Harry's Place Arts

Do you fight against blacks, asians and jews having their own ethno-centric organisations to represent their interests ?

Nah, course you dont.

Its only white people who are denied the right to organise as a community in the multi-cultural system.

Fuck you, you racist hypocritical cunts.

Sorry to be off topic, but comments appear to be non-functional on the politics threads.

Monty, HP seems to be joining the majority of websites doing really stupid, annoying things for April fools day.

So yeah, this april fools, they’ve “deleted” all political comments.

I suppose there’s a tiny chance it’s real. We’ll know tomorrow.

It’s tomorrow and it’s real!

So… Anyone know what’s going on with the comments on the main site?

Phomesy
2 April, 2010, 1:10 pm

So… Anyone know what’s going on with the comments on the main site?
————

Yes, it’s buggered again.

I think it’s more probable that they have become so tired of the biliously repetitive comments in the main section, that they have decided it’s better to turn them off. If so, more power to them!

Deleting the entire history of comments on this site without a single word about it smacks of contempt for the readers.

Why the political site still has that obsolete “comment policy” page. What fun!

I doubt they have been deleted, Josh.

They are still in the HP archives, just not on display at present.

I’m sure we will find out why in due course.

Not only have they abolished comments, they’re using right-justification in the text. Proof positive that something wicked is taking place here. I sense the involvement of foul forces, who mean us no good, in this.

I only come to this blog for the intelligent and bloody hilarious comments section. I hope all is well.

“Its only white people who are denied the right to organise as a community in the multi-cultural system.” You Know Who 28 March, 2010, 6:55 pm

They are, of course, “denied” no such right. Typically, very few feel the need to do so.

This is a good development:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/04/criticism-does-not-exclude-muslims-from-the-political-process/

And I figured we could maybe discuss it here. We sure as hell can’t respond to it anywhere else right now.

It seems opportune, at this time when the catholics among us are feeling somewhat under siege, to discuss this contrast. While the criticism of the child abuse is valid, and seems to be predicated on the readiness of the hierarchy to place church solidarity above the law of the land, I have seen no claims that this clamour is disenfranchising the catholic community from the democratic process.

So why does the reasonable criticism of certain specific islamic institutions attract such a defensive backlash? I suspect it has a lot to do with the lack of party political clout wielded by the church, versus the significant electoral power in the hands of those islamic institutions. And that is where the real problem lies. A theocratic cabal, having taken over the votes of it’s community, is seeking to retain this anti-democratic control. And it is a subversion of the electoral system, via the widespread use of postal ballots, that has enabled this mess.

And I figured we could maybe discuss it here. We sure as hell can’t respond to it anywhere else right now.

It would be appreciated if someone from HP admin would put up a post on the politics side of the site informing readers about what is being done to restore the comment function. I am curious as to whether the disappearance of the comments section is a result of hacking by outsiders, or whether it came about either as a result of an unforeseen internal technical glitch, or because of an April Fools prank gone awry.

Alec had a post up here about comments being turned off at HP.

That post itself has now disappeared, presumably at the request of HP.

Something very fishy going on.

“I am curious as to whether the disappearance of the comments section is a result of hacking by outsiders, or whether it came about either as a result of an unforeseen internal technical glitch, or because of an April Fools prank gone awry.” – Lbnaz 8.00 am.

Not perhaps the best person to come to for technical advice or opinion but I would think a technical fault or failure would be general and not specific to one part of the site (though I note “preview” has never been enabled on this part of Harry’s Place, for what that’s worth). It does seem odd to say the least, but the trail of technical problems which afflict this site are a mystery in themselves. If hacking I would suspect hackers would try to eliminate more than the comments alone, even if that could be done. Legal reasons? I think we would have heard. It could be the team have taken a collective holiday and switched off comments pro tem as a precaution.

I hope someone feels able to inform us all soon. Meanwhile, to remind me of what I am missing in the comments section, I am reading the thoughts of Sarah Palin. Horse’s mouth and all that.

It could be the team have taken a collective holiday and switched off comments pro tem as a precaution.

Unlikely. Guest posts are still appearing on the site. Someone has to put those up.

Lbnaz
5 April, 2010, 8:00 am

And I figured we could maybe discuss it here. We sure as hell can’t respond to it anywhere else right now.

It would be appreciated if someone from HP admin would put up a post on the politics side of the site informing readers about what is being done to restore the comment function.
——-
I agree with that.

It’s like when you are waiting for an overdue train, and there is no information about whether it is just running a bit late, very very late, or just not coming at all.

Larkers, this communications breakdown could seriously compromise our Mossad operations. Particularly as I have just tracked down a very suspicious cache of bulk chemicals in Stannington. There is a jihadist operating under deep cover, in a place called The Nursery. He has taken delivery of massive quantities of something called Tomorite. He goes by the code name Mr Westland, and has an accomplice, John Innes the third. Their mission is tagged “Blooming Stannington”. These names keep cropping up on the intercept, so something big is in the offing.

