Councillor's wife apologises for offensive remarks (From Daily Echo)

I am truly sorry she has had to apologise, simply because the Echo cannot be trusted with it's own privacy policy.

One thing's for certain, I'll think twice before crossing her! ;-)

More of a problem is people in public life failing to declare their interests when commenting on stories.

Sock-puppetry and astro-turfing are unfortunately common place, and its good to see the Echo identifying someone commenting anonymously on stories which they are in fact closely linked to.

That said, southy is too good to be a fictional construct.

So dear Anthea's Daddy was made redundant ---- big deal!!!
Every day in this country people are being made redundant, suffering bereavement, being told they have a terminal illness, losing loved ones in Afghanistan and they deal with these things with quiet dignity -- not so our Anthea, who obviously believes society owes her and her Daddy a living!
I'll leave readers to judge who is the cretin and, with a wife like Anthea mouthing off, I wouldn't give Asa a snowball's chance in Hell of being re-elected.

Not really given much choice given that the Echo were going to continue their political which-hunt .
I hope that they are taking legal advice on breach of privacy.
Much worse has been written on this forum over the years

I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

AGREE

I have asked the Echo to remove me as a contributor and do not intend to ever make contributions to this website again.
I do not feel free to contribute to this website as I do not trust the way the Echo can potentially use postings selectively, out of context or allow people to abuse councillors and their family with very personal unpleasant comments. I have also asked my family and friends to not post on this website as they are not politicians and do not deserve the possible vitriol they would be subjected to if they attempted to defend me on this website.
Anthea was quite rightly defending her father and husband from very nasty comments made by people on these sort of websites.
I leave and will not be coming back.

Georgem wrote:
I am truly sorry she has had to apologise, simply because the Echo cannot be trusted with it's own privacy policy.

I have to agree.
Bearing in mind many comments that are posted could be construed as offensive as those of Mrs Thorpe (often more so) I wonder why she was singled out for personal attention.
Perhaps for posting "anti" comments on the Emery redundancy story whilst the DE has been so "pro"?

hedge end bob wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

AGREE

There was a breach of privacy and this was pointed out on Sunday before the ECHO pulled the comments on the story.
.
They openly admit that she posted in an assumed name ..... then traced it back to be a Councillors wife ....... Then published her details including postal location.
.
Her comments were not the issue.
.
The Echo actions were.
.
They chose to IGNORE their own privacy policy.
.
People have the choice whether to post anonimously or indeed declare their name for all to see.
.
She chose anonimity, as many are doing now ......... The Echo should have respected that.
.
If they didnt like the comments at the time they could have pulled them off .. but didnt.
.
In addition no-one complained of the comments that posted that day and who her comments were directed at.
.
This is NOT POLITICAL on my part but it is a blatant breach of the Echo's OWN PRIVACY POLICY

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

So if we can find a post where you are abusive, or offensive, or wrong, your private details can also be published?

What's the breach? Well, whether or not you feel her personal privacy has been breached is one issue. A whole other issue is, have the Echo breached their own privacy policy? It looks like they have.

Well, there's this passage:

"Where any personal data, like your name and address, is requested you will always be advised why it is needed, what it will be used for and how you can contact us to have the details amended or deleted."

Unless upon signup, she clicked a button marked "you may reveal my personal details to the public at large if at any point you feel my comments are inappropriate for someone married to a councillor", that's a breach right there.

Then there's this:

"We cannot control site users and advise you to exercise care in disclosing personal information on the internet. However, we shall take care of any personal information you supply to us as described in this policy in accordance with data protection legislation"

Don't reveal your identity, we'll do it for you, if there's a story in it.

Nowhere does it mention that the nature of your comments may lead to the Echo revealing your personal information. But that's exactly what has happened. THAT is the breach.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

hedge end bob wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

AGREE

There was a breach of privacy and this was pointed out on Sunday before the ECHO pulled the comments on the story.
.
They openly admit that she posted in an assumed name ..... then traced it back to be a Councillors wife ....... Then published her details including postal location.
.
Her comments were not the issue.
.
The Echo actions were.
.
They chose to IGNORE their own privacy policy.
.
People have the choice whether to post anonimously or indeed declare their name for all to see.
.
She chose anonimity, as many are doing now ......... The Echo should have respected that.
.
If they didnt like the comments at the time they could have pulled them off .. but didnt.
.
In addition no-one complained of the comments that posted that day and who her comments were directed at.
.
This is NOT POLITICAL on my part but it is a blatant breach of the Echo's OWN PRIVACY POLICY

No breach was broken it was printed in the Echo paper first and the web site reported what the echo paper had said.

Georgem wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

So if we can find a post where you are abusive, or offensive, or wrong, your private details can also be published?

What's the breach? Well, whether or not you feel her personal privacy has been breached is one issue. A whole other issue is, have the Echo breached their own privacy policy? It looks like they have.

Well, there's this passage:

"Where any personal data, like your name and address, is requested you will always be advised why it is needed, what it will be used for and how you can contact us to have the details amended or deleted."

Unless upon signup, she clicked a button marked "you may reveal my personal details to the public at large if at any point you feel my comments are inappropriate for someone married to a councillor", that's a breach right there.

Then there's this:

"We cannot control site users and advise you to exercise care in disclosing personal information on the internet. However, we shall take care of any personal information you supply to us as described in this policy in accordance with data protection legislation"

Don't reveal your identity, we'll do it for you, if there's a story in it.

Nowhere does it mention that the nature of your comments may lead to the Echo revealing your personal information. But that's exactly what has happened. THAT is the breach.

That applys to a direct web site report and not a copy from a news paper as in this case the Echo news paper, if reported in the paper first then all the web site needs to do is print the same thing as a whole or part of.
No breach as happened.

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

hedge end bob wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

AGREE

There was a breach of privacy and this was pointed out on Sunday before the ECHO pulled the comments on the story.
.
They openly admit that she posted in an assumed name ..... then traced it back to be a Councillors wife ....... Then published her details including postal location.
.
Her comments were not the issue.
.
The Echo actions were.
.
They chose to IGNORE their own privacy policy.
.
People have the choice whether to post anonimously or indeed declare their name for all to see.
.
She chose anonimity, as many are doing now ......... The Echo should have respected that.
.
If they didnt like the comments at the time they could have pulled them off .. but didnt.
.
In addition no-one complained of the comments that posted that day and who her comments were directed at.
.
This is NOT POLITICAL on my part but it is a blatant breach of the Echo's OWN PRIVACY POLICY

No breach was broken it was printed in the Echo paper first and the web site reported what the echo paper had said.

Rather than simply repeating that line over and over again, would you mind explaining why the origin of the story is relevant? They revealed personal information somewhere, in flagrant disregard to agreed privacy terms. Where they did it, is not relevant.

Remember, the Echo in this situation have two discrete roles. That of news publisher, and that of provider of a discussion platform. They abused the latter in their role as the former.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

So if we can find a post where you are abusive, or offensive, or wrong, your private details can also be published?

What's the breach? Well, whether or not you feel her personal privacy has been breached is one issue. A whole other issue is, have the Echo breached their own privacy policy? It looks like they have.

Well, there's this passage:

"Where any personal data, like your name and address, is requested you will always be advised why it is needed, what it will be used for and how you can contact us to have the details amended or deleted."

Unless upon signup, she clicked a button marked "you may reveal my personal details to the public at large if at any point you feel my comments are inappropriate for someone married to a councillor", that's a breach right there.

Then there's this:

"We cannot control site users and advise you to exercise care in disclosing personal information on the internet. However, we shall take care of any personal information you supply to us as described in this policy in accordance with data protection legislation"

Don't reveal your identity, we'll do it for you, if there's a story in it.

Nowhere does it mention that the nature of your comments may lead to the Echo revealing your personal information. But that's exactly what has happened. THAT is the breach.

That applys to a direct web site report and not a copy from a news paper as in this case the Echo news paper, if reported in the paper first then all the web site needs to do is print the same thing as a whole or part of.
No breach as happened.

I'm not bothering any further with this pointless avenue of discussion. You're talking out of your backside again. The breach is quite plain to see. The terms of using the site have been breached, plain and simple. Where it was printed is immaterial.

us inbred in millbrook from a woman that looks like she could get the lead role in deliverence 2

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

hedge end bob wrote:

mtdiablo wrote:
I'm not seeing the breach of privacy. Everyone had to provide a name when they registed, and as it says at the bottom of every page "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

Mrs Thorpe should be aware that she is in a precarious position as the wife of a councillor, as her comments are going to held to a higher standard than the average member of the public. Her comments were offensive and wrong, and she should be made to answer for them.

AGREE

There was a breach of privacy and this was pointed out on Sunday before the ECHO pulled the comments on the story.
.
They openly admit that she posted in an assumed name ..... then traced it back to be a Councillors wife ....... Then published her details including postal location.
.
Her comments were not the issue.
.
The Echo actions were.
.
They chose to IGNORE their own privacy policy.
.
People have the choice whether to post anonimously or indeed declare their name for all to see.
.
She chose anonimity, as many are doing now ......... The Echo should have respected that.
.
If they didnt like the comments at the time they could have pulled them off .. but didnt.
.
In addition no-one complained of the comments that posted that day and who her comments were directed at.
.
This is NOT POLITICAL on my part but it is a blatant breach of the Echo's OWN PRIVACY POLICY

No breach was broken it was printed in the Echo paper first and the web site reported what the echo paper had said.

