Thursday, 8 August 2013

It's time to talk about the BBC


Yesterday the local BBC radio held a discussion on the very worthy subject of safe internet use.

This comes at a time when there has been a national news story about some of the horrendous abuse people have received on Twitter, particularly women who have committed the unthinkable crime of having an opinion and not being the right gender.

There have been threats of murder, rape and all sorts of other nasty things. This is a really serious issue, because huge numbers of people are able to get away with making such disgusting and cowardly threats that make innocent people fear for their safety. And worse than this, there have also been several stories in the news about young people who have been driven to suicide because of bullying online by "trolls".

So any dialogue on the subject is certainly worth having.

Jersey is not isolated from this and there are people in Jersey who make it their business to try and make other people as miserable as possible over the internet. In particular, there is at least one person we know of, who is doing his best to abuse what the internet gives us, to try and demoralise, defame and demotivate anyone who stands up for something in Jersey, be that for democracy, for social democratic politics or (and this is the most sinister part) for the victims of historic child abuse in Jersey.

I engaged with a discussion with some BBC employees over Facebook because of the topic they were choosing to discuss and the hypocrisy I saw behind it and now I feel compelled to tell the story that needs to be on public record.

But first, let me get this out of the way - I love the BBC. I think the quality programming it creates, the upcoming artists it helps support and the impartial national news coverage it provides is first class and something that Britain should be incredibly proud of. All you have to do is watch 5 minutes of American news coverage (Fox News especially) to realise how lucky we are to have such an excellent broadcaster.

Not only that, but I regularly deal with people on all levels of the local media (that's the JEP, CTV, the BBC and 103), and have pretty much never found a journalist or other media worker who has not been incredibly helpful and friendly. I am not exaggerating when I say that.

You can often best judge an individual or institution by how they handle their complaints. A couple of summers ago I was organising the Jersey Dead concert that I do every year (held this year at the Watersplash on the 30th and 31st August, be there!) and felt quite aggrieved at being snubbed by the BBC in favour of Jersey Live. I thought it was unfair that coverage in the BBC Introducing program was focusing purely on Jersey Live (which was mainly UK bands and could afford to pay for advertising) to the exclusion of a not-for-profit small event with only local bands and needed help advertising. When Ryan Morrison (the presenter of the show) asked me to be put on the guest list for Jersey Dead so he could cover it after the event (when really we needed coverage before it), I complained to him about how he had run the Introducing program and various other things. His reaction to my complaint was absolutely superb. We engaged in a proper dialogue, he apologised for some things, fairly justified other things and I saw a noticeable improvement in the program from then on.

That is how you deal with a complaint.

So what I have to say now is nothing against the BBC in general, especially not the decent people who work there. But here goes...

There is a rather sad individual out there that most of us know of. His name is James.... or is it Julie? Or Sue? Or Alan? Well, he has lots of names.

The main name he uses is James Le Gallais. He runs a pretty pathetic blog (which I don't intend on giving publicity to) under this name. The blog focuses on this individuals rather creepy obsession with Deputies Shona and Trevor Pitman. I have even made a guest appearance on it, along with some pretty petulant remark about my gender being ambiguous because I have long hair (that is the level of intellectual analysis you'll find on that blog). His speciality at the moment is defending a man who recently presided over a court case in which he had a conflict that should have made him withdraw, and who most, in private, will say that he shouldn't even be a Jurat because of his terrible judgement and refusal to consider evidence (something that is sort of important for a Jurat) during the Jervis-Dykes affair. You can come to your own conclusions about what motivates someone like this.

I could go on further about this blog and individual, but don't want to entertain him. He is basically,a thoroughly unpleasant and sinister character.

You could just ignore him and it would never bother anyone and he might even eventually give up. But here is the problem - the local BBC refuses to ignore him and even actively engages with him.

He runs two other fake Facebook accounts called "Julie Hanning" and "Sue Young" (another one called "Alan Gower" used to exist but is now gone for some reason). Both are so blatantly fakes. One was created on the same day as James Le Gallais, and the other was created on the day that the Leah McGrath Goodman interview on YouTube went viral (so was obviously created just to get stuck in to the hysteria online and fan the flames).

They all contribute to any thread they can on the BBC page that is vaguely able to be linked up to his pet hates, and interject with mostly insulting nonsense and hijacking the threads. The BBC regularly read out comments on the air, including some by these fake accounts.

The BBC have been complained to several times for the fact that they let these fake accounts spoil their Facebook page. Their page should be a place for discussion from all sides on the topics they put forward, not an excuse for some faceless troll to spread their poison.

But despite complaint after complaint, the BBC have consistently refused to do anything about it. It is only since I have managed to speak to Ryan Morrison (the journalist I mentioned before) that he has officially gotten the regional BBC to look at it (who knows what that will culminate in, if anything).

The BBC should have no part whatsoever in giving a platform to malicious and bogus accounts, using fake identities to malign other people and if they are not trying to tackle it, they are failing the licence fee payers.


Where things get really bad is here -

On the 5th of March this year, Jon Gripton, the head of BBC Jersey, posted this on Twitter -


For those that don't know, "ShonaThickman" was a Twitter account set up (I am almost certain by the same person in charge of the other accounts I've identified) to bully Deputy Shona Pitman. It was not a parody account (parodies are meant to be funny), it was there purely to insult her and to belittle her for things that no human being, regardless of their politics, deserves to be belittled for. I don't really want to go into why some of the comments were particularly offensive about Shona, because they are to do with her private life, but they were pretty horrendous. I have met Shona maybe 4 or 5 times and she has always been absolutely lovely, and so certainly doesn't deserve the sheer viciousness she was subjected to by this person.

But here were have the head of the local BBC actually endorsing and promoting a bully.

Naturally this upset a few people and he was faced immediately with a backlash of complaints, some from myself. Very quickly, his Twitter account disappeared without a trace. We presumed that he had realised he had messed up and was withdrawing for a while.

Had Gripton simply Tweeted something "Yeah, you're right, sorry I didn't realise it was a hate-site. I'll try and be more careful in future" then nothing more would ever have come from this and that would have been the end of that. But instead it gets worse.

He returned to Twitter a month and a half later with a new account. He left no explanation as to why he was ever gone, and took the astounding step of pre-emptively blocking all of those that had complained against him previously. Despite the fact the complaints were entirely legitimate (and clearly well grounded, given that he left Twitter over them), his first step was to make sure he blocked everyone who had shown that they were willing to hold him to account if he messed up. Now, I don't care if I am blocked by someone, I won't lose sleep over it. But I am bugged by someone who is essentially a public servant taking steps to actively ensure that they are less accountable.

That alone should be a cause for concern.

So the first thing I did was complain to the national BBC. Here is what I said -

"The Editor of the BBC in Jersey, Jon Gripton, left Twitter several months ago. No explanation was left, though it coincided with a series of complaints that I and several others made at the time after he had endorsed on Twitter a renown troll and bully, describing it as "amusing". I and many others were sickened to see a BBC Editor promote an account set up to bully and mock a female politician in Jersey. I have complained to Gripton several times about the local BBC engaging with an internet troll and he has never dealt with my complaints satisfactorily. Though nothing was said, I had presumed that he had left Twitter for reasons connected to the backlash he faced for his disgraceful behaviour on Twitter. I was one of those that complained directly to him over Twitter and to the BBC. However recently he has returned to Twitter using a new account. I have gone to "follow" it so I can keep up to date with local BBC goings on and also to keep an eye on his behaviour, however he has personally blocked me from following him. I find this outrageous as my only crime has been to report him when he has acted disgracefully. He is evidently just trying to cover his back by pre-emptively blocking those who have the backbone to stand up to him when he is out of order. I have never insulted him nor threatened him. I can't imagine for a moment this is in line with BBC policies on openness and being accountable to the public."

