EllanVannin and Anniebach

Maremia

The weird thing is that Bamber is back in the news, with some new 'evidence'.
I also thought they had the right one.
But now, it's wait and see.

To be fair, no one, except Bamber, knows the truth! The rest are sadly dead.

crazyH

*FGT*- please pass our good wishes on to GSM - I really miss her knowledge and sound advice.

And mine too please xx

Allira

^It’s when Gransnet gets into personal insult territory, that people are banned, generally speaking^
I can't remember GSM making personal attacks on posters.

As for personal insults I was called an extreme right-winger, peddling my vile views across social media! (Sorry, Sir Keir, does voting for you make me an extreme right-winger? 😂😂😂). Or a rampant leftie?
I did report that post and it got deleted.

It was upsetting then saw the ludicrous, funny side of it. 😂

As for personal insults I was called an extreme right-winger, peddling my vile views across social media! (Sorry, Sir Keir, does voting for you make me an extreme right-winger?

It's not unusual to be accused of being both a hard Leftie and Right wing nut. I have been - here on GN in the past. It happened again, fairly recently, but on Facebook... and in the same thread.

Like you, I saw how ridiculous it was, and simply removed myself from the thread but not before carefully re-reading what I'd posted in order to see how my comments could be interpreted - but it was more enlightening to read the posting history of my opponents (two of 'em). It became obvious that they were in what I can only describe as 'rage mode' which disabled their ability to detect nuance.

You do know that Keir Starmer has been variously described as both a woke-Leftie and a Tory-in-disguise?

Allira

Casdon

I don’t think it’s double standards Allira, I think the mods have a line beyond which people get banned if they transgress the rules, and it’s usually because they have done it more than once, had their posts deleted etc. If there were double standards, only posters from one persuasion would be banned, and that definitely isn’t the case?

How come Mumsnetters get away with far worse than we genteel elderly people on Gransnet?

Same moderators now, I think

Do you think Mumsnetters do get away with more? I don’t know, as I’m not on there enough, my impression is that it’s a lot more transitory, so I’d guess they don’t know each others posting styles, but I could be wrong.

I don't know if it just me but I don't respond to anything with which I don't agree! And believe me, I have an internal hissy fit about some of the things posted!! But, as previous GNers have said, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Should these always be shared on a public forum? These days, I am not so sure.

Dickens

Allira

It’s when Gransnet gets into personal insult territory, that people are banned, generally speaking
I can't remember GSM making personal attacks on posters.

As for personal insults I was called an extreme right-winger, peddling my vile views across social media! (Sorry, Sir Keir, does voting for you make me an extreme right-winger? 😂😂😂). Or a rampant leftie?
I did report that post and it got deleted.

It was upsetting then saw the ludicrous, funny side of it. 😂

As for personal insults I was called an extreme right-winger, peddling my vile views across social media! (Sorry, Sir Keir, does voting for you make me an extreme right-winger?

It's not unusual to be accused of being both a hard Leftie and Right wing nut. I have been - here on GN in the past. It happened again, fairly recently, but on Facebook... and in the same thread.

Like you, I saw how ridiculous it was, and simply removed myself from the thread but not before carefully re-reading what I'd posted in order to see how my comments could be interpreted - but it was more enlightening to read the posting history of my opponents (two of 'em). It became obvious that they were in what I can only describe as 'rage mode' which disabled their ability to detect nuance.

You do know that Keir Starmer has been variously described as both a woke-Leftie and a Tory-in-disguise?

You do know that Keir Starmer has been variously described as both a woke-Leftie and a Tory-in-disguise?
Yes!

I got shredded once when I said I was a floating voter.
Anyway, the view is much better from the fence 😁

Allira

TheatreLover

Doodledog

Allira

petra

FGT
I spoke to MissAdventure a couple of weeks ago. She can still crack a joke despite being unwell.

Say hello to MissAdventure from me too 👋
We miss her.

And me. It would be lovely to hear from her again, but if she's not up to it yet, do let her know we are asking after her and wish her well.

MissA wasn't banned, in case anyone is unaware. I do think it's important to make that distinction, as even though I am not always in favour of permanent bans they are made for a reason and should never be about popularity or how much advice posters can benefit from.

One person somehow managed to get a well-deserved ban overturned and came back with what felt like protected status. She is now banned again, but not before causing numerous lovely posters to leave GN and making mischief and grief for many others. It's not always straightforward. I'd be surprised if people posting when the 'unbanned' one was around won't have realised what she was up to, but sometimes if someone leaves you alone you only see one side of them. If you are on the receiving end of the reason they were banned you might feel differently.

Speaking generally, if someone has been banned because of nasty behaviour to individuals, it is unreasonable of the unaffected (who may be entirely unaware of that) to campaign for their return.