Rather than simply repeating that line over and over again, would you mind explaining why the origin of the story is relevant? They revealed personal information somewhere, in flagrant disregard to agreed privacy terms. Where they did it, is not relevant.

Remember, the Echo in this situation have two discrete roles. That of news publisher, and that of provider of a discussion platform. They abused the latter in their role as the former.

Before you respond, southy, allow me to point out that the word "discrete" is not the same as the word "discreet", before that becomes the entire backbone of your next argument. Pay attention to which word I used, and make sure you understand it before replying.

I will apologise for anything bad I've said about her as she has had the gut's to apologise.
Now I wish to see the Echo insure posters Identities will remain hidden & won't be printed in an article

sottondave wrote:
I have asked the Echo to remove me as a contributor and do not intend to ever make contributions to this website again.
I do not feel free to contribute to this website as I do not trust the way the Echo can potentially use postings selectively, out of context or allow people to abuse councillors and their family with very personal unpleasant comments. I have also asked my family and friends to not post on this website as they are not politicians and do not deserve the possible vitriol they would be subjected to if they attempted to defend me on this website.
Anthea was quite rightly defending her father and husband from very nasty comments made by people on these sort of websites.
I leave and will not be coming back.

Sounds sanctimonious and somewhat supercilious to me.Just cease contributing - end of............

Sounds to me like it was written by the Media Dept at Southampton City Council. I think it is too little, too late, she's shown her true colours, the Labour Party are probably trying to save face but she and her husband (who prefers to use the word 'troll' to describe the local community as per his blog) have done a lot of damage to the respect of local government. They should give up politics until they have learnt to grow up.

One things for certain, she didn't write that. More like the press people at the council at the behest of her old man.

sottondave wrote:
I have asked the Echo to remove me as a contributor and do not intend to ever make contributions to this website again.
I do not feel free to contribute to this website as I do not trust the way the Echo can potentially use postings selectively, out of context or allow people to abuse councillors and their family with very personal unpleasant comments. I have also asked my family and friends to not post on this website as they are not politicians and do not deserve the possible vitriol they would be subjected to if they attempted to defend me on this website.
Anthea was quite rightly defending her father and husband from very nasty comments made by people on these sort of websites.
I leave and will not be coming back.

So be it Councillor Thorpe.

George4th wrote:

sottondave wrote:
I have asked the Echo to remove me as a contributor and do not intend to ever make contributions to this website again.
I do not feel free to contribute to this website as I do not trust the way the Echo can potentially use postings selectively, out of context or allow people to abuse councillors and their family with very personal unpleasant comments. I have also asked my family and friends to not post on this website as they are not politicians and do not deserve the possible vitriol they would be subjected to if they attempted to defend me on this website.
Anthea was quite rightly defending her father and husband from very nasty comments made by people on these sort of websites.
I leave and will not be coming back.

Sounds sanctimonious and somewhat supercilious to me.Just cease contributing - end of............

Well if your assessment WAS true, i am sure you would not have any problem in spotting it.

So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

loosehead wrote:
I will apologise for anything bad I've said about her as she has had the gut's to apologise.
Now I wish to see the Echo insure posters Identities will remain hidden & won't be printed in an article

You will wait a long time for the Echo to do that.
.
That is something that is already supposedly in force but they have already proven that they dont give a toss and blatently expose whoever they wish.
.
Continue to post knowing that your comments, name and house location your spouses occupation could be plastered across 3 pages of the Echo

I don't think a lot of people commenting on this issue understand the ramifications of what the echo has done.

No doubt these comments will also disappear without trace in the very near future.

Shame on the echo!

Already we have posts about her size and looks which is offensive so I guess the Echo will out these posters????
Why did they Echo pull other posts on Sunday (because the post were anti Echo???? )
I for one will not post after to-day as the Echo does not like free speech and for the first time in years did not buy the Echo to-day and will not again.
For the record I think her posts were wrong but as no one had complained could just have been deleted but that would not fit in with the Echo's political agenda !!

I think her comments were bang on,a lot of the people I see around this city are a disgrace.
Southampton has become morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned,I've seen the changes, all we have got now is a a big shiny shopping mall.
You would think after all this time things would have progressed but all that happens is things get closed down,bulldozed and flats put up to be populated with more riff raff,but thats ok because it pushes more council tax to the civic centre.
Someone sort it out.

Am I the only one that realises that this IS NOT AN APOLOGY?

"I am sorry if anyone did take offence at my comment."

She's not apologising for anything in a typical passive aggressive way.

Isn't it amazing the depth of care this lady can have for her father compared with the lack of it she has for Jim Emery. However, she is just the wife of a transient 'here today, gone tomorrow' local politician. She is entitled to her view but her opinion is worth no more than her husband's or anybody else's for that matter.

This person is a private individual, whoever she is married to. Her comments are a bit rude but you get a lot of rude comments posted to forums.

Georgem wrote:
I am truly sorry she has had to apologise, simply because the Echo cannot be trusted with it's own privacy policy.

Totally agree. Disgusted at the Echo.

Smart Bomb wrote:
Isn't it amazing the depth of care this lady can have for her father compared with the lack of it she has for Jim Emery. However, she is just the wife of a transient 'here today, gone tomorrow' local politician. She is entitled to her view but her opinion is worth no more than her husband's or anybody else's for that matter.

What's amazing about that? I'd be disturbed if somebody DIDN'T care markedly more about their own family than someone they've never even met.

S023 wrote:
I don't think a lot of people commenting on this issue understand the ramifications of what the echo has done.

No doubt these comments will also disappear without trace in the very near future.

Shame on the echo!

The initial set of comments disappeared, but people simply moved the conversation to the comment section of other stories. I guess the Echo realise that either they let readers comment on this, even though it might be uncomfortable for them (the Echo) to do so, or they close all commenting on all stories until further notice.

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Well done Anthea for speaking up for your family. The choice of words used to describe some of your father's rather nasty detractors would not have been mine but I admire your integrity in making a public apology. If I recall - at that time - you were not the wife of a Councillor so I struggle to understand why this was allowed to become a 'news' story.

Like many others (from all and no political sides) I am very exercised by the Daily Echo's breach of confidentiality and privacy. Moreover I am concerned at the lack of an even-handed approach here and I wonder if I can now look forward to a public expose of all those other contributors to this forum using intemperate, offensive and (sometimes) downright racist and sexist language.

A failure to do so would indicate to me that the Echo has wilfully and maliciously breached its obligations under the data protection act.

Is that their yacht in the picture?

I've just registered a complaint online with the Press Complaints Commission (took 2 minutes) as this appears to be a possible infringement of the Data Protection Act - would suggest the person involved do the same.

NeverMind2 wrote:
I've just registered a complaint online with the Press Complaints Commission (took 2 minutes) as this appears to be a possible infringement of the Data Protection Act - would suggest the person involved do the same.

nice work, fella/gal

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Well done Anthea for speaking up for your family. The choice of words used to describe some of your father's rather nasty detractors would not have been mine but I admire your integrity in making a public apology. If I recall - at that time - you were not the wife of a Councillor so I struggle to understand why this was allowed to become a 'news' story.

Like many others (from all and no political sides) I am very exercised by the Daily Echo's breach of confidentiality and privacy. Moreover I am concerned at the lack of an even-handed approach here and I wonder if I can now look forward to a public expose of all those other contributors to this forum using intemperate, offensive and (sometimes) downright racist and sexist language.

A failure to do so would indicate to me that the Echo has wilfully and maliciously breached its obligations under the data protection act.

Wait, what? It would be a breach if they did not commit further breaches?

Daily Echo you disgust me, I refuse it buy your newspaper, and I only come on here because it's free, please feel free to print my name and address, your reporting is very lax and to reveal this persons name etc is outrageous. I don't know if there is a legal recourse for your actions I truly hope there is,

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

A new administration could over turn a previous council's policy. The role of cemetery superintendent is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and it has worked well for over 100 years, so why change it now, when the savings are minimal. Hollybrook is a special place where my loved ones are buried and when Jim goes so will the high standards.
After 40 years service to the people of Southampton one would of expected the council to have treated Jim better. If Mrs. Thorpe can call the people of Southampton inbreds I can call her a slob and would so to her face. No doubt she and her slob of a husband have already read this! She and her husband are a disgrace and the "apology" has no meaning it is just to save his political career, which is now over! Good on the Echo for exposing them! If the Echo want to publish my full name and address they are welcome to I have nothing to hide.

Oh dear - this is very worrying. I am shocked that the Echo decided to reveal this lady's details. I do not post very often but will certainly not offer any opinions again in case it comes back on me - very scary - I hadn't realised it wasn't safe.

Georgem wrote:

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Well done Anthea for speaking up for your family. The choice of words used to describe some of your father's rather nasty detractors would not have been mine but I admire your integrity in making a public apology. If I recall - at that time - you were not the wife of a Councillor so I struggle to understand why this was allowed to become a 'news' story.

