the firm named above on this thread pretty clearly but I don't see why that would be a concern? Even if he'd named them directly I don't know why it would be a concern, it's hardly libel.



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

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.

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.


----------



## maomao (Feb 24, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> because calling people on their opinions is only allowed if you're a tory prick calling editor on his.  everyone else has absolute freedom of speech.  and actually, editor is worse than hitler for not having made estateagents75.com for them post on, which clearly shows his bias.


Exactly. The thread on the Atlantic Road arches should have been somewhere for people to organise against Network Rail and has been absolutely ruined by these nitpicking fuckwits insisting on their 'freedom of speech'. Should just fuck them off and ban them, as has been said there's a fucking war on.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 24, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> because calling people on their opinions is only allowed if you're a tory prick calling editor on his.  everyone else has absolute freedom of speech.  and actually, editor is worse than hitler for not having made estateagents75.com for them post on, which clearly shows his bias.


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. 

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.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> this is just more attacks on the editor's politics disguised as moderation issues.	waaa waaa editor says mean things about estate agents, waaa waaaa editor says mean things about landlords, lets see if we can paint him as making all our personal data available, lets see if we can paint him as undertaking vengeance against people he doesn't like.	 pathetic stuff.



As a regular poster on the Brixton forum I agree 100%

I am getting sick of it here sometimes. Urban75 is or was a refuge for me from the mainstream middle of the road media.

I am sick of the way the editor is continually attacked here on brixton forum. And yes ur right its all about the left of centre politics he has.

As u say in later post when Ernestolynch etc were posting here people like me and the editor were castigated as back sliding reformist liberals. Its changed now.

I find it depresssing. So many of the people I used to know in Brixton have been pushed out we are now reduced to arguing the toss about the rights of estate agents to post up a different opinion ffs.

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

BTW editor has recently done a lot on Brixton Buzz to get the Guinness Trust occupation in media and had done a lot to support the shopkeepers threatened with eviction by Network Rail.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

Dan U said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Its u thats being pathetic. 

I have a lot of time for el-ahrairah outspoken she/he maybe but its always to the point. Not my posting style but its needed sometimes. Like now. el-ahrairah cuts through the bullshit.

You should have sat on your post.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 24, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its u thats being pathetic.
> 
> I have a lot of time for el-ahrairah outspoken she/he maybe but its always to the point. Not my posting style but its needed sometimes. Like now. el-ahrairah cuts through the bullshit.
> 
> You should have sat on your post.


Maybe I should. Maybe you are correct. 

Am just expressing my opinion on the way things are heading here. 

I am quite likely seen as wrong but I wanted to say my piece. 

I think this place is great but I don't like the way it is going. Probably that is my problem.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 24, 2015)

I can't believe that salem , passivejoe , Maurice Picarda , superfly101 and others on this thread still don't understand that *when you post on a public website / forum / messageboard etc there is no reasonable expectation of 'privacy'.
*
You are *voluntarily* sending your IP address, not only to the website in question (and all the people who have access to that), but also to the host of that website, to your ISP, to various CSPs, to various DNS servers, to literally hundreds and probably thousands of people and organisations around the world.

Those who do not understand this are naive or stupid.

Many forums and messageboards _automatically_ publish the IP address of posters when they post messages, precisely because this is openly available information (and contributes to transparency.) (In fact, the fact that u75 and Brixton Buzz _do not_ routinely publish IP addresses could be considered an extra layer of protection/privacy afforded the users of those sites - but nevertheless, the information has been voluntarily given and should be considered public.)

If you want 'privacy' you need to use an IP masker or similar tool. Calling yourself "bigboy69" and entering your email address as "a@b.com" will not protect your anonymity.

Many people still don't understand this.

This poster "TK" has been caught bang to rights posting shit from a company account. Not only have they *voluntarily* sent their IP address to Brixton Buzz and hundreds of others, they are also a massive cunt.

Anyone who doesn't understand this should educate themselves, for example by fucking googling it or taking the free, online Open University course Introduction to Cyber Security or anything else mildly educational.


----------



## thriller (Feb 24, 2015)

all this comical ho-ha about identifying company blah blah. the company probably wouldn't give a hoot about what is being said here. Urban75 clearly thinking it is more important then it really is. LOL.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 24, 2015)

The leap required to turn "identifying the hidden and relevant source of anonymous blog comments" into "tries to get people who disagree with him fired by reporting them to their employers" is just so huge and deliberate that I'm afraid I also think anyone doing it has an agenda.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 24, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> a politically leftish commentator who talks about wealth in a neo-liberal capitalist society during a period a local gentrification?
> 
> fucking hell, call the hangman.



Actually, while I didn't intend to post the personal line, it'sNot so much talks about wealth but bitches about the perceived wealth of others, and drags wealth into items where it has no place.


ViolentPanda said:


> Why do you think you deserve one? You went on the attack, as did salem, and now you're being petulant that your demands aren't being met? Just how fucking entitled are you?



You are astonishingly aggressive. 
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.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 24, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Many forums and messageboards _automatically_ publish the IP address of posters when they post messages, precisely because this is openly available information (and contributes to transparency.) (



Which ones? Particularly community, general interest forums, rather than tech or specialist. The only place that springs to my mind that does it routinely is Wikipedia, and that has always seemed like a big stick to get users to register instead.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

thriller said:


> all this comical ho-ha about identifying company blah blah. the company probably wouldn't give a hoot about what is being said here. Urban75 clearly thinking it is more important then it really is. LOL.



Its not U75 thinking its important.

Its the posters here whining about Ed and defending estate agents that are the joke.

I bet  the tossers in the estate agents office are all having a laugh. It pathetic that people who do not have much are defending the enemy. Self oppression in my book.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Which ones? Particularly community, general interest forums, rather than tech or specialist. The only place that springs to my mind that does it routinely is Wikipedia, and that has always seemed like a big stick to get users to register instead.


Yes, Wikipedia is one of the biggest - over 24m users. 
Wordpress gives you the ability to do this.
The thousands and thousands of messageboards /bulletin boards like www.boardhost.com 
Loads basically…have a look around. Check the comments sections of various sites.
But the point is not 'who publishes IP addresses?' but that users willingly give their IP address to anyone and everyone…(unless they protect it somehow.)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 24, 2015)

Dan U said:


> I think this place is great but I don't like the way it is going. Probably that is my problem.