Their reply was as follows -

"Thanks for contacting us regarding Jon Gripton. We note you are unhappy Mr Gripton has blocked you from following him on Twitter. We have raised your concerns with the relevant editorial staff at the BBC. They advised that they have alerted Mr Gripton to your complaint, but as the Twitter account is a personal account, he is free to block whom he likes. With regard to Mr Gripton’s previous Twitter activity, he strongly disagrees with any suggestion that he has endorsed bullying, whether it be physical, mental or online and takes such allegations very seriously. Thanks for the bringing the matter to our attention."
I dispute that it is his personal account. It may say on it that it is personal account, but virtually everything he posts on it is connected to BBC business. But as you can see, he totally dodged making a real point on his endorsement of a bully. It was never alleged that he endorsed "bullying" but that he endorsed "a bully". The two are not the same thing and he obviously chose his words carefully to get around that accusation. Instead he could have simply said "Yeah, you're right, sorry I didn't realise it was a hate-site. I'll try and be more careful in future" but he just can't accept that he messed up and refuses to allow any plebs to hold him to account.

It is yesterdays discussion that has convinced me that this story needed to be told.

Bullying is a horrible thing. I'm lucky in that I was never bullied to any worrying extent (I went to Grainville where everyone got a punch at least once a week and a name called every few hours, but nothing that ever got me down), but it affects some worse than others and evidently can drive some to suicide.

There is no room for bullying in society whatsoever. It has to be tackled, not tolerated and certainly not covered up.

The BBC was engaging in a discussion in which they were being totally hypocritical because they could not address the bullying going on on their own page, which could so easily be sorted simply by blocking the accounts and by the head of the BBC engaging his brain a bit before endorsing a bully on Twitter.

I don't blame the ordinary staff and journalists at the BBC. It is evidently a problem with the leadership who aren't treating this seriously. Frankly, the BBC refusing to allow itself to be held to account has led to some pretty nasty revelations that we have heard over the past year and if lessons are not learnt, there is nothing to stop it happening again.

Bullies must be stood up to, not engaged with, so when you see the BBC or any other media outlet engaging with these people (or "this person" I should say), stand up to them and let them be known that online bullying is totally unacceptable.

I know that for writing this blog I will no doubt be the subject of a real slander attempt by the troll who will cook up all sorts of lies against me to try and distract from this persons own sick antics. He already spent part of the referendum campaign lying trying to say I had a financial interest in Option A winning (good thing I didn't!), he has also posted comments on other blogs alleging I am being mentored by current Deputies on how to break the postal vote law and other nonsense.

Should I be flattered that he considers me worth dedicating his time to, or should I be very worried that some stranger has this obsession with me?

Also, I say to any potential commenters - be aware of the touchy nature of this subject and do try and be careful when posting comments about other individuals here. As usual I want to publish all comments, but we must make sure we aren't slanderous.


Cheers,
Sam


118 comments:

  1. You make some good points. But while you noted the different wording between "endorsed bullying" and "endorsed a bully", the person reading it may not have done. I'm often amazed at how people don't read carefully and read what they expect to read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You might like to consider this example of the disruptive Troll with the BBC as complicit.

    Deputy Trevor Pitman appeared on the BBC Radio Jersey’s ‘Politics Hour’ on Sunday (4th Aug 1.52 in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01csj5r) and was asked a question by the presenter from a known Troll. The Deputy pointed out that “James Le Gallais” was not a real person, merely a pseudonym, and that the BBC was aware of this. The presenter, rather naively, persisted in asking the question. The other guest sniggered; amused by the revelation.

    The Deputy was correct to point out the question was from a troll.

    The presenter failed to realise the embarrassment and error which she then compounded.

    The other guest did not think the matter an important one upon which to dwell.

    Given the function of the Troll is to be disruptive and demotivating, should they not just be ignored? There are more important issues to be addressed than an obsession with swatting flies.

    However the role of the BBC is somewhat more insidious, operating always from the position of received opinion.

    Recently the BBC has sought to strictly limit debate within very narrow confines and marginalise dissent.
    The two hour Sunday politics programme “Talkback” was taken off air abruptly and without consultation in the months leading up to an election in 2011. This had allowed the public to phone in and interact with the two politicians or other invited guests. The lunchtime phone-in, aptly named the ‘moan in’, also disappeared. The agenda may have been controlled but at least there were genuine voices from the poor, even if it was at times prejudiced. The fractious opinion of regular contributors to Talkback and the lunchtime phone-in was considered unrepresentative.

    Today all is sanitized. The public is rarely allowed to phone in. The Sunday Politics Hour has become increasingly banal and deliberately uncontroversial. Guests are chosen for their social status and their presence seems merely to flatter since their knowledge and opinion is quite limited. This is surely dumbing down personified.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I listened to this and the question was legit no matter who asked it.
      Nick you have used excuses such as this to avoid taking difficult questions during elections and thats something we never see the likes of Ozouf & Co ever doing.
      "Oh I won't answer that its from a troll"
      Come on show some backbone for a change!

      Delete
    2. When did this become about Nick?

      We're talking about the BBC.

      Regardless of if the question was legitimate or not (I happen to think the question was idiotic and malicious) the BBC should not be engaging with proven trolls, especially when this trolls specialist subject is Pitman Pitman Pitman, and a bit Syvret every now and then.

      Delete
    3. What is a 'proven troll'?

      If someone disagrees with me on-line, can I call them a troll?

      Delete
    4. No and no one has ever said that it what a troll is.

      A troll is someone who uses fake identities to malign others and post malicious comments online.

      Disagreement as nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    5. Can you please give some examples of malicious comments?

      Delete
    6. I'll give you one (further the one I have already given about myself) -

      "It must be agonising for Shona Pitman, living with a lunatic. Her expectations for a happy life are extremely slim. He is going to drag her through unhappy times for years. She must be in the depths of unhappiness. Where is this debacle all going to end for her."

      If you want more, they are all over the internet.

      Delete
    7. How do you distinguish a malicious comment from a genuinely held belief that sounds malicious? Its a very grey area.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Nicely avoided Sam.

      Delete
    10. It wasn't avoided, I had posted my comment before I had seen and approved yours actually.

      As for your comment, if you don't think comments like "fuck off and die" or calling me "Samantha" or making fun of Shona Pitman for issues in her private life are anything other than malicious, then there is no point in continuing the conversation.

      Delete
    11. Sam, my question (repeated here "How do you distinguish a malicious comment from a genuinely held belief that sounds malicious? Its a very grey area.") was perfectly valid. I was seeking your opinion.

      Of course 'f off and die' is malicious. But many comments are borderline and any categorisation as malicious might have to take into account the intent of the person making the comment (which is difficult to know with an on-line discussion).

      Where did I say that I didn't think comments like "f off and die" were malicious?

      Delete
  3. Since posting this blog, this comment has appeared on the trolls blog -

    "Sam Mézec ("Samantha") is becoming a Pitman stooge.