Like many others (from all and no political sides) I am very exercised by the Daily Echo's breach of confidentiality and privacy. Moreover I am concerned at the lack of an even-handed approach here and I wonder if I can now look forward to a public expose of all those other contributors to this forum using intemperate, offensive and (sometimes) downright racist and sexist language.

A failure to do so would indicate to me that the Echo has wilfully and maliciously breached its obligations under the data protection act.

Wait, what? It would be a breach if they did not commit further breaches?

Most of us accept that there was a breach. My contention is that any inconsistency by the Echo policy in exercising the breach in this particular instance was wilful and malicious. Some have even suggested that there may have been a political motivation and - judging by the partisan reporting in the Echo over the past few months - there may be a case to answer here too.

matti-southampton wrote:

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

A new administration could over turn a previous council's policy. The role of cemetery superintendent is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and it has worked well for over 100 years, so why change it now, when the savings are minimal. Hollybrook is a special place where my loved ones are buried and when Jim goes so will the high standards.
After 40 years service to the people of Southampton one would of expected the council to have treated Jim better. If Mrs. Thorpe can call the people of Southampton inbreds I can call her a slob and would so to her face. No doubt she and her slob of a husband have already read this! She and her husband are a disgrace and the "apology" has no meaning it is just to save his political career, which is now over! Good on the Echo for exposing them! If the Echo want to publish my full name and address they are welcome to I have nothing to hide.

That is where many are miss-informed the new council could not over turn the policy as the house comes under the tied house act (not sure of the year something like 1895) Just ask the 1000's of farmers who live in tied housing and when they leave or retired have to find there own accommodation no automatic right to housing. Years ago Miners that lived in housing provided by the Coal Board had to leave when made redundant.
As I have said it is sad for Jim but there are 1000's who are treated far worse but do not have the Echo to whip up a give him a 4 bed house and job for life campaign.

After getting caught out and refusing to accept that she had done anything wrong and her NuLabourite Councillor husband having defended her arrogant stupid and vulgar insults thrown at decent people of Southampton, now this foul mouthed woman Anthea Thorpe has decided to make a U turn for convenience, for fooling the people.

This is well rehearsed trick of NuLabourite followers of Blair, Brown and Mandelson etc. Who kept on harming not only their core supporters while betraying decent principles of old Labour, but also destroyed the economy of our nation and now are expecting us the people to forget all that by off and on saying ‘Sorry for 13 years we kept on making mistakes’….

Making mistakes???…. Sorry I can’t speak for others, but I am not likely to overlook a rapist or child killer or follower of Hitler even if they say sorry million times over… I leave that charitable attitude to priests and unprincipled low lifers who have started to dominate our democratic society, or to my supposedly Trotskyite friends whom I caught recruiting members of NATIONAL FRONT INTO OLD LABOUR PARTY.

Let us have whole of this episode in right order:

Obnoxious woman decided to insult us the people of Southampton. Yes some of us may not like it but it could be argued that she was exercising her right to express her honestly held views. After all she is not the only one who posts such remarks on this site.

Her views should not have reflected on her NuLabour Councillor husband because she is an individual in her own right.

BUT BIT BUT, that is not the case BECAUSE CLLR. THORPE HAS SUPPORTED HER MOST HIGHLY OFFENSIVE REMARKS IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Cllr. Thorpe’s exact words in that statement “I appreciate that someone who loves me is prepared to fight for my good”…. So insulting people of Southampton was for his good?.... Makes me ask if Cllr. Thorpe is extraordinarily stupid or ultra arrogant???

Anyway if that is not approving and associating with offensive remarks then what else does it say?.... ‘Come on people start believing in flying pigs’ on the say so of a NuLabourite?...

In my view that is making Cllr. Thorpe an important part of this joint enterprise of extreme arrogance.

So this apology is nothing more than exercise in political convenience. Just like Prime Minister Brown tried to do after privately insulting an old lady during last general election…. I have no inside knowledge so only guessing, could it be that just like her husband Cllr. Thorpe Anthea Thorpe may also be member of NuLabour Party, and somebody in the party has told her to issue apology for political convenience?

What makes me suspect that?... During last general election my best friend’s son was parliamentary candidate of NuLabour. Brought up to speak the truth he told a TV channel that Brown was the worse Prime Minister, which created shock waves all over the place. That time NuLabourites at highest level (including Mandelson) tried to pressurise good socialist Cllr. Sood to withdraw his remarks and apologise…. By the way he told them to multiply themselves with my full support and was expelled from Labour Group in Leicester.

As I am no lawyer, I can’t say if Echo has breached any rules. But as a lay person I think it is investigative journalism that is why I appreciated it other day and stand by that.

In my view, which others may or may not share, this is a matter of public interest, because by refusing to condemn nasty remarks of his wife Cllr. Thorpe has knowingly made himself party to those. So voters have the right to ask, like many other issues on which his Party misled people why his association with this kind of nastiness was not made public before May elections? And why did he not disassociate from those remarks in his written statement?

If Anthea Thorpe is member of NuLabour, then matter becomes even more serious, what kind of political party tolerates arrogant nasty and obnoxious creatures like that as members?

Why those like our Ward Councillor Don Thomas and Keith Morrell are hounded by NuLabour when they stand by the people who voted for them and serve them well, and the same Party not only tolerates but also protects and provides positions of power to likes of Cllr. Thorpe with passionate supporters like his wife.

If there was even an ounce of decency left in NuLabour they should take some meaningful action i.e. expel those who insulted people of Southampton.

Finally, is it not amazing that poor Anthea’s got upset because her well paid spin doctor Daddy was made redundant?

What about those whom her darling husband, whom she supports politically, and his colleagues are throwing out of useful jobs, for example workers at Oaklands Swimming Pool?

Is there any limit to double standards of these people and their NuLabour Party?

PR motivated apology may be good enough for some super saintly souls or forgiving priests and will be defended by NuLabour fans on this site or even wishy washy editorial authors of Echo. For me it is SIMPLY ANOTHER STUNT…

sottondave wrote:
I have asked the Echo to remove me as a contributor and do not intend to ever make contributions to this website again.
I do not feel free to contribute to this website as I do not trust the way the Echo can potentially use postings selectively, out of context or allow people to abuse councillors and their family with very personal unpleasant comments. I have also asked my family and friends to not post on this website as they are not politicians and do not deserve the possible vitriol they would be subjected to if they attempted to defend me on this website.
Anthea was quite rightly defending her father and husband from very nasty comments made by people on these sort of websites.
I leave and will not be coming back.

Dave,

I am disappointed that you have decided not to post on this site anymore.

I may not have always agreed with you, but your contributions were always helpful in clearing wrong informations posted by your party's opponents on this site.

As you are aware I have always respected you as a decent person, that is not likely to change.

Hope you will reconsider your decision.

Kind regards

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

A new administration could over turn a previous council's policy. The role of cemetery superintendent is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and it has worked well for over 100 years, so why change it now, when the savings are minimal. Hollybrook is a special place where my loved ones are buried and when Jim goes so will the high standards.
After 40 years service to the people of Southampton one would of expected the council to have treated Jim better. If Mrs. Thorpe can call the people of Southampton inbreds I can call her a slob and would so to her face. No doubt she and her slob of a husband have already read this! She and her husband are a disgrace and the "apology" has no meaning it is just to save his political career, which is now over! Good on the Echo for exposing them! If the Echo want to publish my full name and address they are welcome to I have nothing to hide.

That is where many are miss-informed the new council could not over turn the policy as the house comes under the tied house act (not sure of the year something like 1895) Just ask the 1000's of farmers who live in tied housing and when they leave or retired have to find there own accommodation no automatic right to housing. Years ago Miners that lived in housing provided by the Coal Board had to leave when made redundant.
As I have said it is sad for Jim but there are 1000's who are treated far worse but do not have the Echo to whip up a give him a 4 bed house and job for life campaign.

The council could overturn this decision by not making the role of cemetery superintendent redundant. This job is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and supporting the countless number of bereaved who visit on a daily basis. The council decision probably has to do with the fact the Hollybrook Lodge is under occupied and they want the house. For over a 100 years this house has been home to the cemetery superintendent and there have been greater needs in the past for housing but previous administrations never took this step. The sooner SCC consists of independent councillors the better, all councillors just follow the party line and don't care about the views of those they are supposed to represent. We saw it with the Tories and we got rid of them and now we are seeing it with new Labour. And they wonder why people don't vote!

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

A new administration could over turn a previous council's policy. The role of cemetery superintendent is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and it has worked well for over 100 years, so why change it now, when the savings are minimal. Hollybrook is a special place where my loved ones are buried and when Jim goes so will the high standards.
After 40 years service to the people of Southampton one would of expected the council to have treated Jim better. If Mrs. Thorpe can call the people of Southampton inbreds I can call her a slob and would so to her face. No doubt she and her slob of a husband have already read this! She and her husband are a disgrace and the "apology" has no meaning it is just to save his political career, which is now over! Good on the Echo for exposing them! If the Echo want to publish my full name and address they are welcome to I have nothing to hide.