Well, fuck off then.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 25, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, fuck off then.



Yep, that attitude does seem to be doing the job.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 25, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, fuck off then.


I probably will from the Brixton forum, yes. Along with many other posters who have already.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 25, 2015)

Disgraceful. Post something that editor disagrees with and he'll threaten your job.

What's happened in London with housing prices is fucking shite, absolute disgrace that is been encouraged instead of prevented. It's not a fucking war though you hyperbolic cunts. It's not Syria.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I can't believe that salem , passivejoe , Maurice Picarda , superfly101 and others on this thread still don't understand that *when you post on a public website / forum / messageboard etc there is no reasonable expectation of 'privacy'.
> *
> You are *voluntarily* sending your IP address, not only to the website in question (and all the people who have access to that), but also to the host of that website, to your ISP, to various CSPs, to various DNS servers, to literally hundreds and probably thousands of people and organisations around the world.
> 
> ...


This is one of the stupidest posts I've read in a while.

When you walk down the street at night, with your physical being available to all and sundry, is there a reasonable expectation that you won't be assaulted? Right.

So the fact that emailing your boss about your inane blog comments is sometimes _physically possible_ doesn't automatically make someone having actually done that either appropriate or unremarkable.

You have a curious idea of what reasonable expectation is, apparently belonging to some sort of Mad Max version of the world.

Edit: I added 'automatically' to the above because despite appearances,  I'm not interested in wading into the actual argument of the thread, just taking issue with the guff above


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

mauvais said:


> emailing your boss about your inane blog comments is sometimes _physically possible_ doesn't automatically make someone having actually done that either appropriate or unremarkable.



Is that what's happened? It's unclear. VP is insisting furiously that only the employee was contacted, not the employer, and he hasn't been corrected on this. You'd have thought that if the editor was being defended on the grounds of a misapprehension, he'd be quick to set the record straight.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Is that what's happened? It's unclear. VP is insisting furiously that only the employee was contacted, not the employer, and he hasn't been corrected on this. You'd have thought that if the editor was being defended on the grounds of a misapprehension, he'd be quick to set the record straight.


I don't know, just going off my skim-reading of the thread - don't read too much into it.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Is that what's happened? It's unclear. VP is insisting furiously that only the employee was contacted, not the employer, and he hasn't been corrected on this. You'd have thought that if the editor was being defended on the grounds of a misapprehension, he'd be quick to set the record straight.


Both are pretty shitty. One threatens an employee directly with telling there boss, the other tells the boss.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its not U75 thinking its important.
> 
> Its the posters here whining about Ed and defending estate agents that are the joke.
> 
> I bet  the tossers in the estate agents office are all having a laugh. It pathetic that people who do not have much are defending the enemy. Self oppression in my book.



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.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

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


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

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._


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> 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._


Yeah. It's not just that either tho. It's also about being able to make a comment without having your livelihood threatened. Even if that comment is offensive.

If the 37 comment was by a company then fair game. It wasn't tho.

Freedom of speech. Upheld by urban (so long as your saying what we think). Pathetic. And dangerous.


----------



## blameless77 (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> More and more often, I find I'm surprised by the Editor's obsession with money. Generic posts and news items end up with snarky references to people's wealth.
> 
> 
> Why does that make a difference? Do you hold yourself to a different moral standard when you click on the BBuzz tab on your computer?




This definitely comes under the banner of personal attacks. Why pretend you're doing this because of some point of principal??


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> 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._


Not sure about that per se - it's not logically that far from the nonsense of 'never grass'.

If you are going to do it, though, it'd probably help if it was part of a coherent plan or idea that you could stand by, rather than a random, personal reaction that you then shrink from.

<arnie> Ven I said I vasn't interested in zuh argoo-ment, Iiiii liiiiied </arnie>


----------



## shifting gears (Feb 25, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Disgraceful. Post something that editor disagrees with and he'll threaten your job.
> 
> What's happened in London with housing prices is fucking shite, absolute disgrace that is been encouraged instead of prevented. It's not a fucking war though you hyperbolic cunts. It's not Syria.



Course it fucking is.

It's class war.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Course it fucking is.
> 
> It's class war.


A handy list of which workers aren't working class or are exempt from the working class for the purposes of class war would be helpful, please.


----------



## shifting gears (Feb 25, 2015)

So estate agents fucking over those who need social housing doesn't fit your definition? Fine if so, but you'll have a job convincing me.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> So estate agents fucking over those who need social housing doesn't fit your definition? Fine if so, but you'll have a job convincing me.


It depends if it was some idiot working in the office, or an estate agent boss, surely?


----------



## shifting gears (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> It depends if it was some idiot working in the office, or an estate agent boss, surely?



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


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> Any chance on clarification here? (Third time lucky!)



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


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


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


We're all fucking cogs in that machine.


----------



## shifting gears (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> We're all fucking cogs in that machine.



I'm trying to leave for work but speak for yourself - I can safely say my job doesn't involve screwing over disadvantaged people.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> I'm trying to leave for work but speak for yourself - I can safely say my job doesn't involve screwing over disadvantaged people.


Right, so what you're saying is that estate agent workers have joined the ranks of the bailliffs, screws and OB then.


----------



## xenon (Feb 25, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Both are pretty shitty. One threatens an employee directly with telling there boss, the other tells the boss.


he asked him if it was the view taken by his company. The official line. Not unreasonable was it. All this handwringing bollocks about oh I should b able to say what I want in the middle of a highly contentious situation, without any sort of challenge or questioning all possible comeback. Y. You wouldn't expect that in real life.


----------



## xenon (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> 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._


Has he done that though?


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

where's the handwringing? What people are objecting to is fairly simple: the editor has alerted a company that someone in their office has posted a comment on his blog. That's all we know atm - but the consequence of that could be that some idiot kid in the office loses his job for misuse of company internet or similar. That might not be the consequence, but it's a clear risk - do you think that's a reasonable thing to risk?


----------



## xenon (Feb 25, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


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


Are you representing the company's views in this post.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> where's the handwringing? What people are objecting to is fairly simple: the editor has alerted a company that someone in their office has posted a comment on his blog. That's all we know atm - but the consequence of that could be that some idiot kid in the office loses his job for misuse of company internet or similar. That might not be the consequence, but it's a clear risk - do you think that's a reasonable thing to risk?