    You got to laugh, Samantha keeps on going on about alleged fake Facebook accounts but never seems to report them to Facebook in the usual 'normal' way. No instead he attacks the BBC for reading out comments from people that go against his outdated leftie political views. Samantha also keeps on claiming that former Jurat Le Breton should never have been a Jurat because he helped conceal child abuse. Take note John Le Breton of this worm. Its also incredible how he keeps on going on about a parody Twitter account followed by the BBC whilst following others that evidently mock this Blog and members of the public. Yes these hypocrites really are for real because the Pitman Blog to me is as worse as the Vile Blog which he worships. Keep up the good work!"

    Proving virtually every single one my points.

    This stuff is just too funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, I don't see any " threats of murder, rape and all sorts of other nasty things" in this post. It's pretty tame compared to some political blogs I could mention.

      Delete
    2. There are no other blogs that defend those that tried to conceal child abuse and none that target those trying to get justice for those that were abused. I don't consider that tame.

      Delete
  4. Sam.

    The culture within the BBC that enabled Savile to prey on his victims for decades is displayed here once again. Turning a blind eye, and ignoring, "evidence" of a prolific Troll who has, and continues to spread hate against very vulnerable people. BBC Jersey also regularly reads out comments from the Troll while ignoring comments from real people. I too complained about BBC staff promoting hate-sites and ended up getting THREATENED.

    The Savile cutlure, in my opinion, is as prevalent in the BBC today as it ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is the troll a BBC employee?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sir

    I would be interested in your view of Deputy Trevor Pitman's approach to dealing with the troll? Do you endorse his provocative posts to the troll on his blog or do you think he should simply hit delete?

    What are your views on whether or not extreme trolling could be considered a mental illness?

    As for your comments on the Jurat and whether or not he was conflicted, this is far from black and white. If you haven't already, I would read the report of the the recent appeal

    http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2013/13-07-29_Pitmans-v-JEP_and_1st_Jersey_JCA_149.htm&JudgementNo=[2013]JCA149


    And what is your view on people like Stuart Syvret tweeting that the States are 'cow-shagging rednecks' and such like? Is this responsible behaviour or inviting the response of trolls? Or Deputy Pitman's constant insulting language aimed at our CM and Sir PB?

    Perhaps those in the social media limelight have a responsibility to lead by example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any comment on this Sam?

      Delete
  7. I can see why they are laughing at this elsewhere.

    Its pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, I thought you were busy at the Battle of Flowers and couldn't post more anonymous comments pretending to be other people?

      And who is "they"? Sue and Julie? Come on, stop treating us like fools.

      Delete
    2. How did you know the anonymous post was from James?

      Delete
    3. It has all his trademarks and the timing of the comment coincided with other actions of his.

      Delete
  8. No more comments are to be published from James, they are incredibly dull.

    In the meantime, watch out for the special on me that he's preparing on his blog. How do I know he is doing that? Julie Hanning suggested so, and since that is the same person, it sounds a safe bet!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The problem with our social media is that several of our high profile bloggers are totally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their views.

    Several bloggers are so extreme and blinkered that even a slight questioning of their so called 'facts' (which are mostly opinions) is usually met with condescending remarks or even outright abuse.

    Anyone who doubts this just needs to read Trevor Pitman's blog, or for a real experience, try and engage in debate with him!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry anonymous but you have totally missed the point of this blog.

      What other bloggers do or say is nothing to do with me and I haven't made any comment on it.

      We are talking about the BBC engaging with an individual who has created several fake identities which he uses to be as disruptive as he can and to malign anyone to do with any progressive cause or the campaign for justice for victims of child abuse.

      That is what we are talking about.

      As I've demonstrated in this blog, this individual does exist and the activities I have attributed to him do go on and the BBC isn't dealing with it.

      Delete
    2. I haven't missed the point of your blog. I was simply making a comment about the abusive nature of some bloggers. It's not just trolls that are abusive. I have been called all sorts of things by bloggers and my only crime has been to politely disagree.

      Delete
    3. Whatever bloggers have said to you, they have done with their identities known and not fake profiles.

      I also suspect no blogger has ever told you to "Just fuck off and die".

      The two are not comparable.

      Delete
    4. Yes, their identities were known. No, they haven't said anything quite so bad. I agree they are not comparable. But I believe my comment was still valid and relevant?

      Delete
    5. A valid opinion, but not relevant to the subject. We're talking about an institution that is funded by the people that is tolerating online bullying and actively aiming to cover it up.

      Individuals aggrieving various people is irritating, but not an institutional problem.

      Delete
  10. Jon Gripton breached the BBC's own code and should be disciplined. It was obvious from his original Tweet that he was enjoying the idea of someone trolling the Pitmans, in fact, he found it 'very amusing'. Given the sensitive nature of the subject - there was a court case involved - he should never have got involved.

    Here are a few points from the BBCs guidelines to staff:

    "The personal use of the internet by BBC staff must be tempered by an awareness of the potential conflicts that may arise.

    There should be a clear division between "BBC" pages and "personal" pages.

    On Social Networking sites, you should be mindful that the information you disclose does not bring the BBC into disrepute."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-blogs-personal-summary

    ReplyDelete
  11. Suggestions of murder, rape and other threats of violence are indefensible, and have no part on, or offline. No argument here. There are a couple of other issues in your post however which might be interesting to consider from a different perspective.

    What you appear to be asking the BBC to do is to decide, (or rather decide to agree with you) as to whether a number of Facebook identities are 'real' or 'fake'. I can see that it is their role to decide whether posts are suitable for publication, but not whether the identities of those making those posts are real or fake.

    I would imagine you first line of recourse would be with Facebook to see whether they believe that their service is being abused, and if they agreed, they would withdraw the service from the person(s) concerned.

    You would know this better than me, however I'm also not sure whether operating multiple Facebook accounts is against any law ? It may well be against your own sense of ethical or moral behaviour to carry on in this manner, but is it illegal ? (and therefore is there really a reason, other than your personal distaste, for the BBC to cease publishing comments they have no reason to believe are from invalid sources, other than the fact that you and others believe, but cannot prove, these sources are invalid ?

    'The BBC should have no part whatsoever in giving platform to malicious or bogus accounts' - Malicious I agree, bogus I don't believe is their role. Is a comment less valid because the commenters identity is not real ?

    John Gripton's Twitter account was a personal Twitter account, no matter the subjects discussed, or his role. In much the same manner, your personal account is yours, and, when you stray into criticism of certain people, doesn't necessarily represent Reform Jersey's, Option A's or indeed the Labour Party's views on these same people. I'm sure that you will be at pains to establish exactly this fact if you are asked about any online comment you have made by a potential employer. Your complaint to the BBC appears to centre on the personal views of one of its staff, (albeit a senior staff member), and is therefore the business of the staff member, not the BBC. (Albeit that he may have been embarrassed about it afterwards, given his behaviour).








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be clear, I've never suggested anything was illegal.

      Facebook rules are that all accounts are meant to be genuine and contain no false information. So these accounts are illegitimate and in breach of Facebook's rules.

      The problem is there are hundreds of millions of people on Facebook and it is impossible for them to be totally effective in wiping out bogus accounts. One of the trolls accounts has managed to be disabled after reporting it, but the other 3 remain.