That is where many are miss-informed the new council could not over turn the policy as the house comes under the tied house act (not sure of the year something like 1895) Just ask the 1000's of farmers who live in tied housing and when they leave or retired have to find there own accommodation no automatic right to housing. Years ago Miners that lived in housing provided by the Coal Board had to leave when made redundant.
As I have said it is sad for Jim but there are 1000's who are treated far worse but do not have the Echo to whip up a give him a 4 bed house and job for life campaign.

I should of course have stated the act has been updated many times since (last time in the 70's)
The council has done everything by the book and offered him suitable accommodation.
The only thing I believe the council could do now is offer him the house at it's market value. May-be those that are campaigning for him should start a fund, as he has 1000's of supporters should only take a few pounds each. The Echo will put in a large donation I'm sure !!!

I'm very concerned how this may affect my cabinet position should the Echo repeat the same trick with my login :-/

matti-southampton wrote:

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:

THEKILLER wrote:

matti-southampton wrote:
So Anthea is now sorry - too little too late. You have made your opinions quite clear and no doubt this "apology" is a result of pressure from the Labour party and you are desperate to save your husbands political career. Shame on you both the lack of compassion you have shown to Jim Emery, you two haven't got a clue about how the people of this city feel towards him and the shameful way you taunted those campaigning to save his job and home. Why don't you both crawl back under the rock you came from, slobs!

The main-point with this is legally the councils hands were tied as he lived in a tied house when his job was axed the house was lost if the council had let him stay this would have set a legal president where as any one living in a house that went with their job could stay in it for life . Of course it is sad when anyone loses their job but many will not be in such a good position as Jim to have a good pension and be offered some where else to live . There is not such thing as a job for life, you cannot get rid of me I'm special !

On a foot note as have called them slobs you will not mind your name and location published !!!

A new administration could over turn a previous council's policy. The role of cemetery superintendent is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and it has worked well for over 100 years, so why change it now, when the savings are minimal. Hollybrook is a special place where my loved ones are buried and when Jim goes so will the high standards.
After 40 years service to the people of Southampton one would of expected the council to have treated Jim better. If Mrs. Thorpe can call the people of Southampton inbreds I can call her a slob and would so to her face. No doubt she and her slob of a husband have already read this! She and her husband are a disgrace and the "apology" has no meaning it is just to save his political career, which is now over! Good on the Echo for exposing them! If the Echo want to publish my full name and address they are welcome to I have nothing to hide.

That is where many are miss-informed the new council could not over turn the policy as the house comes under the tied house act (not sure of the year something like 1895) Just ask the 1000's of farmers who live in tied housing and when they leave or retired have to find there own accommodation no automatic right to housing. Years ago Miners that lived in housing provided by the Coal Board had to leave when made redundant.
As I have said it is sad for Jim but there are 1000's who are treated far worse but do not have the Echo to whip up a give him a 4 bed house and job for life campaign.

The council could overturn this decision by not making the role of cemetery superintendent redundant. This job is vital in maintaining Hollybrook and supporting the countless number of bereaved who visit on a daily basis. The council decision probably has to do with the fact the Hollybrook Lodge is under occupied and they want the house. For over a 100 years this house has been home to the cemetery superintendent and there have been greater needs in the past for housing but previous administrations never took this step. The sooner SCC consists of independent councillors the better, all councillors just follow the party line and don't care about the views of those they are supposed to represent. We saw it with the Tories and we got rid of them and now we are seeing it with new Labour. And they wonder why people don't vote!

Of course this could happen, but where as 100 years ago lots of cemeteries had lodges to-day very few do many far larger cemeteries have over the last 50 years made this role redundant. Life does not stand still and job roles evolve and change I have been made redundant before but have to get on with life

sotonandproud wrote:
us inbred in millbrook from a woman that looks like she could get the lead role in deliverence 2

Great use of irony!

As was this.

The Echo's actions here have been thoroughly reprehensible. They have quite clearly crossed the line and should be utterly ashamed of their approach on this matter.
.
To out someone for espousing their own personal opinion and then hound them should appall the citizens of this fine City.
.
It is good to see the condemnation from across the political and social spectrum, as when a local newspaper acts in such a "Big Brother" mannerwe should all be quick to condemn them.
.
A non story, with minimal public interest obtained in a thoroughly despicable manner.
.
Be careful what you post, as even if it is within the Law, the Echo may take it upon themselves to hound you and publish your private details.
.
If these comments are only for contributors who will reveal their identities, then fine, people will decide whether to post or not, but currently that is not the case and anonymity should be respected.
.
I'm far from a wet Liberal, but this episode is a travesty.

bigfella777 wrote:
I think her comments were bang on,a lot of the people I see around this city are a disgrace.
Southampton has become morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned,I've seen the changes, all we have got now is a a big shiny shopping mall.
You would think after all this time things would have progressed but all that happens is things get closed down,bulldozed and flats put up to be populated with more riff raff,but thats ok because it pushes more council tax to the civic centre.
Someone sort it out.

You're such a boring troll. At least try and be a tad humorous?

That's it I'm off just got to find out how to remove my details then never come into contact with the Echo again

cantthinkofone wrote:
I'm very concerned how this may affect my cabinet position should the Echo repeat the same trick with my login :-/

Don't worry, your cabinet will remain upright and in the corner.

FoysCornerBoy wrote:

NeverMind2 wrote:
I've just registered a complaint online with the Press Complaints Commission (took 2 minutes) as this appears to be a possible infringement of the Data Protection Act - would suggest the person involved do the same.

nice work, fella/gal

The PCC has no teeth, no statutory powers, and it cannot enforce the Data Protection Act. Only the Information Commissioner can do that, and he won't act on a complaint from you FoysCornerBoy. Any complaint to him must come from Anthea. See how legislators stitch up ordinary people!

Backtracking now is she ? I think if she'd of appologised at the time it would of had more standing.I believe this woman has a few issues and not of sound of mind as well as double standards (ref her husband making people redundant).How does he hold a senior position in the local council hes only about 25 and what i have read about the Jim Emery situation is disgusting.In my opinion neither of them are fit to live in Southampton maybe Portsmouth would suit them better lol .She could mouth about us Southampton citizens all she liked then and wouldnt have to be an internet troll.Typical labour double standard back stabbers....

nedscrumpo wrote:
One things for certain, she didn't write that. More like the press people at the council at the behest of her old man.

Too true, maybe she doesn't even know the council have appologised on her behalf..

bit too late to save her husbands political career as i certainly wont give him my vote as will a lot of family and friends in the area angered by her comments as for this privacy issue is it not a modern day problem where people go on the internet and make nasty spiteful or hurtful comments knowing they hide behind the veil of anonimity

gillyman wrote:
bit too late to save her husbands political career as i certainly wont give him my vote as will a lot of family and friends in the area angered by her comments as for this privacy issue is it not a modern day problem where people go on the internet and make nasty spiteful or hurtful comments knowing they hide behind the veil of anonimity

It is not Councillor Thorpe's fault that his wife has been indelicate, despite the provocation she undoubtedly received.
I do however agree with a previous poster's comments that there is a political angle to this story after the blatant pro Tory history of this newspaper in recent times.
The Daily Echo ought to be examining its conduct in representing a balanced view of local issues and I would expect the Press Complaints Commission to take very stern action in respect of the outrageous breach of the Data protection Act in publishing Mrs Thorpe's identity. Shame on you, Daily Echo!

Isn't it now the Echo's turn to apologise?

Disgraceful.

I'm amazed how strongly people have reacted to the Echo's reporting. Lots of people knew that Commnurse was Anthea Thorpe and had been upset by her remarks. The Echo story was taken up because if they had ignored it they could have been accused of covering it up. I think that it would be a better system if people didn't hide behind names but could be openly identified by first name and area. If you write a letter to a paper/magazine this is normal practice. Hiding behind a codename just so you can hurl abuse or belittle a report with poor humour, is cowardly. The Echo has done nothing wrong in my eyes.

As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

The staff at the Echo's decision to abandon basic standards of professional journalism should come as no surprise. Its a shoddy rag. All of that aside- Mrs Thorpe was right in the first place- this city is full of idiots and half wits though isn`t it? I saw a 20 stone man walking down the street wearing only shorts and sandals the other day pushing a pram. No baby in it. What's going on there??? No one batted an eyelid. Oddballs like this seem to be the norm nowadays

I would like to know how many Pro Thorpe posters are members of the Labour Party and have been prompted to deflect this story onto the alleged wrong doing by the Echo ? The apology has been constructed by Councillor Thorpes associates and I am sure they will soon be working on apologies on behalf of other local Labour Councillors as this young breed don't seem to understand why the 'inbreds' voted for them initially, how wrong they were !!

Apparently, her identity was revealed by another poster, and subsequently verified by an Echo journalist independently of any data held by the Echo. They don't have any personal data associated with her account.

I'm not sure how much this mitigates anything. The fact that they know none of her personal details were attached to her account means they checked. What if they had been?