They must think we’re stupid…

How strange!

It’s obviously not simply a technical fault or there would have been a post up to explain it.

Will my comment disappear if I mention certain key words, I wonder?

Is this anything to do with a Mr Galloway?

@Angrysoba

Galloway? Perhaps some threat of litigation has precipitated the comments shut down?

Pity as I want to lay into Barnes (Chavfuhrer GB & Gauleiter of the Medway stews no less) about the defenestration of Mark ‘Ernst Rohm’ Collett.

I’m wondering if it could be something to do with one of those super-injunctions. The type where you are not just barred from publicising the subject matter, but also barred from disclosing the existance of the court order.

If it is, this comment will have to get “disappeared” won’t it?

“Unlikely. Guest posts are still appearing on the site. Someone has to put those up.” Mark T.

Moderation ring any bells? Still, we are all in the same boat – aground.

Monty: Stannington? Tomorite? It all fits … I am currenltly operating under ‘deep cover’ on Tynemouth beachfront. Await developments.

A post such as Let the Little Children is an acute example of the unfeasibility of running posts which do not allow comment- it screams out for a critical deconstruction of the analogy between the Pope’s right hand man reinforcing an institutional stonewalling of the widespread church abuse problem by recourse to the cry of antisemitism, with the maverick ranting of the attorney of a marginal cult pseudo rabbi. It is simply untenable to run such posts without a right of reply.

@Monty – if it disappears, I suppose that will be your answer.

amie – you can comment on it at Joe’s blog, here, if that’s any consolation!

Moderation ring any bells?

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that Larkers. It seems a bit unlikely that every member of the HP team, on different continents, has gone on an internet-free holiday at precisely the same time, does it not?

I suspect Monty is close to the truth.

Larkers
5 April, 2010, 3:41 pm

Monty: Stannington? Tomorite? It all fits … I am currenltly operating under ‘deep cover’ on Tynemouth beachfront. Await developments.
—–
Larkers, with the spring tide coming in, you may soon be under rather deeper cover than you anticipated. Strongly reccommend you head inland asap.

Hey, a loophole! Yes, I took my post down at request to keep this low-key… even though it only acknowledged the issue without expanding.

Let’s wait and see.

Does the “moderation queue” still operate on this part of the blog? You know, the system for deleting any intelligent comments critical of Islam, while allowing stupid ones to remain?

I’m wondering if it could be something to do with one of those super-injunctions. The type where you are not just barred from publicising the subject matter, but also barred from disclosing the existance of the court order.

If it is, this comment will have to get “disappeared” won’t it?

That was the thought behind my comment. A few hours later it still seems to be there.

Does the “moderation queue” still operate on this part of the blog? You know, the system for deleting any intelligent comments critical of Islam, while allowing stupid ones to remain?

If you have any of the former then you could try putting them in as a fool-proof test of the moderation queue.

Whatever the trigger for taking down the comments facility, it happened before this thread went up on the site:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/01/a-good-day-in-court-for-singh-and-science/

So any subsequent postings could not have been the cause.
I have been looking through the topics to see if any of the threads prior to April 1st have been taken down, but there is no obvious gap.

One of the earlier threads concerned the BNP, and that thread is still up, but of course the comments are not.
I’m beginning to wonder whether it is a criminal investigation, as opposed to a super-injunction, that has wiped out our comments. It could just as easily be either thing.

Tell you what gang,
If we get slung out of this place as well, I’ll meet you’se around at Alec’s place. Is that OK with you Alec?

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/

A second loophole?

Mark T
5 April, 2010, 5:25 pm

A second loophole?
——

Well we’ve got to have some place to go.

It’s a miserable, cold, wet bank holiday and the chip shops are shut.

Hmm, I fear I may be opening the gates to Hell, but why not? The About page would be best (unless there’s one of my missives which particularly interest ewes):

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/about

Although, I’d ask people to refrain from speculating as to the reason for comments-freeze.

Look at it this way Alec. You’d be doing a public service, by keeping us out of the pub.

I should get a blog but I can’t be arsed.

I’ll keep an eye out on your wee abode though, Alec.

Alec- thanks for the hospitality, until we figure this out. Mark T: thanks for the tip. Monty: I was also thinking Trafigura type thing.

Are you missing us then?

You think this is an absolute hoot, don’t you Graham?

Yes – WTF is going on ?

All your top fans reckon its a “superinjunction” – http://aaronovitch.blogspot.com/2010/04/sympathy-for-harrys-place.html

Indeed I do not think it a hoot. As far as I know it has nothing to do with Galloway or ‘superinjunctions’ and you should look to the other end of the political spectrum for reasons why HP has had to temporarily close comments. I suspect that by tomorrow all will become clear.

With Graham saying that, it’s easier for me to say, yes, that’s what I understand.

Well at least we know it is temporary.

with Galloway or ’superinjunctions’ and you should look to the other end of the political spectrum for reasons why HP has had to temporarily close comments.