In the extremely unlikely event that someone did lose their job, they would just go back to their gold mansion and eat caviar all day so I don't see the problem.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

and lets face it, absolutely no-one will lose their job over this.  the worst that will happen, absolute worst, is that some estate agent will send editor and email claiming to have been hacked or promising that the perpetrator has been punished and they're all going to have a snigger about it in the office bar over fizzy water.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

It's unlikely, but so what?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

the rule that you don't dob people in to their boss is not one that is widely applied in the world, nor is it one that is always a good idea, nor is it one that you can have an expectation of when you go through life.  and probably not in the posting t&cs on brixton buzz.

also, its a silly rule unless applied in conjection with other appropriate  caveats.

i dob people in to their bosses all the time, because those people are providing substandard care to vulnerable adults.  i might do so -raise concerns- if they expressed opinions that went against what i think someone doing social care should have about people.  i'm a right fucking blakey but that's part of my job to try and identify problems with the care.

so its not as cut and dried, same as that _never grass_ bullshit.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

In this case, do you think it's reasonable? Obviously there are exceptions. None of them apply here.


----------



## soupdragon (Feb 25, 2015)

My only concern at this point is why more isn't being made of this. Can't we just name and shame the company? Doesn't Brixton Blog feel the urge to run this as a news item and name the company? I think official clarification from the company is needed! All you people worrying about one job when the point is that thousands of people are losing their homes, being shipped out of London. Anyone who thinks U75 is some kind of straightforward neutral forum is deluded.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

it also occurs to me that editor has been dobbing anonymous cowards as long as this board has been here.  there used to be something called the grovel gallery where people who sent him anonymous abuse had their IPs traced and their details publicly posted.  it's long been part of his MO that doesn't affect people who don't send him anonymous abuse.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> In this case, do you think it's reasonable? Obviously there are exceptions. None of them apply here.



i wouldn't have done it myself , but i don't really care that he did, certainly not enough to have commented on this thread if it wasn't for the fact that it rapidly turned into another pack of vultures.  it might have made an interesting point of discussion though, except that many of those involved don't want discussions, they want blood.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

Put it this way. Imagine you said something intemperate about social workers as a comment on a Guardian article, or denigrated coders on a comment on the Register, or suggested that East Anglians were six-fingered on the Norfolk Clarion website. You'd be enormously surprised if the editorial staff then made public information about you which you'd allowed them to see, in the reasonable expectation that it would be kept private ( as posts on those sites don't as a rule include identifying information). You'd then be utterly astounded if the editors of those publications then emailed your boss. We don't yet know if this has happened, and it's odd that the matter has not been clarified. If it has, I'm relaxed that the company has been named. If it hasn't, and only the individual has been contacted, I'd again request that my quoted post is redacted in line with my immediate edit.

Various people here are pretending that this is an issue about naivety and online privacy. It's not. It's about reasonable and common expectations that media owners will behave proportionately and only reveal personal data when it's clearly their duty to do so.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


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



that's probably the most interesting question of the whole thread actually.  i'm starting to think that they have!


----------



## soupdragon (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Imagine you said something intemperate about social workers as a comment on a Guardian article, or denigrated coders on a comment on the Register, or suggested that East Anglians were six-fingered on the Norfolk Clarion website.



But it isn't any of those and this isn't Norfolk.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

soupdragon said:


> But it isn't any of those and this isn't Norfolk.



No, it seems to be a far more suspicious community with a greater dislike of outsiders and incomers.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's probably the most interesting question of the whole thread actually.  i'm starting to think that they have!


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


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


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



certainly the case.  there are lots of people who do so, with varying degrees of complicity.

there are plenty who think that bailiffs, screws, and the OB should be let off because they're just doing their job and the system is to blame.  personally i think blame should be spread as wide as it is possible to do without letting the bosses and politicians off.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

Would you really be happier in a world with no police or prison officers? Goodness.


----------



## soupdragon (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, it seems to be a far more suspicious community with a greater dislike of outsiders and incomers.


Rightly suspicious – there's a lot at stake.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Would you really be happier in a world with no police or prison officers? Goodness.



much happier.  i'd send all the recidivists to live at your house and you can patronise them into going straight.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'd send all the recidivists



You and whose owsla?


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> certainly the case.  there are lots of people who do so, with varying degrees of complicity.
> 
> there are plenty who think that bailiffs, screws, and the OB should be let off because they're just doing their job and the system is to blame.  personally i think blame should be spread as wide as it is possible to do without letting the bosses and politicians off.


How do you feel about attempting to establish the level of complicity and making reasonable attempts to ensure that direct action is proportionate to that level?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> How do you feel about attempting to establish the level of complicity and making reasonable attempts to ensure that direct action is proportionate to that level?



well, we could do that i guess.  it would probably be the right thing to do.


----------



## salem (Feb 25, 2015)

editor said:


> He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site. He wasn't a poster on this site.



Yes, another site hosted on the same computer, owned by the same person and as far as I can tell there is no reason you'd act any differently here. I've demonstrated the links between the two sites (you're legal registrant of both urban75.net/brixtonbuzz.com, both hosted on the same IP address, the 'forum' tab on bb links to threads here, constant cross pollination between the two, the fact it says 'our sister site urban75.net' on bb and so on).

We all know it's your ball and so you decide the rules, but there is also a community grown here and maybe some transparency might help.



editor said:


> Given the fact that you've completely misrepresented everything I've said thus far and keep on persisting with misinformation even after you've been corrected, I think I'll give it a miss, ta.



I've answered all your questions to me in a reasonable manner. I've not misrepresented everything. ViolentPanda has in his usual aggressive style said I have misunderstood the situation. It's quite an important point now as some people seem to think you didn't mail the company. Can you _please_ stop avoiding the question. It's really simple and I've asked 4 times for clarification.



ddraig said:


> only dozens??
> didn't anyone tell you there are millions and millions of sites out there?
> and how come part of your post is missing if you're so good at this internet game?



Part of my post was missing because I was posting from my phone (as editor can confirm from my IP). But my point is that I work with this stuff day in and day out. It's just an utter fundamentally basic principle that if you have access to user data you have to act responsibly with it. Using that data to score points is not on.