G-man1 wrote:
The staff at the Echo's decision to abandon basic standards of professional journalism should come as no surprise. Its a shoddy rag. All of that aside- Mrs Thorpe was right in the first place- this city is full of idiots and half wits though isn`t it? I saw a 20 stone man walking down the street wearing only shorts and sandals the other day pushing a pram. No baby in it. What's going on there??? No one batted an eyelid. Oddballs like this seem to be the norm nowadays

Haha, what a lovely vision to welcome my day with. Perhap's he was simply taking his pram for a walk?

You're right though, there are freaks everywhere, but I'm not sure it's a new thing or even personal to Southampton. They've always been amongst us, but they're being paid well to breed now.

In the interests of the future of Southampton, I offer to impregnate any half-wit or cretinous woman out there, to attempt to dilute the freak gene. They don't even need to be attractive.

THEKILLER wrote:
That's it I'm off just got to find out how to remove my details then never come into contact with the Echo again

Goodbye Mr Sutcliffe

Personally I think its disgusting that the Echo breaks its own privacy policy and should be investigated by the PCC for doing so.

It is also time the Echo started serving the people of Southampton, rather than the politically-motivate
d self-serving odd-balls and freaks that own and edit it

gowfreeman wrote:
Personally I think its disgusting that the Echo breaks its own privacy policy and should be investigated by the PCC for doing so.

It is also time the Echo started serving the people of Southampton, rather than the politically-motivate

d self-serving odd-balls and freaks that own and edit it

Why? It's a private enterprise, their only duty is to the shareholders.

cherrypi wrote:
I'm amazed how strongly people have reacted to the Echo's reporting. Lots of people knew that Commnurse was Anthea Thorpe and had been upset by her remarks. The Echo story was taken up because if they had ignored it they could have been accused of covering it up. I think that it would be a better system if people didn't hide behind names but could be openly identified by first name and area. If you write a letter to a paper/magazine this is normal practice. Hiding behind a codename just so you can hurl abuse or belittle a report with poor humour, is cowardly. The Echo has done nothing wrong in my eyes.

Well, the point is, the Echo has a privacy policy. It's unfair of them to change the rules and decide to breach it simply because there's a story to be had. It's a breach of trust.

Georgem wrote:
Apparently, her identity was revealed by another poster, and subsequently verified by an Echo journalist independently of any data held by the Echo. They don't have any personal data associated with her account.

I'm not sure how much this mitigates anything. The fact that they know none of her personal details were attached to her account means they checked. What if they had been?

Well that completely changes everything. Where did you get this?

How can they have broken their own privacy policy if they don't have any private information in the first place?

If it was already on the site, it was public domain and all they have done is verify that information, completely negating everything the SDE has been accused of regards privacy.

So the hysteria from people posting on here is completely unfounded and based on nothing but wrong assumptions. What a surprise.

G-man1 wrote:
The staff at the Echo's decision to abandon basic standards of professional journalism should come as no surprise. Its a shoddy rag. All of that aside- Mrs Thorpe was right in the first place- this city is full of idiots and half wits though isn`t it? I saw a 20 stone man walking down the street wearing only shorts and sandals the other day pushing a pram. No baby in it. What's going on there??? No one batted an eyelid. Oddballs like this seem to be the norm nowadays

I was that man. I pram push twice a day since my dog died.(got to try to keep the weight down). Sorry about the shorts, my legging's were in the wash. I have found being odd is the way forward, I now do not have to worry about the economy,employment or pensions, my only problem now is cars parked on pavements, but if I keep on ramming them I do not see this being a problem in the future.

Out of interest, can anyone show me which bit of the Echo's privacy policy has been broken, and how it has been done?

AdrianSmith wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Apparently, her identity was revealed by another poster, and subsequently verified by an Echo journalist independently of any data held by the Echo. They don't have any personal data associated with her account.

I'm not sure how much this mitigates anything. The fact that they know none of her personal details were attached to her account means they checked. What if they had been?

Well that completely changes everything. Where did you get this?

How can they have broken their own privacy policy if they don't have any private information in the first place?

If it was already on the site, it was public domain and all they have done is verify that information, completely negating everything the SDE has been accused of regards privacy.

So the hysteria from people posting on here is completely unfounded and based on nothing but wrong assumptions. What a surprise.

I emailed the Echo about the story and got a reply. Cos, y'know, it's important to establish a few facts.

I'm not sure it's this simple. The information wasn't in the public domain, the Echo site isn't the public domain. I agree, the hysteria is misplaced, I don't think the Echo is about to start revealing our identities left right and centre, but I still think there's something underhand about what happened. I wonder what would have happened if they DID have her true identity attached to the account.

If the information was revealed by another poster (I assume you mean on the comment section, as that's the only place I know we can post stuff on here) then it is public domain - anyone can see it.

As for what would have happened if they did have the information - that's suppostition and cannot be used as part of a witch hunt as no-one knows.

Actually, a bit of quick Googling turns this up. See the comment at 12.18pm on Wed 29th August:

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9891917.
Campaigners_march_to
_back_cemetery_boss/


The information is definitely in the public domain, so I don't see that any private information has been exposed by the Echo - it was readily available all the while.

AdrianSmith wrote:
Actually, a bit of quick Googling turns this up. See the comment at 12.18pm on Wed 29th August:

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/9891917.

Campaigners_march_to

_back_cemetery_boss/



The information is definitely in the public domain, so I don't see that any private information has been exposed by the Echo - it was readily available all the while.

The question is, should it have been? The Echo site isn't really the public domain, the Echo owns the content, and the Echo is responsible for it. Why d'you think some stories are open for comment, and not others?

AdrianSmith wrote:
If the information was revealed by another poster (I assume you mean on the comment section, as that's the only place I know we can post stuff on here) then it is public domain - anyone can see it.

As for what would have happened if they did have the information - that's suppostition and cannot be used as part of a witch hunt as no-one knows.

Yes agreed, that is conjecture on my part

Georgem wrote:

AdrianSmith wrote:
Actually, a bit of quick Googling turns this up. See the comment at 12.18pm on Wed 29th August:

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/9891917.


Campaigners_march_to


_back_cemetery_boss/




The information is definitely in the public domain, so I don't see that any private information has been exposed by the Echo - it was readily available all the while.

The question is, should it have been? The Echo site isn't really the public domain, the Echo owns the content, and the Echo is responsible for it. Why d'you think some stories are open for comment, and not others?

The text may be copyright, but the information in it is public domain.

For example, if I copy and paste a story about a football match from The Telegraph, I'm infringing their copyright but there's nothing to stop me telling you what happened in my own words using the information I got from the Telegraph's story.

The content is copyright, but the information provided by that content is public domain (in that anyone can see it,access it and use it)

I guess some stories have comments and others don't for legal reasons (current court cases seem to be the ones without comments, which makes sense)

AdrianSmith wrote:

Georgem wrote:

AdrianSmith wrote:
Actually, a bit of quick Googling turns this up. See the comment at 12.18pm on Wed 29th August:

http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/news/9891917.



Campaigners_march_to



_back_cemetery_boss/





The information is definitely in the public domain, so I don't see that any private information has been exposed by the Echo - it was readily available all the while.

The question is, should it have been? The Echo site isn't really the public domain, the Echo owns the content, and the Echo is responsible for it. Why d'you think some stories are open for comment, and not others?

The text may be copyright, but the information in it is public domain.

For example, if I copy and paste a story about a football match from The Telegraph, I'm infringing their copyright but there's nothing to stop me telling you what happened in my own words using the information I got from the Telegraph's story.

The content is copyright, but the information provided by that content is public domain (in that anyone can see it,access it and use it)

I guess some stories have comments and others don't for legal reasons (current court cases seem to be the ones without comments, which makes sense)

I was a bit unclear, sorry. I understand that the information isn't owned by them. What I was getting at was, the identity of a contributor shouldn't have been revealed at all. The Echo don't actively moderate comments, so it's unavoidable that it happened, but I still find it highly dodgy that they acted on that information and made a story of it. The comments revealing who she was should have been deleted. That's standard practice for discussion forums, even the notorious 4chan practices that one.

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

we can only hope that this woman has learnt some lessons here. She knew what it felt like to have her dad abused and then went on to do the same thing to someone elses' dad. She could have made her comments without being abusive (thus breaking guidelines).
Just because you post under a username you still have to be personally responsible for what you post on this site. She should have stopped and thought about the reprocussions of posting something in anger. Everything has a consequence, as a consequence of her actions she has shown herself up and obviously embarrassed her family, she says she is a mum whom I am guessing stands at the school gate and will have to put up with comments, she has probably ended her husbands career before it has even started.
She needs to learn to be thick skinned, as anyone who is in the public eye knows, she needs to have a bit of dignity and grow up.
Her nastiness has come back and bitten her on the b*m. Maybe she should take lessons from the Emerys who kept a dignified silence through all this, better to be remembered for that than for her potty mouth.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

Why did they need to check? I thought you said they definitely were, because something something printed on paper first.

What would any of this have to do with comments on the story, though? If there were legal doubts, it would have been on the story itself.

AdrianSmith wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Apparently, her identity was revealed by another poster, and subsequently verified by an Echo journalist independently of any data held by the Echo. They don't have any personal data associated with her account.