The Lib Dems?

Monty, I can’t see how our speculative comments could have any effect on a criminal investigation, not that I read the comments you’re talking about.

I reckon this has something to do with an erstwhile legal advisor of a certain political party.

Has Odin’s Boy been dismissed as well?

“It’s a miserable, cold, wet bank holiday and the chip shops are shut.” – Monty.

One in Sandyford opened Monday. Back from Tynemouth. Flippers for sale. Used only once.

The absence of the comments is truly baffling. Collective Moderator Holidays (Easter or Passover), hacking and or technical, legal. The silence is eerie, is it not. The ships sails on, silent – except for us down here in steerage … Cunning plan anyone?

Oh, just for old times sake and on topic. B.N.P.: Sod off (to music).

OMG ! : http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5536

What is this stuff ? Newman seems to be saying that as he has no pre moderation he couldn’t help the “libel” appearing (even though he didn’t delete it afterwards !?).

Crazy.

Not this then?

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5536

Seems David T left comments on someone else’s blog, got sued for libel, but is now holding the blog owner jointly liable for his actions. If that holds up then there won’t be a comments box left open anywhere.

Posts crossed – do you think a blog owner should be liable for what someone else writes in the comments on their blog? Should they make a judgement on every comment to test if its libellous?

See here for the latest legal ruling (AFAIK) on such stuff :

http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx

“For legal observers more interesting perhaps than whether Smith had a reputation to protect, was the Judge’s ruling on the nature of discussion boards. Of comments made on a discussion board, Eady J observed that they were

* read by relatively few people, who share an interest in the subject matter;
* like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar); and were
* often uninhibited, casual and ill thought-out.

The Judge also noted that the participants often used pseudonyms or “avatars”, and that this was likely to be a “disinhibiting factor”. The register of these kinds of forums was characterised by witty retort and as such the Judge acknowledged that “give and take” was expected of participants.

Thus the Judge considered that in the context of defamation law, postings and communications of this kind are more “akin to slanders”. The distinction between the two causes of action is important because slander is only actionable if the claimant can prove special (monetary) damage caused by the imputation – however injurious to reputation, however malicious the motive of the defendant.

In any event, in the context of this case, the comments if not vulgar abuse – (“My wipers scraped better things from my car windscreen”, for instance); were arguably protected by defences of qualified privilege as the contributors were mainly shareholders in Langbar and therefore had legitimate interest in the subject matter of the discussion board. One of the defendants, a litigant in person, defended his remark that Smith was a “destructive twerp” as fair comment. On that basis the Judge came to the conclusion that to lift the stays would be “totally without merit”.

Conclusions

Eady J was careful to confine his ruling to the facts, saying that he would not suggest for a moment that “’blogging’ cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim”. Despite this, the effect of his ruling is that defamation committed on an internet bulletin board is more likely to amount to slander, a cause of action more difficult to prove than libel.”

That case is about the likelihood or otherwise of a successful libel claim over a blog comment. It has nothing to do with whether the blog owner should be included, at the demand of the alleged libeller, as a co-defendant if a libel case is brought.

If I write something on here which at a later date is brought to someone’s attention and deemed libelous by the target, however vexatious their complaint, should I be able to include Harry’s Place as a co-defendant? Really?

Just suspend your views of and loyalties to who’s involved and look at the overall picture and implications for blogging. It’s an appalling thing to do.

Well OK M, that’s your view but also see some of the comments here http://aaronovitch.blogspot.com/2010/04/sympathy-for-harrys-place.html re responsibility of publishers.

BTW what is your view on the previous Eady judgements I referenced above and its implications for this case ? To me it seems to greatly reduce any chance GG and co have but IANAL.

It’s not in doubt that it is the legal responsibility of blog publishers. I also think Galloway’s lawsuit is wrong and stands little chance of success, not least because SU didn’t remove the comment even after they were aware of the lawsuit – and that’s certainly something that David T can use in his defence.

But for publisher T to drag publisher N into court for a comment that T left on N’s blog just stinks. Especially when N has consistently showed support for T on such matters previously.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2763

Seems David T left comments on someone else’s blog, got sued for libel, but is now holding the blog owner jointly liable for his actions. If that holds up then there won’t be a comments box left open anywhere.

Alternatively, M, Toube is demonstrating just how absurd the situation is. On the one hand, Toube has consistently declined to sue for libelous comments made against him; Newman has sympathized with Galloway and others in previous pursuits of lawfare.

Sense of humour, heard of it?

Here Toube is offering previous support for Newman:

http://hurryupharry.org/2009/02/06/the-end-of-the-dreyfus-affair/

Amie, if you’re still reading, comments are back so please do post your thoughts!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha victory will be ours.
1,2,3, BNP

We’re watching!!!!!!!

Can anyone lend me a fiver for a haircut and a bath. I’m in the UAF

oh…this is the bad news, copying from other site and put it on in their can dropped dignity