      The BBC is meant to be impartial. It has to allow fair representation from all sides of the argument in it's coverage. That does not mean that some parties are allowed to form bogus groups and profiles to give the impression that their view is more widely held than it actually is.

      On your last point, check out Rob Kent's comment above. Gripton's account is subject to BBC guidelines, regardless if it is personal or not. A BBC editor promoting a bully brings the organisation into disrepute, especially when you combine that with his unwillingness to take action on trolls on the Facebook page.

      Delete
  12. Do you ever get the feeling you're being trolled Sam? Your chosen topic is the actions of the BBC and Jon Gripton promoting trolls. How many comments on here reflect that topic and how many attack bloggers? If the comment doesn't reflect the topic of your blog (Gripton and trolls) then don't publish it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely the debate on trolling can include comment on the example set by prominent bloggers? Why would that in itself constitute trolling?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 16:56,

      I always try to publish as many comments as possible, but sometimes it's hard to tell what is a genuine comment and what is the troll trying to be moderate so he can slip through the gaps.

      Anonymous at 17:10,

      This isn't a blog about trolling, it's a blog about the BBC. So I think other bloggers attitudes are irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. "Bullies must be stood up to, not engaged with, so when you see the BBC or any other media outlet engaging with these people (or "this person" I should say), stand up to them and let them be known that online bullying is totally unacceptable."

      Unless the other 'media outlet' is a blog?

      Delete
    4. You clearly have an agenda. There is no other blog or person who runs a blog that engages in anything even close to as bad as "James Le Gallais".

      Delete
    5. I don't have an agenda. I'm used to a business environment where everyone speaks their mind with politeness and respect and all views are welcomed into the debate. The blog world is very foreign to me. It does not welcome debate. I hadn't commented on any blogs for a few months and you have reminded me of why I stopped. There are attempts to raise important issues by me and others in the comments above but you have treated them with contempt. I'm not trying to defend the troll or trolls. Their behavior is appalling. But I am not one of them. You will not find a single insult or bad language in any post I have ever made. Ever. I may agree with much of what you say but the point of debate is to explore areas where differences lie so that progress can be made towards better understanding of the world we live in. You believe the BBC should not engage with trolls. I agree. I believe that bloggers should not engage with trolls. Your opinion would have been of interest to me.

      Delete
    6. Any reason why you didn't post my reply?

      Delete
    7. Yes, I was out with friends for the evening, not sat behind a computer.

      The points you made in that comment would have been the best ones to start with.

      Forgive my frustration when I post a blog about the serious issue of the BBC endorsing bullying and their knee-jerk protectionism when they are complained to, and people try and distract the conversation to their grudges against other bloggers (who incidentally aren't me).

      Delete
  13. Keep up the good work, Sam.

    I see from VFC that the Troll has called me a Troll. That's enough to convince me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your real name????

      Delete
    2. Findable, if you follow the clicks.

      And yours?

      Is mise le meas (nó dímheas má's tuillte é)

      Pól Ó Duibhir

      Delete
  14. Nice work Sam good to see you bringing important issues into the open. People should never resort to trolling or personal attacks during debates, clearly they don't hold the mentality to prevail with intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The most important part of this posting is the posting itself Sam. People are intelligent enough to understand what you are saying without the comments. The game is but and old one but some wish to still play it as that is all they have.

    Move forward and use your energy wisely. Do not argue with those who's opinions will never change because they are not on here for facts.

    Trolls - or whatever they are called - are a side show.

    The main posting is what counts.

    Never underestimate peoples intelligence

    Good work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'The BBC is meant to be impartial. It has to allow fair representation from all sides of the argument in it's coverage. That does not mean that some parties are allowed to form bogus groups and profiles to give the impression that their view is more widely held than it actually is. '

    The BBC, as far as I am aware, does generally act impartially. What you seem to be asking is that they make a judgement as to the veracity of certain comments because of YOUR supposition that those comments are generated by 'fake' Facebook accounts. That is not their role, and would not be an impartial action. You are asking them to censor comments based upon your say so.

    If the comments are offensive then of course they should refuse to publish them. If on the other hand i disagree with your viewpoint, and I contact them to tell them to ban all comments from 'Sam mezec' because i believe it is a spoof account, is that fair ? Because without proof that the accounts you are complaining about are fake, that is tantamount to what you are asking them to do.

    Is that a fair assessment of the situation ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it isn't because it is based on the false premise that there isn't any proof that the accounts are fake. There is.

      Delete
    2. What proof ?

      Delete
    3. Why did Facebook refuse to close the accounts when you took them this proof ?

      Delete
    4. There are over a billion Facebook accounts, and over 83 million (at the last estimate) are fake. Facebook is useless at responding to things like this.

      Delete
    5. I don't mean to labour the point, but what proof did you take to Facebook ?

      Delete
    6. None. That isn't how the complaints procedure on Facebook works. You simply click "Report" and choose the option "Fake account". You aren't given an opportunity to justify the complaint with any notes or evidence.

      Delete
    7. I didn't know that, so thanks. Other than coincidences over the time the accounts were established (which could I suppose be because new people felt compelled to respond to events which were occurring, or comments that people were making), what irrefutable proof do you have of the accounts being fake that the BBC have failed to spot ?

      Delete
  17. They are politically motivated yet invisible.

    They are the empty chairs at their annual AGM

    They are prolific yet 'anonymous?'

    They have names yet do not step forward

    They must be fed or they will die

    They make me laugh

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rico is absolutely right.

    Your posting is excellent - and debate about its subject - the conduct of the BBC - and its staff - in Jersey is important, and the legitimate focus of debate & discussion.

    I'm afraid - as a reader above observed - you've been trolled; subjected to an endless cycle of repeat - and diversionary - comments that waste time and deflect from the real debate. As Rico said, that's all they have.

    I was speaking to another independent journalist recently, and we were observing just how remarkable - how telling it was - that, even today, the Jersey establishment have no equivalent; no grass-roots independent writers, no self-motivated intelligentsia. Instead, the best they have to offer is a cowardly deranged thug - who threatens women with violence - makes death-threats to people - uses multiple fake avatars - and always hides behind the cloak of anonymity.

    It is revealing of the fundamental decadence of the Jersey oligarchy.

    Turning to serious issues, I was the source who supplied the BBC in Jersey - and Jon Gripton directly - with a copy of the apocalyptic interim statement to Wiltshire, by Police Chief Graham Power.

    Why have the BBC failed to report that damning body of evidence?

    Why have they failed to do any follow-up journalism of their own on the many, many paths of inquiry and important public-interest discussions that arise from the matters in the document?

    Why does the BBC in Jersey refuse to engage in important public-interest journalism, & instead prefer to peddle & publicise juvenile hate-sights?

    Why did the BBC in Jersey shut-down the Sunday talkback program - in contrast with the BBC in Guernsey?

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart,

      Sam defines a troll as "A troll is someone who uses fake identities to malign others and post malicious comments online. Disagreement as nothing to do with it."

      You then say that Sam has been trolled i.e. "subjected to an endless cycle of repeat - and diversionary - comments that waste time and deflect from the real debate"

      I am going to assume that you are aiming that at me as I have posted some of the anonymous comments above. All my comments above have one purpose. To include in the debate the attitude of some bloggers towards trolls and how they may or may not be making the situation worse by not just hitting delete.