I'm not sure how much this mitigates anything. The fact that they know none of her personal details were attached to her account means they checked. What if they had been?

Well that completely changes everything. Where did you get this?

How can they have broken their own privacy policy if they don't have any private information in the first place?

If it was already on the site, it was public domain and all they have done is verify that information, completely negating everything the SDE has been accused of regards privacy.

So the hysteria from people posting on here is completely unfounded and based on nothing but wrong assumptions. What a surprise.

That seems to be the case.

In fact possible clue to puzzle of how Cllr Thorpe's wife may have been exposed was printed in Daily Echo on day story was first printed. Somebody in response to her comment on Issue of a council employee had referred to her husband when replying to her nasty comment. So people knew who was the real person hiding behind that comment.

I guess either that got some journo alerted or same or similar source may have tipped the press.

Knowing how this new super arrogant breed of NuLabourites behave I won't be surprised if people within Thorpe's own circle knew about dirty tricks operations. Considering NuLabour's internal culture of back stabbing, one of their own may also have helped the press.

Most of posters on this site who got hysterical on Echo's privacy policy, I suspect, have done for various selfish reasons while exploiting a foul mouthed woman's privacy as convenient excuse.

NuLabour's own supporters doing their duty to protect their councillor, but cleverly hiding behind excuse that they are concerned only about privacy of people... Conveniently forgetting their fake commitment to people's right to know.

Tory posters could have got worried that their masks may one day also be lifted, so started defending opponent for convenience.Same applies to few others.

Political parties are known for encouraging their supporters to write letters to editor columns and exploit Internet forums for propaganda, while pretending to be ordinary members of public. Some on this site have often suspected that certain contributors may in fact be prominent councillors themselves or important members of various parties, so hardly surprising this group has panicked. They do not want to be exposed.


Then there are people who post anti social /nasty / offensive comments for various reasons of their own under assumed IDs, so just like most criminals, they do not want to be one day named and shamed for their secret views.

While people posting comments keeping their real names secret are within their rights, because this site like many others allow it, I am from the group that believes that people should have the courage to say what they really mean and mean what they say, so should post comments under their own real names. That's why I have not joined this motivated hysteria against Daily Echo.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

Why did they need to check? I thought you said they definitely were, because something something printed on paper first.

What would any of this have to do with comments on the story, though? If there were legal doubts, it would have been on the story itself.

Please give Souty credit. He did not jump on Echo bashing exercise. Mainly dominated by people who may have panicked that one day they too could also get exposed like foul mouthed Mrs Thorpe.

At least you have done the decent thing by admitting that after all Echo may not have breached anything. I respect you for that.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

Why did they need to check? I thought you said they definitely were, because something something printed on paper first.

What would any of this have to do with comments on the story, though? If there were legal doubts, it would have been on the story itself.

Please give Souty credit. He did not jump on Echo bashing exercise. Mainly dominated by people who may have panicked that one day they too could also get exposed like foul mouthed Mrs Thorpe.

At least you have done the decent thing by admitting that after all Echo may not have breached anything. I respect you for that.

Yes, credit where it's due to southy. I have to admit, I jumped on the bandwagon too. Then I remembered myself, and did some, y'know, asking for facts. Makes all the difference.

I'm still of the opinion that something a little underhand happened here though.

Georgem wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
Comments on the other story have been put back, and re-opened.

Thats because they have check and found that they are with in the law and with in there own site rules

Why did they need to check? I thought you said they definitely were, because something something printed on paper first.

What would any of this have to do with comments on the story, though? If there were legal doubts, it would have been on the story itself.

Please give Souty credit. He did not jump on Echo bashing exercise. Mainly dominated by people who may have panicked that one day they too could also get exposed like foul mouthed Mrs Thorpe.

At least you have done the decent thing by admitting that after all Echo may not have breached anything. I respect you for that.

Yes, credit where it's due to southy. I have to admit, I jumped on the bandwagon too. Then I remembered myself, and did some, y'know, asking for facts. Makes all the difference.

I'm still of the opinion that something a little underhand happened here though.

Your instinct is very likely to be correct. But as you are aware knowing something and proving that are two different things.

Because most of the Echo reporters are not all that bright...

My immediate reaction was that it may the mischief started by some of Cllr. Thorpe's own colleagues. Even at the highest level of NuLabour Party this is how they operate. Back stabbing own comrades has become addiction within this party... Many have no solid principles only huge big egos. That is why many of us have left the party in whose old values we passionately believe.

Any way in my opinion main issue being overlooked is Cllr. Thorpe failing to condemn his wife's offensive remarks expressed about people of Southampton in his statement (Printed in Echo of 1st Sept page 7), so through arrogance making himself party to this joint enterprise... I am amazed most of NuLabour's opponents from both left and right have not zoomed on this disgraceful and scandalous attitude of one of Dear Leader's favourite unfit for the purpose poodle.

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities... Hardly surprising it has become well paid PC correct industry and heaven for fake lefties and liberals of convenience. Mostly people who behave like priests!

With no disrespect to Loosehead I am surprised a former rugby player and coach may feel threatened by some kids posting views opposing Tories.

I am old man never hide behind pseudonym/s. Have never felt threatened nor have been physically harmed by anybody from this site.

Southy is favourite target of right wingers on this site, he has always used his nickname with real name well known... He is still around, or was earlier on. But then he actually believes in what he says.

Herald in Scotland encourages contributors to use real names. Could it be because Scots have greater courage, convictions and are less hypocrites?... I think they deserve independence and to enjoy benefits of Socialist Republic of Scotland.

Will be nice if Echo adopts Herald's approach, although Editor Murray may not support freedom for Scotland.. Tories do not.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities... Hardly surprising it has become well paid PC correct industry and heaven for fake lefties and liberals of convenience. Mostly people who behave like priests!

With no disrespect to Loosehead I am surprised a former rugby player and coach may feel threatened by some kids posting views opposing Tories.

I am old man never hide behind pseudonym/s. Have never felt threatened nor have been physically harmed by anybody from this site.

Southy is favourite target of right wingers on this site, he has always used his nickname with real name well known... He is still around, or was earlier on. But then he actually believes in what he says.

Herald in Scotland encourages contributors to use real names. Could it be because Scots have greater courage, convictions and are less hypocrites?... I think they deserve independence and to enjoy benefits of Socialist Republic of Scotland.

Will be nice if Echo adopts Herald's approach, although Editor Murray may not support freedom for Scotland.. Tories do not.

Very idealistic. Have a halo.

Please explain why you have an objection to people using their personal lives to campaign against inequality, but wishing to protect themselves and their families against the effect a perception of them as a 'radical' may have on their livelihood.

What a self-defeating attitude. The left continues to eat itself.

Thanks for suggestion halo won't look nice on my bald head!!!

This world was not changed for better by those who were scared to risk their lives properties and security of well paid jobs, but by people like Mahatama Gandhi, Dr. King and Nelson Mandela.

For securing equality people need confidence in themselves and courage to demand fairness if they have abilities but are discriminated for some reasons.

Those who cannot confront bigots themselves and opt to self efface for pleasing nasties, in my opinion do not deserve sympathy.

If you have problems at work, join the union and demand your rights

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Thanks for suggestion halo won't look nice on my bald head!!!

This world was not changed for better by those who were scared to risk their lives properties and security of well paid jobs, but by people like Mahatama Gandhi, Dr. King and Nelson Mandela.

For securing equality people need confidence in themselves and courage to demand fairness if they have abilities but are discriminated for some reasons.

Those who cannot confront bigots themselves and opt to self efface for pleasing nasties, in my opinion do not deserve sympathy.

If you have problems at work, join the union and demand your rights

You must live in a very black and white world.

Nowhere have I talked of "self-effacing to please nasties" or anything of the like. I stand up for equality at work, and all who know me know my political leanings.

That's not a problem.

Knowing that I have been kettled by the police, and support NVDA (non-violent direct action) could well be.

This is why the left fails time and again. The holier than thou zealots turn on any who give less than their first-born's blood, and thus drive people away in their droves. It's pathetic frankly, and the inability to learn from past mistakes smacks of either insanity or stupidity.

Or perhaps I should choose a different career?

My current one helps heal sick people, but maybe I should quit and be a bin-man in the cause of worker solidarity?

The sanctimonious attitude of some on the left has done more to prevent its success than anything the tories could ever dream up. It is the very enemy of socialism.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities... Hardly surprising it has become well paid PC correct industry and heaven for fake lefties and liberals of convenience. Mostly people who behave like priests!

With no disrespect to Loosehead I am surprised a former rugby player and coach may feel threatened by some kids posting views opposing Tories.

I am old man never hide behind pseudonym/s. Have never felt threatened nor have been physically harmed by anybody from this site.

Southy is favourite target of right wingers on this site, he has always used his nickname with real name well known... He is still around, or was earlier on. But then he actually believes in what he says.

Herald in Scotland encourages contributors to use real names. Could it be because Scots have greater courage, convictions and are less hypocrites?... I think they deserve independence and to enjoy benefits of Socialist Republic of Scotland.