Nanker Phelge said:


> Which line is that?



About treating user data appropriately.



el-ahrairah said:


> because calling people on their opinions is only allowed if you're a tory prick calling editor on his.  everyone else has absolute freedom of speech.  and actually, editor is worse than hitler for not having made estateagents75.com for them post on, which clearly shows his bias.





Gramsci said:


> arguing the toss about the rights of estate agents to post up a different opinion ffs.





Gramsci said:


> Its the posters here whining about Ed and defending estate agents that are the joke.



I really want to make this clear. I am not here to defend estate agents or property developers. I've posted on the o2 arena affordable houses scandal thread just the other day, multiple times in the thread on the Heygate scandal and in this thread about my own shitty predicament. I agree the guy was probably a shiny suit, gel haired, mini driving sleezebag with few redeeming features. I'm not pissed off for him, I'm pissed off at the precedent set and the ramifications for _everybody._

You people thinking it's OK because it's estate agents are like saying anyone against RIPA is pro-terrorists. Like RIPA it's not about whether it's used against 'legitimate' targets but once you set the precedent someone has to decide _who _is a legitimate target. It's a can of worms that's best left shut and certainly not worth opening for such petty point scoring.

OK we don't like estate agents, but we also know that editor is anti-smoking. What if I post that I'm in a great pub where the landlord doesn't mind people having a cheeky cig inside after hours. The site management could potentially identify the chain if I was posting over it's wifi. Would it be fair if they contacted the brewery to ask if it was their official policy to allow smoking inside? I'd prefer that we didn't even ask the question rather then have to look at whether it was a legitimate target.



Maurice Picarda said:


> 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.



Bingo



Brixton Hatter said:


> I can't believe that salem , passivejoe , Maurice Picarda , superfly101 and others on this thread still don't understand that *when you post on a public website / forum / messageboard etc there is no reasonable expectation of 'privacy'.
> *
> You are *voluntarily* sending your IP address, not only to the website in question (and all the people who have access to that), but also to the host of that website, to your ISP, to various CSPs, to various DNS servers, to literally hundreds and probably thousands of people and organisations around the world.
> 
> ...



I understand how this stuff works. It's what I do for a living. It's why I am particularly interested here.

Some sites publish IP addresses (it's rare now). BrixtonBuzz/Urban75 don't. To selectively make use of those depending on whether the person agrees with you or not is wrong.

When I signed up here I provided an email address. I trusted the site so I use a personal email address and one that could identify me personally. I've also donated in the past to the server fund so site management have even more of my personal details. I don't expect my IP address to be used against me to score points just as I don't expect my email address or bank details to be used against me. There are private messages that could cause me problems and I wouldn't expect those to be used against me. They're details I know the site managers can access but I trust them to do so responsibly.



Maurice Picarda said:


> Is that what's happened? It's unclear. VP is insisting furiously that only the employee was contacted, not the employer, and he hasn't been corrected on this. You'd have thought that if the editor was being defended on the grounds of a misapprehension, he'd be quick to set the record straight.



Indeed. Either he's being very charitable to VP or he's leading us all on a wild goose chase, why he'd do that I have no idea.



mauvais said:


> Not sure about that per se - it's not logically that far from the nonsense of 'never grass'.
> 
> If you are going to do it, though, it'd probably help if it was part of a coherent plan or idea that you could stand by, rather than a random, personal reaction that you then shrink from.



Agreed!


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

for fucks sake get a fucking life

this is all just an attack, simple
keep wasting your time and spittle on it for all I care but you're not playing to a very big gallery


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> When I signed up here I provided an email address. I trusted the site so I use a personal email address and one that could identify me personally. I've also donated in the past to the server fund so site management have even more of my personal details. I don't expect my IP address to be used against me to score points just as I don't expect my email address or bank details to be used against me. There are private messages that could cause me problems and I wouldn't expect those to be used against me. They're details I know the site managers can access but I trust them to do so responsibly.


this is SO out of order, so many pathetic extrapolations that only exist in your mind


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

To sum up: some obnoxious and offensive twat from an upmarket estate agents decides to rub the shit in the faces of poor people by posting up a shocking comment that he thinks that a project with already seriously reduced social housing should have none at all.

He posts this on a left leaning site with a history of supporting social housing. I was surprised to find this coming from an established estate agents so asked them if that was their official policy. That was my decision. You may not agree with it, but as it happened elsewhere it has nothing to do with you as an urban75 poster.

None of this happened on urban75, although I was so furious about it, I did make a general comment here which made a point of identifying no one and containing no IP addresses. No individual has been named. No company has been named.

So this has no bearing whatsoever on what happens on urban75. It has no bearing on our privacy policies. None at all.

Brixton Buzz, although strongly linked to urban75, is an entirely different entity. None of the moderators here are involved with Brixton Buzz, and the site is co-owned with someone who is not involved with urban75.

And on a side note, I can't say how disappointing it is to see the same familiar faces appearing here trying to score as many personal points as possible, presumably because other posters dared defend my actions (which I still stand by).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Would you really be happier in a world with no police or prison officers? Goodness.



I'd be happier in a world where they are held personally and professionally responsible for any abuse of their position, including when they are found to have views that undermine their ability to do their job well.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> When I signed up here I provided an email address. I trusted the site so I use a personal email address and one that could identify me personally. I've also donated in the past to the server fund so site management have even more of my personal details. I don't expect my IP address to be used against me to score points just as I don't expect my email address or bank details to be used against me. There are private messages that could cause me problems and I wouldn't expect those to be used against me. They're details I know the site managers can access but I trust them to do so responsibly.


Seeing as you clearly have no intention of believing our oft-explained and clear cut privacy policy on THIS SITE and are refusing to accept over a decade of us steadfastly respecting that privacy (even when that involves us going considerably out of our way to remove sensitive information by request) I'm afraid I've run out of options.


----------



## salem (Feb 25, 2015)

And for the 5th time are you going to clear up whether you emailed the company or individual. ViolentPanda made several aggressive and patronising remarks saying that we're wrong and you are repeatedly avoiding the question either for his benefit or to create confusion.

Simple question, did you email the company or individual?


editor said:


> Seeing as you clearly have no intention of believing our oft-explained and clear cut privacy policy on THIS SITE and are refusing to accept over a decade of us steadfastly respecting that privacy (even when that involves us going considerably out of our way to remove sensitive information by request) I'm afraid I've run out of options.