      I don't believe I have said anything rude, offensive or out of turn.

      Now all of a sudden I am a troll.

      Perhaps you have proved my points in 19:53 above (repeated here: "I don't have an agenda. I'm used to a business environment where everyone speaks their mind with politeness and respect and all views are welcomed into the debate. The blog world is very foreign to me. It does not welcome debate. I hadn't commented on any blogs for a few months and you have reminded me of why I stopped. There are attempts to raise important issues by me and others in the comments above but you have treated them with contempt. I'm not trying to defend the troll or trolls. Their behavior is appalling. But I am not one of them. You will not find a single insult or bad language in any post I have ever made. Ever. I may agree with much of what you say but the point of debate is to explore areas where differences lie so that progress can be made towards better understanding of the world we live in. You believe the BBC should not engage with trolls. I agree. I believe that bloggers should not engage with trolls. Your opinion would have been of interest to me."

      Delete
  19. Another good blog post, Sam.

    If we define trolling simply as compulsive online bullying, it's a bit clearer, I think.

    Regardless of political or personal views, a non-bully does not use other (real people's) names, falsely attributing made-up comments to them which are entirely untrue. I have been warned that your pet troll is using my name to post his own rants on his bully blog. Obviously, any comments on his blog are not from me. I have never read it. I certainly do not see any of the evidence-based bloggers in Jersey doing anything similar on their blogs.

    No matter how many times a trolling bully attempts to create a straw man argument about bloggers labeling him a troll just for disagreement of opinion, there is little relationship at all between trolling and strong but evidenced and logical opinion from any point of the political spectrum. Criticism need not be considered bullying or trolling when it is on-topic, and when it does not utterly disregard the evidenced information published on the topic. When a person uses a comment section to hijack and derail the blog topic, moving comments away from anything evidenced, it becomes an irrelevant conversation. A trolling bully will nearly always discount the evidenced topical information posted by a blogger, instead resorting to personal attacks which are meaningless to those in pursuit of quality information. The intelligent dispassionate comparisons of evidenced information is never his goal, although he will cry foul if his comments are treated as trolling, and attempt to mask his off-topic rants as a noble matter of his right to "free speech" versus the blogger's "censorship."

    Although I would agree the BBC has little obligation to verify the legitimacy of Facebook accounts before accepting the account for questions and comments, the troll in question is already well known to many at the Jersey BBC office, and this troll has played - and continues to play - a distinct roll in the courts. The troll's behaviour has led to discussion of related highly controversial court action in the UK Parliament. There is, in my view, no excuse at all for a publicly funded news outlet like the Jersey BBC to behave as if entirely ignorant of this notoriously troubled troll and his criminal past, enabling him to be used as a mentally ill pawn in their own political power struggles.

    What Mr Gripton has done is to use bullying language, albeit fairly tame, in attacking a politician personally, a politician he clearly he does not respect politically, and whom he apparently feels no obligation to treat professionally. Why the Jersey BBC outlet has remained outside the constraint of accepted professional journalistic ethics is a topic which I believe will be examined in a number of articles and books in the coming years, tied as it is to the local media's complicity in the concealment of child abuse, the BBC's disgraceful enabling of Jimmy Savile's abuses, and the utter fear of local media coverage of Jersey's systematic corruption.

    I believe the greatest fault of Mr Gripton, and by extension that of the local and national BBC, is the anti-journalism inherent in their contempt for the messenger, whether the messenger is a blogger, book author or politician attempting to hold power to some account. That professional activity, referred to as normal Western investigative journalism, is not something Mr Gripton appears to accept as the role of the Jersey BBC. It was not a one-off example when Mr Gripton expressed support for trolling behaviour, but rather an expression consistent with his career as an anti-journalist.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with Nick regarding the loss of 'Talkback' and 'the Phone-In' and the sanitised revamp. I rarely missed an episode of Talkback. It was a fixture in my weekly diary, like the Phone-In was if I was on holiday. As a licence payer, I valued these programmes more than any other, be it radio or TV, national or local. Now I only listen to the Politics Hour if I remember it's on and have nothing better to do. I am sure this was a deliberate move, essentially done to stop people getting to know the truth about Jersey's long history of child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all part of the anti-political culture we have in Jersey.

      It suits those that in power for the people to be as ignorant and as unmotivated to get involved with local politics as possible.

      If there were more political education and more opportunities for proper engagement, like those BBC programs, then Jersey people would be more likely to be vaguely culturally political.

      Delete
    2. Could you please explain why you believe it would be better for people if they were 'vaguely culturally political' ?

      I suspect, and I may indeed be wrong, but what you really mean is that there would be greater left wing representation if 'those in power' were to lose their hold over the 'ignorant and unmotivated' ?

      I'm also curious as to why you believe that this would make the island a better, happier place ?


      Delete
    3. To understand the political culture of Jersey then remember it is a Tax Haven. It has been captured economically and politically, and those that run it intend to keep it that way. Political stability, or the eternal and unchallenged rule of the Right, is vital to the business model demanded by foreign banks and other financial service providers.

      There can be no political change, hence the most archaic and backward institutions are preserved and praised as a social bulwark (Bailiffs, Constables, Honorary police, Jerrias, Norman law and doe eyed cows). Democracy is perceived as a threat. Ensuring Option B is implemented will ensure that the States remains tightly controlled - a legislature for hire.

      A depoliticized population is an important part of the strategy of control. Some are complicit with the authoritarian capitalist model, professionals and rentiers living comfortably off the proceeds, whilst a large section of the indigenous alongside large immigrant communities are kept in ignorance or dependence, too divided and powerless to assert their interests.

      Delete
    4. "Political stability, or the eternal and unchallenged rule of the Right, is vital to the business model demanded by foreign banks and other financial service providers."

      So what your saying is that if we vote in too many left-wingers it will damage the finance industry?

      If that's the case then I'm behind the right-wingers all the way!

      Delete
    5. The vast majority (60%) do not vote. They realise that voting has little or no impact on the policies of government. Their social interest will continue to be ignored. They have no policy choice as there are no political parties with manifestos to which they might be held to account. Instead there is the one party state - the Party of Finance. That absence of choice and pluralism is essential if Finance is to dominate. Democracy is a threat to markets.

      Yes, it’s a class struggle. At least you know you are part of the exploiting class. That is why you support the "right-wingers".

      Delete
  21. I think you're misusing the term Troll, which originated in online debate whereby the troll would ask seemingly innocent questions or post contrary opinions in an attempt to wind-up others and stir up activity, often to divert a topic off-course.

    The so called 'troll' over here is usually just malicious and more correctly defined as a cyber-bully. There appears to be some kind of mental illness involved, instead of the more innocent old trolling (on the internet of old) which was usually little more than lighthearted mischief. Our Jersey 'troll' has absolutely no life and is only excited at the prospect of spreading hate. Cyber-bullying. We can only hope he eventually realises how broken he is, and seeks help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm confused as to how one distinguishes between "seemingly innocent questions" and "innocent questions" without knowing the intent of the person behind the comments?

      I accept this has nothing to do with Sam's post which is about the BBC and a particularly nasty (and perhaps mentally ill) person.

      One thing I have noticed is that because of this person, some Jersey bloggers are too quick to assume that the intent of an innocent questioner is malicious and this is stifling proper on-line debate. The troll seems to be messing things up for everyone.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. It's very difficult to tell what is a genuine comment from a genuine person and what is the troll trying to be moderate so he can slip through the cracks.