Will be nice if Echo adopts Herald's approach, although Editor Murray may not support freedom for Scotland.. Tories do not.

Paramjit I did post my real name & no I'm not scared of the likes of Lone Ranger or Inform Al or Ant Smoking.
But I have a wife & can see why after some of the things suggested to me why people keep their ID hidden.
I honestly believe in a debating site this shouldn't be the case & I hope no of the idiots try to track me down.
I don't agree with your politics but some times admit you're right & I'm wrong.
this is genuine debating but some can't see the truth if you put it under their noses & just start to call you names & then start threatening you.
I'm seriously considering when to comment now as I could handle them myself but my wife comes first.
as of now I've had no knocks on the door so have you or Southy been threatened or had people stop you & threatened you yet?

loosehead wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities... Hardly surprising it has become well paid PC correct industry and heaven for fake lefties and liberals of convenience. Mostly people who behave like priests!

With no disrespect to Loosehead I am surprised a former rugby player and coach may feel threatened by some kids posting views opposing Tories.

I am old man never hide behind pseudonym/s. Have never felt threatened nor have been physically harmed by anybody from this site.

Southy is favourite target of right wingers on this site, he has always used his nickname with real name well known... He is still around, or was earlier on. But then he actually believes in what he says.

Herald in Scotland encourages contributors to use real names. Could it be because Scots have greater courage, convictions and are less hypocrites?... I think they deserve independence and to enjoy benefits of Socialist Republic of Scotland.

Will be nice if Echo adopts Herald's approach, although Editor Murray may not support freedom for Scotland.. Tories do not.

Paramjit I did post my real name & no I'm not scared of the likes of Lone Ranger or Inform Al or Ant Smoking.
But I have a wife & can see why after some of the things suggested to me why people keep their ID hidden.
I honestly believe in a debating site this shouldn't be the case & I hope no of the idiots try to track me down.
I don't agree with your politics but some times admit you're right & I'm wrong.
this is genuine debating but some can't see the truth if you put it under their noses & just start to call you names & then start threatening you.
I'm seriously considering when to comment now as I could handle them myself but my wife comes first.
as of now I've had no knocks on the door so have you or Southy been threatened or had people stop you & threatened you yet?

As publicly active members of the left, they probably have to be honest. There are right-wing websites with the exclusive purpose of publishing photos and details of active socialists. I won't name them, as they don't deserve even that small publicity. Disgusting stuff though, run by thugs that affiliate themselves with the NF, C18 and EDL.

It's great that we have people willing to take that risk for their beliefs. What astounds me though, is that some of them would reject active support from any who aren't.

Although you and I probably don't agree politically, we do on this. My family's safety comes first.

Dear Can't think of one,

I have been around long enough to have experienced all kinds of problems, some time I conquered them and sometime came against brick walls.

Confronting problems head on has never spoilt my working relationships with colleagues at work, some of whom were even ultra right Tories. Most people are intelligent and thankfully tolerant and respect each others views. Believe it or not even in this age honesty is apperciated by most people, often even by most in police.

Because I used to give rough ride to certain Chief Constable John Duke as member of the Police Authority, some coconuts from our so called black community's self appointed leaders decided to meet Duke and tried to kiss his back side by explaining that they do not like me and virtually offered to be his toilet papers. I was told few years later by one of the uncle Toms involved that the CC virtually blew their eardrums, and lectured them on rights of elected representatives of the people, which he intended to defend.

Neither Mahatama Gandhi nor even Stalin had any problem in their working relationships with Winston Churchill.

I have always been on hard left (of real variety and have never been member of any factions) but I get on very well with many Tories. Because I respect their right to hold their views and they respect mine.

End of the day honesty and commitment is apperciated by most, fake smiles are not.

I have no idea what makes you suggest I am objecting to people like you using artificial IDs. I have clearly stated they have the right to do so as rules of most sites allow it. But I have different views so on principle always use my own name or sometime nick name.

As to me you come across as basically a nice person, who may do with bit of more confidence, I request you not to spin me views to suit your argument. You may have noticed I mostly only post my comment and do not respond a lot to others.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Dear Can't think of one,

I have been around long enough to have experienced all kinds of problems, some time I conquered them and sometime came against brick walls.

Confronting problems head on has never spoilt my working relationships with colleagues at work, some of whom were even ultra right Tories. Most people are intelligent and thankfully tolerant and respect each others views. Believe it or not even in this age honesty is apperciated by most people, often even by most in police.

Because I used to give rough ride to certain Chief Constable John Duke as member of the Police Authority, some coconuts from our so called black community's self appointed leaders decided to meet Duke and tried to kiss his back side by explaining that they do not like me and virtually offered to be his toilet papers. I was told few years later by one of the uncle Toms involved that the CC virtually blew their eardrums, and lectured them on rights of elected representatives of the people, which he intended to defend.

Neither Mahatama Gandhi nor even Stalin had any problem in their working relationships with Winston Churchill.

I have always been on hard left (of real variety and have never been member of any factions) but I get on very well with many Tories. Because I respect their right to hold their views and they respect mine.

End of the day honesty and commitment is apperciated by most, fake smiles are not.

I have no idea what makes you suggest I am objecting to people like you using artificial IDs. I have clearly stated they have the right to do so as rules of most sites allow it. But I have different views so on principle always use my own name or sometime nick name.

As to me you come across as basically a nice person, who may do with bit of more confidence, I request you not to spin me views to suit your argument. You may have noticed I mostly only post my comment and do not respond a lot to others.

Do you not even read your own posts?

Here's what you opened with, that provoked my response:

"So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities"

Your pretence that you "have no idea" what makes me think you object is disingenuous at best.

Leaving that aside for a second, I'm open-mouthed in disbelief that you (as a self-professed member of the left) are using the terms "uncle toms" and "coconut".

These terms are racist Paramjit. No ambiguity here, no hesitation, no room for debate. You are using racist terms. Please don't.

I'm staggered tbh.

loosehead wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

loosehead wrote:
As write in letters to the echo I saw no problem posting my name under the original article.
If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms but I can see with some of the threats hidden or open aimed at me in the past why people want to hide their name/identity.
But anyone in public life or married to a politician shouldn't make these type of remarks no matter who they're aimed at.
I agree if you don't want you're ID known the Echo shouldn't print it

"If these posts are about true debate there should be no use of pseudonyms"

Quite the opposite. If people are to be free to post their true opinions, even if they are unpopular ones, or iconoclastic, or controversial, then they need to be able to do so anonymously.

Taking myself as an example. My views are pretty left wing, and I occasionally take an active part in campaigns against inequality. I also work in a fairly responsible job, and it's very possible that some of my more senior colleagues may hold more 'conservative' views. Having to post under my real name may restrict my freedom of expression, out of fear that it may have a detrimental effect on professional relationships and career prospects.

To clarify, I have no reason to believe that it really would cause a problem in my workplace. But I have no way of knowing, and would prefer not to take risks with my livelihood.

People *shouldn't* be discriminated against in the workplace for their views, but the truth is that it happens - both deliberately and inadvertently. The use of a pseudonym allows people to post what they really think without fear of unjust repercussions.

We have the right to keep our professional and personal lives separate (with some exceptions). Unless using a pseudonym at work (which is generally frowned on...), this necessitates the use of a pseudonym when using a public forum such as this.

The same argument applies to those on the other end of the political spectrum. I may not 'like' what right-wingers post, but I believe in their freedom to express it.

So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities... Hardly surprising it has become well paid PC correct industry and heaven for fake lefties and liberals of convenience. Mostly people who behave like priests!

With no disrespect to Loosehead I am surprised a former rugby player and coach may feel threatened by some kids posting views opposing Tories.

I am old man never hide behind pseudonym/s. Have never felt threatened nor have been physically harmed by anybody from this site.

Southy is favourite target of right wingers on this site, he has always used his nickname with real name well known... He is still around, or was earlier on. But then he actually believes in what he says.

Herald in Scotland encourages contributors to use real names. Could it be because Scots have greater courage, convictions and are less hypocrites?... I think they deserve independence and to enjoy benefits of Socialist Republic of Scotland.

Will be nice if Echo adopts Herald's approach, although Editor Murray may not support freedom for Scotland.. Tories do not.

Paramjit I did post my real name & no I'm not scared of the likes of Lone Ranger or Inform Al or Ant Smoking.
But I have a wife & can see why after some of the things suggested to me why people keep their ID hidden.
I honestly believe in a debating site this shouldn't be the case & I hope no of the idiots try to track me down.
I don't agree with your politics but some times admit you're right & I'm wrong.
this is genuine debating but some can't see the truth if you put it under their noses & just start to call you names & then start threatening you.
I'm seriously considering when to comment now as I could handle them myself but my wife comes first.
as of now I've had no knocks on the door so have you or Southy been threatened or had people stop you & threatened you yet?

No, in fact most of the threats I used to get were when I was member of the Labour Party!!! Yes that is true. Some of them used to be due to my skin colour others because I had habit of confronting their hypocrisy on various issues. Any way as i was not exactly been a saint, so can't complain.

What is happening to our councillors Don and Keith now is nothing new, only change is that control freakery in NuLabour has increased many times more than days of old Labour.