I wrote that in response to Brixton Hatter who was suggesting that because IP addresses are shared with a site publicly they can be used against a person. I was just demonstrating that we also share other information and just as I wouldn't expect my email address or bank details to be used I also don't expect my IP address to be used. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that.


----------



## maomao (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> Simple question, did you email the company or individual?


Quite clearly answered in #222, he emailed the company.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> And for the 5th time are you going to clear up whether you emailed the company or individual. ViolentPanda made several aggressive and patronising remarks and you seem to be either avoiding the question either for his benefit or to create confusion.
> 
> Simple question, did you email the company or individual?
> 
> *I wrote that in response to Brixton Hatter who was suggesting that because IP addresses are shared with a site publicly they can be used against a person. I was just demonstrating that we also share other information and just as I wouldn't expect my email address or bank details to be used I also don't expect my IP address to be used. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that*.


you backtracking weasel, it was quite clear what meaning you intended


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> certainly the case.  there are lots of people who do so, with varying degrees of complicity.
> 
> there are plenty who think that bailiffs, screws, and the OB should be let off because they're just doing their job and the system is to blame.  personally i think blame should be spread as wide as it is possible to do without letting the bosses and politicians off.



Would the property market be very different if estate agents didn't exist? If people just set their own prices for their homes when they sell? I don't think so. If you own your home and you suspect that someone would pay £50k more for your home than a price that was paid for a similar property on your street recently, you'd give it a shot... justifying to yourself how fucking hard you have to graft to make £50k after tax and if some city wanker wants to pay over the odds for your flat then so be it.


----------



## salem (Feb 25, 2015)

ddraig said:


> you backtracking weasel, it was quite clear what meaning you intended


Please go to post #219 and see where I wrote it. It was written directly in response to the post from Brixton Hatter (and in the middle of a load of responses so it's clear what is related to what). No backtracking at all - it's there clear to see.


----------



## passivejoe (Feb 25, 2015)

editor said:


> To sum up: some obnoxious and offensive twat from an upmarket estate agents to decides to rub the shit in the faces of poor people by posting up a shocking comment that he thinks that a project with already seriously reduced social housing should have none at all.
> 
> He posts this on a left leaning site with a history of supporting social housing. I was surprised to find this coming from an established estate agents so asked them if that was their official policy. That was my decision. You may not agree with it, but as it happened elsewhere it has nothing to do with you as an urban75 poster.
> 
> ...




Thanks for clearing it up.
But is disagree with your final sentence. It began as disagreement with your action, and given that you posted what you'd done here on U75 you can't be surprised that those of us who disagreed with your action chose to follow it up on these boards. Surely discussion was your intention, or why else post it? But in questioning your action, the debate is dragged down by this obsession with class war (my own personal comment about the Ed included, for which I apologised). This class war obsession takes over everything on the board, relevant to the discussion or not.


----------



## salem (Feb 25, 2015)

maomao said:


> Quite clearly answered in #222, he emailed the company.



Ah thanks.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Would the property market be very different if estate agents didn't exist? If people just set their own prices for their homes when they sell? I don't think so. If you own your home and you suspect that someone would pay £50k more for your home than a price that was paid for a similar property on your street recently, you'd give it a shot... justifying to yourself how fucking hard you have to graft to make £50k after tax and if some city wanker wants to pay over the odds for your flat then so be it.



I suspect we will find this out in the next decade as some kind of peer-to-peer house selling stuff becomes popular.

In the meantime it seems pretty clear that estate agents have a vested interest in inflating property prices, both to get the best price for their clients (a desire/variable which would continue without them) and to perpetuate themselves, pay their wages, pay for those wanky offices and minis etc (a factor which wouldn't necessarily continue without them).

They actively do this by targeting "up and coming" areas. And generally being cunts.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 25, 2015)

xenon said:


> Are you representing the company's views in this post.



I think the casual dismissal of posters concerns, by some other posters, regarding privacy on Brixton Blog and by extension urban75, is a bit silly. I think they are legit concerns, even if other posters don't share them. The best argument put forward so far is "fuck this twats privacy".

The view of "large multinational pharmaceutical conglomerate #4" who's WiFi I'm using to post this whilst on my break? You'd have to ask them. I won't be trolling any threads about evidence in medicine any time soon, though. ;-) :-D


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> Yes, another site hosted on the same computer, owned by the same person and as far as I can tell there is no reason you'd act any differently here. I've demonstrated the links between the two sites (you're legal registrant of both urban75.net/brixtonbuzz.com, both hosted on the same IP address, the 'forum' tab on bb ads here, constant cross pollination between the two, the fact it says 'our sister site urban75.net' onlinks to thre bb and so on).



"Hosted on the  same computer"?
Are you really that naive? They're hosted by the same ISP on their server farm, not "on the same computer".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> Go on answer the fucking question.



Oh look! The same person who  tags me on a thread to point out that I'm aggressive, indulges in...aggression.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> I'd be happier in a world where they are held personally and professionally responsible for any abuse of their position, including when they are found to have views that undermine their ability to do their job well.



Well, yes. So would anyone.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> Would the property market be very different if estate agents didn't exist? If people just set their own prices for their homes when they sell? I don't think so. If you own your home and you suspect that someone would pay £50k more for your home than a price that was paid for a similar property on your street recently, you'd give it a shot... justifying to yourself how fucking hard you have to graft to make £50k after tax and if some city wanker wants to pay over the odds for your flat then so be it.



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


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Aye that some pricks have wanted on about this rather than the real issue of scum like this wanting to destroy social housing says everything you need to know about them. Fucking wastes of space destroying what could have been a good thread.



As I said, though, at least they're marking their own cards *for* us, so it won't just be Maurice Picarda in a gibbet CTR.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I think the casual dismissal of posters concerns, by some other posters, regarding privacy on Brixton Blog and by extension urban75, is a bit silly. I think they are legit concerns, even if other posters don't share them. The best argument put forward so far is "fuck this twats privacy".
> 
> The view of "large multinational pharmaceutical conglomerate #4" who's WiFi I'm using to post this whilst on my break? You'd have to ask them. I won't be trolling any threads about evidence in medicine any time soon, though. ;-) :-D



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


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I think the casual dismissal of posters concerns, by some other posters, regarding privacy on Brixton Blog and by extension urban75, is a bit silly. I think they are legit concerns, even if other posters don't share them. The best argument put forward so far is "fuck this twats privacy".