      That's why so many comments on all blogs get hostile responses, including mine.

      That's the purpose of the troll, to make it impossible for there to be decent discourse on any subject.

      Delete
  22. Yes, I disagreed with Ian once, and he wouldn't believe I wasn't Jon :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I would agree that the notorious Jersey cyber-bully does cause some unintended reluctance to engage in desirable political debate. I suspect bloggers want to answer topical, well-intentioned innocent questions whenever possible but what most bloggers have openly called for and not found are opposing but factual evidence-based arguments. That would be informative debate. trolls don't provide that. Sam has occasionally published some excellent opposing dialogue on politics, but the establishment party line and state media accounts of government cover-ups discredited by other Jersey bloggers are not evidence based. They don't stand up to scrutiny. There isn't much for commenters to argue about intelligently when the facts seem to line up so squarely in one direction. The top Jersey bloggers have laid out the direction of the evidenced facts quite well, as even the Guardian has indicated with high praise. What opposition they've met in blog comments has been mostly along the line of name calling, and I would add that even BBCJersey under Mr Gripton has been equally dismissive of the published evidence, indulging in a bit of name calling and providing no meaningful explanation for avoiding direct coverage or debate on the more controversial issues.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  24. Elle, if the bloggers don't allow their 'facts' to be scrutinized by the public then they will never be taken seriously. All too often bloggers report what to them are 'facts' but to ordinary members of the public are merely 'opinions'. You might agree with a bloggers analysis of a situation and therefore see 'facts' but I might disagree and only see 'opinion'.

    Evidence based articles in my view are often described as evidence based but are nothing more than hearsay.

    The fact (sorry, my opinion) is that most of our bloggers are completely closed to the idea of serious scrutiny of their views. Sam may be one of the better ones but his political agenda and ideology still dominate his interaction.

    As an example, how many bloggers have constantly referred to Senator Ozouf as a liar etc over his stance on GST? Try and introduce into the argument some balance by referring to the change in the world economy that caused a rethink on our finances and the response is invariably an attempt to discredit you by associating you with the 'establishment party-line' or trolling etc.

    Balanced debate is simply not welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The purpose of this blog is to put forward a socialist perspective on local politics (it says that in the About Me section).

      In fact, I've actually done a terrible job at it, because most of my blogs are on the reform campaign which has nothing to do with socialism.

      Delete
  25. On the subject of Jersey trolling I do find some of the comments on this thread confusing. For starters this blog you refer to is the only blog that's ever addressed a libel case between local Politicians and a Newspaper, and because you are Twitter friends with one of the Deputies, would it be fair to say that you simply do not like this case being blogged about? My other problem with this post is that Mr Syvret refers to trolling in some detail yet he himself was the subject of the 2009 Chapman Report which concluded that he was an Internet Bully. This report is being referred to in the drafting of new legislation amongst various data protection issues that have come to light over the years and Mr Syvret seems to omit the simple point that he is the only Internet user out of all the bloggers to ever be charged with data protection offences. I think it would be careless to omit such a major point. Lastly, you are yet to give any proper examples of trolling. I have searched through the BBC group of comments and there is nothing that I would say is reportable to Facebook as trolling, this maybe the reason they cannot act on your complaints? This constant reference to trolls and trolling gets very confusing when people are not giving any examples of trolling and I cannot see how you can expect the BBC to do things without proper evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "would it be fair to say that you simply do not like this case being blogged about?"

      No, and that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say, given what I've said in this blog post.

      One reason I hate that blog is because it regularly targets me (I said that in this blog post). I have been made fun of on his blog for my appearance and I have been accused of having financial interests in the reform campaign.

      I'm not going to apologise for thinking this idiot is a petulant blight on Jersey politics given his personal attacks on me.

      " Lastly, you are yet to give any proper examples of trolling."

      This is incorrect. I've given several examples in this blog. How about the Shona Thickman account? If that's not trolling, then I don't know what is.

      Did you miss that bit, or do you not consider that vile and disgusting profile to be trolling?

      Why are you standing up for a bully?

      Delete
  26. "Elle, if the bloggers don't allow their 'facts' to be scrutinized by the public then they will never be taken seriously. All too often bloggers report what to them are 'facts' but to ordinary members of the public are merely 'opinions'. You might agree with a bloggers analysis of a situation and therefore see 'facts' but I might disagree and only see 'opinion'."

    What makes the exposing of the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up so extraordinary is the amount of hard evidence we have published. Sworn Affidavits, ACPO Police Reports, In Camera debate on the lying of Andrew lewis, Met Interim Police Report, Hard Evidence on the shocking suspension of the Police Chief, The Horrendous documented atrocity that was Blanche Pierre the list goes on and is really endless.

    Myself, as a Blogger, was so sure of the evidence I was gathering that I took it to the Home Affairs Sub Panel that resulted in a proper investigation that showed my evidence was correct. Like I say i could go on.

    So, sorry, anonymous at 23:31 you are wrong.

    Nor do I believe it his Jon that writes all the comments that are contributed to him.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  27. Just to remind some who think they can change the topic (start your own blog) : The TOPIC is - It's time to talk about the BBC

    In particular, there is at least one person we know of, who is doing his best to abuse what the internet gives us, to try and demoralise, defame and demotivate anyone who stands up for something in Jersey, be that for democracy, for social democratic politics or (and this is the most sinister part) for the victims of historic child abuse in Jersey.

    I engaged with a discussion with some BBC employees over Facebook because of the topic they were choosing to discuss and the hypocrisy I saw behind it and now I feel compelled to tell the story that needs to be on public record.



    There is a rather sad individual out there that most of us know of. His name is James.... or is it Julie? Or Sue? Or Alan? Well, he has lots of names.

    The main name he uses is James Le Gallais. He runs a pretty pathetic blog (which I don't intend on giving publicity to) under this name. The blog focuses on this individuals rather creepy obsession with Deputies Shona and Trevor Pitman. I have even made a guest appearance on it, along with some pretty petulant remark about my gender being ambiguous because I have long hair (that is the level of intellectual analysis you'll find on that blog). His speciality at the moment is defending a man who recently presided over a court case in which he had a conflict that should have made him withdraw, and who most, in private, will say that he shouldn't even be a Jurat because of his terrible judgement and refusal to consider evidence (something that is sort of important for a Jurat) during the Jervis-Dykes affair. You can come to your own conclusions about what motivates someone like this.

    I could go on further about this blog and individual, but don't want to entertain him. He is basically, a thoroughly unpleasant and sinister character.

    You could just ignore him and it would never bother anyone and he might even eventually give up. But here is the problem - the local BBC refuses to ignore him and even actively engages with him.
    …..

    So the question surely, is why do the BBC still entertain this chap?

    Is it because Jon Gripton, the head of BBC Jersey, is a supporter? (His tweet in response to such a Troll, certainly gives evidence to such a fact, is it a friend of his?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only explanation I can think of is that Gripton genuinely does find him funny.

      God help us if that is the case.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Gripton just doesn't like the Pitmans because of the incredibly rude manner in which they, and some of their supporters, have treated anybody in the media who doesn't support their warped view of the world ? That's certainly why I find it funny when i see them getting a taste of their own medicine. If gripton has acted inappropriately, is it any more inappropriate than Trevor's behaviour whilst holding a position of trust and influence in our government, where he is supposed to set an example to others ?