This site has never ever caused me any problems.

I am sure everybody will understand your consideration for your wife.

Please be assured people you have mentioned, I do know some of them, are not at all bad. If you are in problem they probably will be the first to offer you help. All of us on left hold strong views and have our style of expressing, often with tongue in cheek.

By the way, I did briefly speak to Don about Erskin Court, looks like some lady may have given you wrong information. I will get details one day and let you know. Only guessing, we may even know who that lady may be and her reasons.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Dear Can't think of one,

I have been around long enough to have experienced all kinds of problems, some time I conquered them and sometime came against brick walls.

Confronting problems head on has never spoilt my working relationships with colleagues at work, some of whom were even ultra right Tories. Most people are intelligent and thankfully tolerant and respect each others views. Believe it or not even in this age honesty is apperciated by most people, often even by most in police.

Because I used to give rough ride to certain Chief Constable John Duke as member of the Police Authority, some coconuts from our so called black community's self appointed leaders decided to meet Duke and tried to kiss his back side by explaining that they do not like me and virtually offered to be his toilet papers. I was told few years later by one of the uncle Toms involved that the CC virtually blew their eardrums, and lectured them on rights of elected representatives of the people, which he intended to defend.

Neither Mahatama Gandhi nor even Stalin had any problem in their working relationships with Winston Churchill.

I have always been on hard left (of real variety and have never been member of any factions) but I get on very well with many Tories. Because I respect their right to hold their views and they respect mine.

End of the day honesty and commitment is apperciated by most, fake smiles are not.

I have no idea what makes you suggest I am objecting to people like you using artificial IDs. I have clearly stated they have the right to do so as rules of most sites allow it. But I have different views so on principle always use my own name or sometime nick name.

As to me you come across as basically a nice person, who may do with bit of more confidence, I request you not to spin me views to suit your argument. You may have noticed I mostly only post my comment and do not respond a lot to others.

Do you not even read your own posts?

Here's what you opened with, that provoked my response:

"So people like you lack courage, have not exactly solid but flexible convictions/ commitments to very serious issues like equalities"

Your pretence that you "have no idea" what makes me think you object is disingenuous at best.

Leaving that aside for a second, I'm open-mouthed in disbelief that you (as a self-professed member of the left) are using the terms "uncle toms" and "coconut".

These terms are racist Paramjit. No ambiguity here, no hesitation, no room for debate. You are using racist terms. Please don't.

I'm staggered tbh.

Yes unlike posers, do gooders, church priests, soft left and SWP members I have never been politically correct.

You may remember that South African chief of Aparethied times, (cant remember traitors name) who used to kiss that obnoxious regimes @rse, I have never had any time for people like that, or Indian Maharajas and other Chiefs.

In UK liberals and pseudo left has created versions of those in our so called ethnic minority communities. These patronising approaches have kept on dividing us the people and harmed the lives of many young people.

Stop paying lip service by keep on lecturing people about jam jars, and make ups or what to call Xmas etc, it only winds and divides the people.

Real problems are economic issues, lack of housing collapsing of health service, failing schools, shortage of jobs and ever increasing gap between the haves and have nots, none of those can simply be solved by posing lefties who keep on about how people express. And the real problems make the lives of all of us difficult.

Words I have used are from the language of slaves used for defining traitors and enemies within the camp. Now often used by frustrated young blacks and Asians to describe self appointed so called leaders of ethnic communities mostly created by colonial minded political establishment's left of centre parts, to which you MAY BELONG.

Please do not tempt me to expose hypocritical records of some people of convenient left, as this is an open forum and I do not want to provide right wingers with amo to use against even pseudo left. But feel free to meet me, I may be able to explain some real problems and main culprits, provided you pay for your own coffee as I am not that rich.

Good night.

Thank you for that confirmation.

You are a racist Paramjit Bahia.

No two ways about it.

The tragedy is that you don't even realise it.

cantthinkofone wrote:
Thank you for that confirmation.

You are a racist Paramjit Bahia.

No two ways about it.

The tragedy is that you don't even realise it.

I have never ever lost my cool on anybody on this site before, because I always respect and even defend others right to express their opinion.

But you stuck up self appointed do gooding coward snob who may have a good job and look down upon dust men, have managed to test even my limits.

So tell you gutless coward that I do not give a **** what you think. My life long record of having fought for equalities and social justice for all is public, have the courage to tell us your real name so we may check on what you may or may not have done.

If you have not got the guts to do that do not expect response from me.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
Thank you for that confirmation.

You are a racist Paramjit Bahia.

No two ways about it.

The tragedy is that you don't even realise it.

I have never ever lost my cool on anybody on this site before, because I always respect and even defend others right to express their opinion.

But you stuck up self appointed do gooding coward snob who may have a good job and look down upon dust men, have managed to test even my limits.

So tell you gutless coward that I do not give a **** what you think. My life long record of having fought for equalities and social justice for all is public, have the courage to tell us your real name so we may check on what you may or may not have done.

If you have not got the guts to do that do not expect response from me.

You're angry because you know that what I've stated is true.

"Uncle Tom"?
"Coconut"?

Both terms that rely on the presumption that there's a certain way of acting according to your skin colour.

Racist.

cantthinkofone wrote:
Come on now!

Cllr Thorpe's wife has apologised for her offensive remarks.

When is council candidate Bahia going to apologise for his racist ones?

Hardly surprising due to your lack of knowledge you dare not disclose your real name and as a coward keep on hiding behind assumed name for posting complete lies and insults.

You obviously are stupid to keep on imagining as now you have made me a 'Council candidate'. Prove it or stop becoming a troll by posting lies

Good bye LIAR

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
Come on now!

Cllr Thorpe's wife has apologised for her offensive remarks.

When is council candidate Bahia going to apologise for his racist ones?

Hardly surprising due to your lack of knowledge you dare not disclose your real name and as a coward keep on hiding behind assumed name for posting complete lies and insults.

You obviously are stupid to keep on imagining as now you have made me a 'Council candidate'. Prove it or stop becoming a troll by posting lies

Good bye LIAR

The start of this whole debate was about the reasons for anonymity. Do you think I'll change my position on that because of some goading from someone the left nationally refer to as "Barmy Parmy"? Do me a favour, lol.

You used the terms "Uncle tom" and "coconut". That's not a lie. The evidence is on this very page, for all to see.

They are racist terms, and you have so far refused to apologise for using them. In my book, that makes you a racist.

Do you somehow not understand why they're racist?

I find it hard to believe that you're that obtuse. But just in case...

They are allegorical statements that someone is "black on the outside but white on the inside". Extending that, they are accusations that a black person is 'acting like' a white person. That's loaded with a massive presumption that black people should behave in x manner. Those terms possess an inherent racism in their presumption that there's a certain way to act depending on colour. They categorise the black community, and attempt to herd black people into mental and social pens

Hugely offensive, and without a shadow of a doubt, racist.

Apologise, Mr Bahia.

For your own sake, if nothing else. Should you have any further political ambitions, I can't imagine that this would improve your standing amongst the black community of Southampton.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
Come on now!

Cllr Thorpe's wife has apologised for her offensive remarks.

When is council candidate Bahia going to apologise for his racist ones?

Hardly surprising due to your lack of knowledge you dare not disclose your real name and as a coward keep on hiding behind assumed name for posting complete lies and insults.

You obviously are stupid to keep on imagining as now you have made me a 'Council candidate'. Prove it or stop becoming a troll by posting lies

Good bye LIAR

The start of this whole debate was about the reasons for anonymity. Do you think I'll change my position on that because of some goading from someone the left nationally refer to as "Barmy Parmy"? Do me a favour, lol.

You used the terms "Uncle tom" and "coconut". That's not a lie. The evidence is on this very page, for all to see.

They are racist terms, and you have so far refused to apologise for using them. In my book, that makes you a racist.

Do you somehow not understand why they're racist?

I find it hard to believe that you're that obtuse. But just in case...

They are allegorical statements that someone is "black on the outside but white on the inside". Extending that, they are accusations that a black person is 'acting like' a white person. That's loaded with a massive presumption that black people should behave in x manner. Those terms possess an inherent racism in their presumption that there's a certain way to act depending on colour. They categorise the black community, and attempt to herd black people into mental and social pens

Hugely offensive, and without a shadow of a doubt, racist.

Apologise, Mr Bahia.

For your own sake, if nothing else. Should you have any further political ambitions, I can't imagine that this would improve your standing amongst the black community of Southampton.

I too am shocked!!

Sometimes Param goes off on one, but I have never ever known him use terms such as this.

At first I never made any sense of the 'words' so googled them and they are indeed racist terms.

Param, this is most unlike you.

I’m coming in very late on this discussion due to being away on holiday. I read the article in the Echo of 1st September with increasing fury. What a blatant piece of politically motivated journalism, even by Echo standards. It’s also a clear breach of the Echo’s privacy policy, a point already well made by many on this site. I think the local press is important. However I won’t be buying the Echo again, and will be “resigning” from this blog, until the editor apologises for printing the article and for the breach of the privacy. I won’t hold my breath. The Power of the Press indeed!