Brixton Blog has even less to do with the matter of an urban75 poster's privacy than Brixton Buzz.

Oh and there is still not a shred of evidence to support the assumption that the person who made the offensive comment was actually identified.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Dan U said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> 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_. 





Maurice Picarda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


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



Sanity? How very dare you, Sir!!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 25, 2015)

editor said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ddraig said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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.



ViolentPanda said:


> 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?





ViolentPanda said:


> 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:





ViolentPanda said:


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





ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

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

Bindun?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Belushi said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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. 



ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> "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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

salem said:


> About treating user data appropriately.



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


----------



## elmpp (Feb 25, 2015)

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 (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

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?


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> 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?


What any of that got to do with the moderation policies here? How were they "shoddy"?


elmpp said:


> you go to the extraordinary action of contacting him/his employee (please clear this up)


Somebody wake up Captain Dozy please.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> 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?


for the 20th time it is NOT ON THIS SITE
why don't you go and post it in the comments on Brixton Buzz instead, or give it up, it's so transparent.

and if it is just the fact that you feel estate agents need defending then catch a grip!


----------



## elmpp (Feb 25, 2015)

Not here no. Didn't allude to that did I.

The editorial decision to do that on OTHER site was shoddy. To say the least.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Not here no. Didn't allude to that did I.
> 
> The editorial decision to do that on OTHER site was shoddy. To say the least.


So absolutely nothing to do with shoddy moderation then? That was the word you used. Not 'editorial.'


----------



## elmpp (Feb 25, 2015)

Are you proud of it?

E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> 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.



Interesting how you project your own self-righteous behaviour onto others.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Are you proud of it?
> 
> E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling


I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T. 

But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.

Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Are you proud of it?
> 
> E2A I don't know why I'm asking - this'll go down the usual route of stonewalling



So you've not bothered to read the thread?
if you had,you'd know editor's expressed opinion.

As usual,you're shoddy.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

they can't see through all the froth and red mist!


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

yeah, they're totally hysterical.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

sorry boss! (of course it is me and i can't see it)


----------



## elmpp (Feb 25, 2015)

editor said:


> I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T.
> 
> But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.
> 
> Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?



This proves my point - because that cunt had it coming you did no wrong. Self-righteousness.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

elmpp said:


> Am i missing something here?



positive personality characteristics.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2015)

"froth and red mist"


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2015)

Santino said:


> "froth and red mist"


oooh i wonder "what" _*you *_could mean


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2015)

ddraig said:


> oooh i wonder "what" _*you *_could mean


 I meant el-ehrairah resorting to telling another poster that s/he has no positive personality characteristics. Literally none.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

i must be literally the worst person on urban.  what sort of person could possibly be so rude to another person on the internet, who would do that?


the only people allowed to be rude around here disagree with the editor.  everyone else is resorting to things.  literally.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> i must be literally the worst person on urban.  what sort of person could possibly be so rude to another person on the internet, who would do that?
> 
> 
> the only people allowed to be rude around here disagree with the editor.  everyone else is resorting to things.  literally.


Must everything be so black and white?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2015)

first its a red mist, now it's all in black and white.   i could probably do you other colours by request but i haven't yet been persuaded of the necessity on this thread because its ended up the same old bollocks.  any reasonable questions have been asked and answered and discussed, we're back to the sniping and wrecking again here.  

i'm sure elmpp appreciates the support though.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 25, 2015)

editor said:


> I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the cunt that posted those vile comments on the site, although I am 99.9% confident that the very most he'll receive from his no doubt equally-minded boss will the lightest of telling offs. Most likely, it'll all be a bit of a laugh to them. Ha ha ha and a double G&T.
> 
> But if I've made that twat think twice before posting up to gloat about the lack of social housing being provided for poor people, all the better.
> 
> Does that answer your question comprehensively enough for you?


Tbf I've got to admire your lack of giving a fuck 

Guess it just makes me anxious that kind of shit, cos y'know, someone doesn't like your point of view, someone thinks you should stfu, and it's all too easy to expose or threaten or shame people into keeping quiet. And I despise that more than estate agents.


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 25, 2015)

In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?

He has collected personal information (in this instance their political views) which is absolutely fine; but - crucially - hasn't complied with the following 'fairness' regulations on processing that data, as set down by the Information Commissioners Office:

handle their personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect; and
above all, not use their information in ways that unjustifiably have a negative effect on them.
Interestingly, it also notes that "a decision to share personal data with another organisation does not take away your duty to treat individuals fairly. So before sharing personal data, you should consider carefully what the recipient will do with it, and what the effect on individuals is likely to be."

I'm not sure how the DPA translates to anonymised forum posts and it's not an easy read across, but interesting stuff none the less. Surely this sort of thing has happened before and some legal nerd can link me to the precedent?

Right, time to cook dinner!


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

no it doesn't breach the DPA, don't be ridiculous.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 25, 2015)

That is really reaching.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 25, 2015)

IP addresses and the Data Protection Act
http://www.out-law.com/page-8060

basically the answer is no.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?


In all seriousness, you need to think before you type.


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks editor, I'll bear that in mind in future


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 25, 2015)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> IP addresses and the Data Protection Act
> http://www.out-law.com/page-8060
> 
> basically the answer is no.



btw, I wasn't talking about the IP address, the personal data in this context is the posters political opinions. The reason I said its a difficult read across is that the opinion is openly stated but from a position of assumed anonymity

[EDIT] although link you posted had this to say "If you wish to use IP addresses to identify or build a profile on each of your visitors as an individual, even if they are never identified by name, you should assume that the Data Protection Act applies. Only a court can decide for certain whether or not this is a processing of personal data to which the Act applies and there have been no court rulings on this point to date."


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2015)

probably best just to stop tbh. you haven't a clue, we know.


----------



## SpamMisery (Feb 25, 2015)

No you're right, that's why I didn't become a data protection expert


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 25, 2015)

passivejoe said:


> 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.



No I am not missing the point. 