      I honestly thought both Pitmans were made of sterner stuff, given their propensity for telling us the gloves were off, they were in politics to kick some ass, and Trev threatening to sort out problems with a bit of 4 by 2 ?

      Delete
    3. "That's certainly why I find it funny when i see them getting a taste of their own medicine."

      If you find it funny watching a bully on the internet make fun of someone's health conditions and their having time off of work to cope with the loss of someone, then you are a disgusting human being.

      Delete
  28. How can Stuart Syvret be a bully, when all he has done (under his own name and not behind an anonymous mask) is call to account politicians and people in public office, people employed by the States who have failed to safeguard the welfare of children? All based upon enough evidence that he's happy he's on solid ground. Isn't that what journalism is all about?

    Aren't we entitled to highlight abuse and incompetence? The public figures can defend themselves if they like. I don't see how Stuart can be compared to disgusting cowardly anonymous threats against vulnerable people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being anonymous or not, a bully is a bully.

      Delete
  29. This was an excellent illustration of what Sam and other thoughtful bloggers have experienced with hijacking to move away from the posted topic. Very quickly, the topic of BBC complicity in online bullying became lost in the complainer's criticism of the bloggers themselves. The criticism of actual evidence was avoided, and the evidence itself ironically dismissed as "opinion" by diverting the conversation away from anything evidenced and into a complaint that bloggers don't permit scrutiny of their facts.

    I vehemently disagree with the anonymous complainer. I simply don't see the complainer displaying facts to compete. If the complainer has facts about the BBC which belong in this conversation, they have not been seen here yet. No critic of this blog has provided any evidence of Mr Gripton cracking down on the use of broadcast questions submitted by known trolls, for example, and so far nothing meaningful or evidenced has been offered to contradict the points made in Sam's original post. And...that's the point. Or why trolling or bullying became the dominant point, anyway.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  30. An anonymous posted this comment, but I accidentally pressed "delete" instead of "approve". The buttons are small and I sometimes accidentally do this -

    "Elle, sam has been asked to provide the irrefutable proof that the bbc have obviously missed, that the various Facebook accounts are fake. He has ignored that question, and has admitted that Facebook have refused to take action against those he is accusing. Those are facts. Perhaps you should feed your obsession with events in our island by looking at other 'news' sources than a few biased blogs. "

    Anonymous, there exists no irrefutable proof that the BBC have missed. They have seen it all, they are voluntarily ignoring it. That's why there is a problem, in case you haven't noticed.

    I haven't ignored the question, I've just already answered it and am bored of repeating myself when readers could just scroll up and find it again.

    I also have NOT admitted that Facebook have refused to take action, I said they have failed to take action. The two are separate things. "Refused" means they saw the evidence but decided not to take action, "failed" means they are overwhelmed with trying to manage over 1 billion accounts that they regularly don't take any action on anything. Facebook is useless at dealing with reports and complaints.

    Your last comment shows your own bias and agenda - Everything said on a blog must be wrong because I don't like them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The accounts you keep on accusing can only be actioned upon if they break the Facebook rules and somebody has already mentioned to you that there is no evidence that they are even trolling the BBC Facebook Group.

      Delete
    2. Your comments are incredibly tedious and ill-thoughtout.

      There is evidence, you are just choosing to ignore it (I can only assume that is because you enjoy this trolls activities).

      Do you believe James Le Gallais, Julie Hanning and Sue Young are real people, using their real identities?

      Delete
    3. There are Hundreds of Millions of people on Facebook so whether they are all real or not is neither here nor there to me. All I am saying is that these people fake or not are not trolling the BBC Group page, I can read all their comments and I think your making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill.

      Delete
    4. Now that we have gotten as far as we can on discussing whether the accounts are fake or not, you change your position to that it is "neither here nor there to me". I think we can infer that you now realise that they obviously are fake profiles.

      To find the majority of troll comments from these profiles, you will have to go back further than I suspect you have done because when it became apparent that the BBC was not going to take action on them, I and others point out the fact the profiles are fake on all of their contributions. We are doing the BBC's work for them.

      But if you don't consider fake profiles leaving comments lying that people have financial interests in a topic or talking about the participants appearance, to destroy any chance of a sensible dialogue ensuing on that thread, to be trolling, then I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word.

      Delete
  31. You accusations are that these people are not real. Surely the onus is on you to prove that they are not to the satisfaction of the bbc so they are compelled to act. If they are ignoring your accusations, your proof isn't strong enough. I'm surprised you are even arguing this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think that James Le Gallais, Sue Young and Julie Hanning are all real people expressing their genuinely held views? Please answer that directly.

      The point that this blog is making (which seems to mystify you) is that Jon Gripton KNOWS that it is a bully and a troll, but he is purposely ignoring BBC process, because he finds the accounts "very amusing". I'm surprised I need to reiterate that point.

      Delete
  32. 'Your last comment shows your own bias and agenda - Everything said on a blog must be wrong because I don't like them.'

    How did you get to 'everything said on a blog must be wrong..' from my comment. I suggested looking at other news sources. Why do you find it necessary to jump down people's throats all the time ? Relax for God's sake. Not everyone who takes issue with you has to be demonised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm saying it because you've been shown the evidence, you've diverted the debate, and by doing so you are also (whether it is intentional or not) sticking up for a bully.

      Delete
  33. Looking at all the anonymous comments on here and elsewhere I do not see the point in worrying about any account that could be fake.

    The BBC only have a page on Facebook and it's not their job to do identification checks on people and, besides it makes no difference who contributes, if it is valid comment then why get het up about it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am starting to think that you just want opposite views to your own censored.
    Pitman and Syvret are exactly the same and resort to attack those who disagree with their version of things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the last of your tedious comments I'll publish because it's clear either who you are or whose side you're on.

      We are taking about someone who goes out of his way to defend people that have covered up child abuse, and targets any one who is seen to be connected to the campaign for justice for the victims of child abuse. You might think this is okay, I do not.

      We are talking about someone who creates fake identities to attack someone for her health problems and personal tragedies. You might think this is okay, I do not.

      Online bullying can lead to suicide. You might think this is okay, I do not.

      Get out of your hole and smell the coffee.

      Delete
  35. "We are taking about someone who goes out of his way to defend people that have covered up child abuse"

    Rubbish.
    That's a complete lie and you have never shown any evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim. Maybe this explains why you are the subject of blogs because you bring it on yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it isn't. He uses his blog to defend John Le Breton, despite the Sharp Report very bluntly laying it out that he put the reputation of the school and his trust of Jervis-Dykes before the safety of children and justice. These are just facts.

      But thank you for revealing that you side with this psychopath. You need to take a good long look at yourself.

      Delete
    2. Also love how you didn't contract the rest of it. So you support a bully that makes fun of Shona Pitman and her personal life? What a sad individual you must be too. Or could it be that you are the same person? I wonder!

      Delete
    3. Taken from the Sharp Report -

      B35 On 5 August, Mr. Le Breton wrote to Advocate Falle. He said that the police did not as yet seem inclined to press charges and that there may indeed be no case to answer. He went on to say that Mr Jervis-Dykes had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way. He accepted that there was now evidence of misconduct on off Island trips and that in his view this was now a resignation matter. He asked that Mr Jervis-Dykes be allowed to leave with some dignity and suggested that the Governors consider a resignation from Christmas or Easter. He did not believe that his continued presence teaching Maths and as Head of Maths would place anyone at risk. “In the absence of a police case, the resignation would be seen as an inevitable consequence of an intolerable situation caused by an unsubstantiated allegation.” (Mr. Le Breton had not taken up the Headmaster’s suggestion in June that he might view the videos and he was not aware that Mr Baker had seen them).

      Delete
  36. No more comments from you James. Go lie down. You obviously need to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in my above comments says Mr Le Breton did anything illegal, nor had knowledge of Jervis-Dykes abusing kids before he was caught. Simply that he refused to look at the evidence, and despite it being clear that he was going to be convicted of abusing kids, he defended him.

      All I am doing is repeating what is in a report.

      But when the troll complains to the law officers department, I wonder which of his pseudonyms he uses. Hmmmm.. But thanks for proving my point that you are engaged in some pretty sinister business.

      Delete
  37. Sam,

    Can I suggest how to deal with a person, who offers nothing to the debate, the same debate that sensitive articulate or interested people do, where people who write, just want to make things better not worse, and accountability helps to raise standards not lower them.

    The truth is, as I see it, in any society there are people and amongst them, damaged people, that offer nothing and cling by a thread to reality or there ego or God knows what else. Best ignore them or get sucked in and then you will be doing your level best to have a reasonable logical debate, with a brick wall, with a lot of bricks missing.

    Keep up the good work Sam, it's a long road but white must always win over black, or at the very least stop black from corrupting and becoming the standard and all though, I might not agree with all your views, I feel you are one of the good guys.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Boatyboy.

      It is difficult to distinguish between what is a genuine intrigued or critical commenter and what is a troll. Often you engage with someone and it only becomes apparent after several comments that they are a troll.

      Maybe I should just ban commenting anonymously on here.

      Delete
    2. What makes Boaty Boy any different from a Troll when he doesn't use his real name then?

      Delete
    3. Think I'll leave that one hanging in the air.

      Delete
    4. Boatyboy, I'm now receiving comments (that will remain unpublished obviously) insulting you, and in a bizarre coincidence, we are now the targets of vitriol on the hate-site.

      Delete
  38. If it were me I would treat each thread topic as an board/management meeting with the header as the agenda, any post that goes off agenda either delete and make a post saying so.

    It could just be some people need to start their own blogs supporting those who supports others who support child abuse etc..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may have to start doing that.

      Shame, but this is what trolls do. Ruin things.

      Delete
  39. What makes Boaty Boy any different from a Troll when he doesn't use his real name then?

    If I may answer that Sam. After being invited to write a statement regarding blogs which I submitted for a court case the judiciary know who I am perfectly well, I have no problem with that. One of the reasons that people write on blogs is because they can express an opinion without endangering their employment in a small village type island.

    I do agree however, that comments should be fact based and not just a political or personal opinion, but hey, there is no law against a person having an opinion.

    It is a fact for instance, that Senator Ozouf, to impress the voters and aid his election chances, did announce there would be no increase in GST. He then when elected, increased GST by a further 2%. This was not honest which ever way you spin it. He could have cut back on States spending but actually increased it by almost 4% per annum.

    In regard to the question " what makes me different ? " well actually nothing compared to anyone else who writes on bloggs. I enjoy reading and learning from informed comments and responding if feel I have something to offer.

    This is completely different from the "Troll", who makes shallow accusations, asks questions, offers no facts or supporting evidence and clearly offers nothing to any debate but has an agenda to disrupt a debate to little more than worthless.

    I am not or ever have been a troll, nor are a very high percentage of honest islanders who feel the politicians are not listening or are felt to be acting incorrectly ( as with the referendum issue ) in the way they are trying to take Jersey and it's people forward.

    The leading bloggs in Jersey including the JEP comments section have grabbed the imagination of islanders and have added a higher layer of freedom, openness, transparency and factual reporting that has been sadly lacking in Jersey's cosy mainstream media for a long time.

    The information highway cannot be stopped, but Trolls can be contained.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sam,

    This is your blog, so stay focused, exercise editorial control and do not indulge the ignorant. There is work to be done, so keep it on topic, positive and progressive.

    BBC Radio Jersey can be flexible when they want to be and when reminded of their requirement to provide some balance around public issues. Here is an example from today of what can be achieved.

    The BBC’s Politics Hour programme on Sunday dealt with the issue of Zero Hours contracts, albeit only 20 minutes out of the hour. This is an important issue raised by the labour movement in the UK and has gained traction this summer in the UK media, particularly this month with the revelation that over a million workers are on such exploitative contracts.

    Since the subject was a mainstream media issue it was relatively safe for the BBC editors to raise it in the Jersey context. They did so but on a programme with two right-wing politicians, neither in the least sympathetic to working people , and an employer’s employment lawyer keen for publicity, live in the studio. The event lacked any live impartiality as the interviews with Deputy Geoff Southern and local Unite the union official Nick Corbel, both critical of the use of such contracts, were pre-recorded. There was no Facebook page on the topic for public comment (both by real and inevitably, non real persons).

    My complaint during the programme led to me be asked on today, Monday, for the top billing 8.05 am slot. I suggested that the employment lawyer who had spoken be asked back on to further defend the use of Zero Hour contracts in the context of a live debate.

    The outcome can be heard here at 1.04 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01cz8yq
    So Sam, a new blog on a progressive topic. Perhaps you would like to turn your legal and journalistic skills to investigation of the use of Zero Hour contracts in Jersey? There are plenty of working people out there with a story to tell and their voice rarely gets heard in the local media. Step forward and let the trolls return to their impotent darkness.

    Nick

    ReplyDelete
  41. Just listening to it now Nick. How ironic is it that the person who defended Zero Hour Contracts had the last name Thatcher!

    ReplyDelete
  42. An update for those that were trying to defend James Le Gallais and insinuate (because they weren't confident to overtly say) that he is a real person - as of today, his Facebook profile has been suspended.

    Check mate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I can still see it.
      I thought he had blocked you anyway unless you are using a 2nd account to view it?

      Delete
    2. It's back now. It was not there this morning. Not sure what must have happened.

      Shame, I was hoping he'd been kicked off. How weird.

      Delete
    3. Calm down James, there are ways around being blocked.

      Well done, you've just shown yourself up as a moron.

      Love the irony of being accused of having more than one Facebook account by someone who has many fake accounts!

      Delete
  43. Careless showing yourself up to have fake facebook accounts as well Sam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not have a fake facebook account.

      Have you ever considered James, there are several people out there who find you as petulant as I do and who share with me some of your idiotic drivel that you post from time to time? Especially after writing this blog, several friends (that's real friends James, not friends like Sue or Julie) are so astounded that someone so sad and pathetic actually exists that they are having quite good laughs with me over it.

      Love the conspiracy theories though from a saddo that runs dozens of avatars (eh Alien Hunter?) all of which use fake names and attack people fighting for justice for child abuse. My facebook account uses my actual name and I support anyone fighting to make the island better.

      Delete
  44. "But here were have the head of the local BBC actually endorsing and promoting a bully."

    Jon Gripton appears to me, to be one of those people promoted way above their ability, and from that tweet, demonstrated just how unfit he is for such role.

    ReplyDelete