You are with your shouty attacks on Ed.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?
> 
> He has collected personal information (in this instance their political views) which is absolutely fine; but - crucially - hasn't complied with the following 'fairness' regulations on processing that data, as set down by the Information Commissioners Office:
> 
> ...


Oh just fuck off you colossal fucking tit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

Santino said:


> "froth and red mist"



Don't get your hopes up, it's nothing like toning mist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> In all seriousness, is what editor did not a breach of the Data Protection Act?
> 
> He has collected personal information (in this instance their political views) which is absolutely fine; but - crucially - hasn't complied with the following 'fairness' regulations on processing that data, as set down by the Information Commissioners Office:
> 
> ...



You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a publicly-available e-mail address and/or an IP number is "personal data". It isn't. If it were, you could have every shyster spamming your e-mail account, held to account. Your e-mail address in no more in the category "personal data" (records pertaining to you) than is your home address.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> btw, I wasn't talking about the IP address, the personal data in this context is the posters political opinions. The reason I said its a difficult read across is that the opinion is openly stated but from a position of assumed anonymity
> 
> [EDIT] although link you posted had this to say "If you wish to use IP addresses to identify or build a profile on each of your visitors as an individual, even if they are never identified by name, you should assume that the Data Protection Act applies. Only a court can decide for certain whether or not this is a processing of personal data to which the Act applies and there have been no court rulings on this point to date."



An expressed opinion in a public forum (which Brixton Buzz is) isn't "personal data". It's a publicly-expressed opinion.
BTW, the "you" in the above quote of yours? it refers to commercial use. That's why it talks about harvesting the information of customers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 26, 2015)

This probably belongs on here:

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/p...-ps15-million-affordable-homes-subsidy-battle



> The millionaire developer behind London’s priciest block of flats, One Hyde Park, is pleading poverty over his latest project.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

I know everyone's meant to know this shit or have done an open university degree in internet security or something. But this thread has been an absolute education in internet privacy to me. Shit I never knew before reading this thread:
Your IP address relates to your internet provider not individual computer. I thought the latter cos when you ring IT up they get you to read the IP address of the computer that's broken 
Your IP is broadcast when you post

Stuff I still don't know:
Can a techy person trace an IP to an area or road (like a postcode?)
Can a website your on (say works homepage) know which website you've come from or go to next?

Honestly I haven't a fucking clue about this stuff. I know people on here talk like everyone can or should or does know this stuff, but I don't and I can't be the only one? It's like a dark art to me


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I know everyone's meant to know this shit or have done an open university degree in internet security or something. But this thread has been an absolute education in internet privacy to me. Shit I never knew before reading this thread:
> Your IP address relates to your internet provider not individual computer. I thought the latter cos when you ring IT up they get you to read the IP address of the computer that's broken
> Your IP is broadcast when you post
> 
> ...


IT dept will ask you for your IP because that's it's address on the company network, not it's public IP. Anyone (doesn't need to be particularly 'techy') can work out your Internet Service Provider and a rough geographical area from your IP. If you're posting from a workplace or institution they can probably identify that as well. Street or door number would be impossible as far as I know.


----------



## fishfinger (Feb 26, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I know everyone's meant to know this shit or have done an open university degree in internet security or something. But this thread has been an absolute education in internet privacy to me. Shit I never knew before reading this thread:
> Your IP address relates to your internet provider not individual computer. I thought the latter cos when you ring IT up they get you to read the IP address of the computer that's broken
> Your IP is broadcast when you post
> 
> ...


Your IP address relates to the address of your router. However. only your ISP knows your actual street address. If someone traces your IP address, then they will only get the details of the ISP.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

maomao said:


> IT dept will ask you for your IP because that's it's address on the company network, not it's public IP. Anyone (doesn't need to be particularly 'techy') can work out your Internet Service Provider and a rough geographical area from your IP. If you're posting from a workplace or institution they can probably identify that as well. Street or door number would be impossible as far as I know.


Ah thanks. So how'd you do it then? (Work out the ISP and geographical area?). Don't do mine please as it freaks me out 

By geographical area how big are we talking? Like city or area or postcode?


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> Your IP address relates to the address of your router. However. only your ISP knows your actual street address. If someone traces your IP address, then they will only get the details of the ISP.


Nope. Foreign language 

Edit: Ah, your router is your hub (the wifi box)


----------



## fishfinger (Feb 26, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Edit: Ah, your router is your hub (the wifi box)


Yes.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> Yes.


So say you were doing something illegal online from a shared wifi (say a university or costa coffee wifi) on your phone. The police wouldn't be able to prove it was you unless there was evidence on your phone?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 26, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> So say you were doing something illegal online from a shared wifi (say a university or costa coffee wifi) on your phone. The police wouldn't be able to prove it was you unless there was evidence on your phone?


Correct.
There is also a thing called a MAC address, which *is* unique to every device, but that doesn't get recorded most of the time.


----------



## fishfinger (Feb 26, 2015)

Nancy_Winks said:


> So say you were doing something illegal online from a shared wifi (say a university or costa coffee wifi) on your phone. The police wouldn't be able to prove it was you unless there was evidence on your phone?


If the university, or coffee shop keep logs of who has used their wifi, then it _could_ be traced to your phone or laptop. But they'd have to suspect you in order to confirm it was your device that was using the connection.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Correct.
> There is also a thing called a MAC address, which *is* unique to every device, but that doesn't get recorded most of the time.


How come everyone just doesn't order there drugs, guns and K9s from costa then?


----------



## sim667 (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> but I'm not surprised it's raised some concerns.



It bothers me because I predominantly post from work, so if I say something that mods don't like, then they could go on to give me employer hassle about it?

Ill have to stop posting from work if thats the case.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Feb 26, 2015)

sim667 said:


> It bothers me because I predominantly post from work, so if I say something that mods don't like, then they could go on to give me employer hassle about it?
> 
> Ill have to stop posting from work if thats the case.


Well exactly. You'd be daft NOT to think that.


----------



## cesare (Feb 26, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Correct.
> There is also a thing called a MAC address, which *is* unique to every device, but that doesn't get recorded most of the time.


Depending on the web analytics tool used it's possible to track quite a bit of individual visitor data eg IP to geo location (as already said) but also carrier such as TalkTalk, referrer such as google, how many visits, pages viewed, amount of time spent on each page, what platform/OS, which browser, etc


----------



## Belushi (Feb 26, 2015)

sim667 said:


> It bothers me because I predominantly post from work, so if I say something that mods don't like, then they could go on to give me employer hassle about it?
> 
> Ill have to stop posting from work if thats the case.



Well that's never happened on urban and the Editors assured everyone that it's not going to start happening; saying that it's always worth bearing in mind that nothing you say or do on the net is ever completely private.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Well that's never happened on urban and the Editors assured everyone that it's not going to start happening; saying that it's always worth bearing in mind that nothing you say or do on the net is ever completely private.



Exactly this. I think people who post from work (me included) are far more likely to get into hot water because what they do is being monitored by their IT Dept than from the U75 mods.


----------



## Enviro (Feb 26, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Exactly this. I think people who post from work (me included) are far more likely to get into hot water because what they do is being monitored by their IT Dept than from the U75 mods.



I think the general gist of the thread is that you NEVER have to worry about having your U75 information/ posts passed on by mods except in exceptional circumstances where someone's safety may be in danger.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Feb 26, 2015)

Enviro said:


> I think the general gist of the thread is that you NEVER have to worry about having your U75 information/ posts passed on by mods except in exceptional circumstances where someone's safety may be in danger.



Yes, but most of us had taken that as a given, except those that are uncomfortable in defending social housing because they have a vested interest in promoting gentrification.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2015)

should they not be able to take it as given too?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> should they not be able to take it as given too?


They should and they can - but if they're not then that's their call if they choose to do so with no evidence supporting the taking of that position.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> should they not be able to take it as given too?



Quite clearly they should whilst on Urban75, yes.


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2015)

OK. But if anyone should choose to comment on the editor's blog, they should do so in the knowledge that their employer may be contacted if they piss him off?

It just seems a particularly dodgy line to be crossing - and I'm not sure what it accomplishes to cross it, other than a brawl on here (and it isn't just the 'usual suspects' rocking up, although it is a bit of a gift to them).


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 26, 2015)

I believe editor won't do the same here, because he's not, ime, a liar, and the passion with which he's defending his position suggests that he sees a clear difference between what may befall posters here and posters on Brixton buzz.  

But I wonder if posters to Brixton Buzz had any cause to suspect a difference in privacy? I have little enough time these days to comment here, but this thread has taught me that should I be inspired to comment on BB in future, I probably won't.  Not because I agree with this landlord-type - who is clearly a twat - but because I don't always agree with ppl. 

Sometimes I'm quite shocked and upset by the opinions of people I thought I knew. It's highly, highly unlikely but if there's any chance that I'll be reported to my employers for an unpopular opinion, it's safer to avoid that site altogether.  

If I comment on an article on Huffpost, say, even quite stridently in opposition to the article, I do so trusting that unless I am breaking the law, the site admins will not try to impact on my real life.  Have I been naive?  Or am I missing why this is different?


----------



## sim667 (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Well that's never happened on urban and the Editors assured everyone that it's not going to start happening; saying that it's always worth bearing in mind that nothing you say or do on the net is ever completely private.





Fozzie Bear said:


> Exactly this. I think people who post from work (me included) are far more likely to get into hot water because what they do is being monitored by their IT Dept than from the U75 mods.



Its worth baring in mind considering how heated some of the discussion gets. Its only the mods who have access to the IP records right?

I know its because of the principle of the comment in the first place, and by and large most regular users aren't going to make comments like that, but its not something I want to see start happening.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 26, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I believe editor won't do the same here, because he's not, ime, a liar, and the passion with which he's defending his position suggests that he sees a clear difference between what may befall posters here and posters on Brixton buzz.



TBH I've met ed in person for maybe 20 mins, and we didn't chat beyond saying hello..... So I don't have that experience of anyone really on the boards..... All the people I've met off the boards have been great though, so I tend to assume most people are the same.

I'm not trying to have dig at anyone by the way, I just feel a bit uncomfortable with the precedent..... It might be covered in the t&c's of signing up for an account, and I've missed it, but I've never heard of that being done on teh urbanz, unless its been a dangerous situtation or something illegal..... Due to that I've always pretty much complicitly trusted the mods here, and will continue to do so.

I take it there's no way other users can work out IP's for posts? There's a few here that I've rubbed up the wrong way a little bit here, and I hate to think they could be a total cunt to me just for the sake of it.

What is brixtonbuzz? Just a local brixton discussion thang?


----------



## elmpp (Feb 26, 2015)

A little bit of humility here would repair some of the sentiment I think people are feeling about this. 

Something along the lines of "shucks, in retrospect, perhaps i shouldn't have contacted the commenters place of work. I still think his views are abhorrent though". 

It's the fact this is never forthcoming and we get posts like #277.


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I know its because of the principle of the comment in the first place, and by and large most regular users aren't going to make comments like that, but its not something I want to see start happening.


It's not going to start happening here. Never has, never will. I really don't know how many times I have to say this until people actually listen.


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Well that's never happened on urban and the Editors assured everyone that it's not going to start happening; saying that it's always worth bearing in mind that nothing you say or do on the net is ever completely private.


Yes. This. There's people posting up comments I find equally repellent almost every day and there is no question of it ever happening here (short of extreme circumstances).


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2015)

elmpp said:


> A little bit of humility here would repair some of the sentiment I think people are feeling about this.
> 
> Something along the lines of "shucks, in retrospect, perhaps i shouldn't have contacted the commenters place of work. I still think his views are abhorrent though".
> 
> It's the fact this is never forthcoming and we get posts like #277.


Sorry,l has there been some unified consensus agreed here? Or is it you predictably trying to get in another of your tedious personal digs?


----------



## elmpp (Feb 26, 2015)

That's a no then


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2015)

elmpp said:


> That's a no then


I think it's time you showed a bit of humility here and apologised for your unpleasant comments.


----------



## elmpp (Feb 26, 2015)

You show some humility for ONCE and I'll gladly never post again


----------



## ddraig (Feb 26, 2015)

elmpp said:


> You show some humility for ONCE and I'll gladly never post again


why do YOU think it is OK to post/demand such a THING?


----------



## T & P (Feb 26, 2015)

TBF editor asked the very same thing first.


----------



## editor (Feb 26, 2015)

T & P said:


> TBF editor asked the very same thing first.


Pointless thread gets even more pointless.


----------