It might also be useful to know why someone was banned, although I know that is difficult to do that when the banned person has no right of reply. We know that reports can play a role, but we don't know who has reported individuals. I am aware that at least one poster thinks that I reported them, leading to a suspension, but I most definitely did not - I prefer to argue my case on the boards. We also know that lurkers sometimes report. I was astounded a while ago when someone made her first post to say that she didn't contribute to the board, but did report contributors who overstepped what she saw as the mark. Unbelievable, but true.

This is a really thoughtful post Doodledog. I thought that GSM was banned because she was posting potentially libellous comments about a female politician? These posts included attacking the politician's morals because she had children when not married, and included various abusive descriptions of the politician, including calling her a tart? I didn't contribute to the thread, and have never reported anyone, but GSM quite understandably upset quite a lot of posters with her insulting language about the politician, so it is quite possible that posters drew the moderators' attention to these particular posts.

In any case, I think that these comments were picked up by the National press, and reflected poorly on GN. If that is correct, then, in the interests of GN, the ban is understandable.

The posts could have been deleted and probably were.

I remember similar posts about a male politician's appearance, his hair and his morals but posters weren't banned because of that.
Those posts could have been reported in the national press too.

Are there double standards here?

I wasn't talking about GSM. The banned and unbanned poster was Very Silly, but I don't think the 'rules' encourage us to discuss people who aren't here? After that reference I was, as I said, speaking generally.

After that reference I was, as I said, speaking generally.

As was I.

Apart from when I referenced myself!!

Allira

Allira

TheatreLover

Doodledog

Allira

petra

FGT
I spoke to MissAdventure a couple of weeks ago. She can still crack a joke despite being unwell.

Say hello to MissAdventure from me too 👋
We miss her.

And me. It would be lovely to hear from her again, but if she's not up to it yet, do let her know we are asking after her and wish her well.

MissA wasn't banned, in case anyone is unaware. I do think it's important to make that distinction, as even though I am not always in favour of permanent bans they are made for a reason and should never be about popularity or how much advice posters can benefit from.

One person somehow managed to get a well-deserved ban overturned and came back with what felt like protected status. She is now banned again, but not before causing numerous lovely posters to leave GN and making mischief and grief for many others. It's not always straightforward. I'd be surprised if people posting when the 'unbanned' one was around won't have realised what she was up to, but sometimes if someone leaves you alone you only see one side of them. If you are on the receiving end of the reason they were banned you might feel differently.

Speaking generally, if someone has been banned because of nasty behaviour to individuals, it is unreasonable of the unaffected (who may be entirely unaware of that) to campaign for their return.

It might also be useful to know why someone was banned, although I know that is difficult to do that when the banned person has no right of reply. We know that reports can play a role, but we don't know who has reported individuals. I am aware that at least one poster thinks that I reported them, leading to a suspension, but I most definitely did not - I prefer to argue my case on the boards. We also know that lurkers sometimes report. I was astounded a while ago when someone made her first post to say that she didn't contribute to the board, but did report contributors who overstepped what she saw as the mark. Unbelievable, but true.

This is a really thoughtful post Doodledog. I thought that GSM was banned because she was posting potentially libellous comments about a female politician? These posts included attacking the politician's morals because she had children when not married, and included various abusive descriptions of the politician, including calling her a tart? I didn't contribute to the thread, and have never reported anyone, but GSM quite understandably upset quite a lot of posters with her insulting language about the politician, so it is quite possible that posters drew the moderators' attention to these particular posts.

In any case, I think that these comments were picked up by the National press, and reflected poorly on GN. If that is correct, then, in the interests of GN, the ban is understandable.

The posts could have been deleted and probably were.

I remember similar posts about a male politician's appearance, his hair and his morals but posters weren't banned because of that.
Those posts could have been reported in the national press too.

Are there double standards here?

I will add to that the comments made when that politician ended up in ICU with Covid - inferring that he and the wonderful St Thomas's Hospital, were lying.

I am not defending that politician's record, but just pointing out the double standards which seem to apply here.
Is it because of the Party each belong to or the fact that one is a woman, the other a man?

Sorry - am I being accused of double standards? My most has been quoted twice to make a point that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. If I am missing where I am guilty of double standards, please tell me - I never (and have never) report(ed) people for disagreeing with me😀.

If not, fine, but I'd like to know.

Sorry - cross posted!

Sorry - am I being accused of double standards? My most has been quoted twice to make a point that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. If I am missing where I am guilty of double standards, please tell me - I never (and have never) report(ed) people for disagreeing with me 😀
Why would you think that? I was just commenting in general.

Posters (plural) were offended when a female politician was criticised for her dress, her way of life etc and one poster was allegedly banned because of that apparently? I don't know. But posters had been criticising a male politician from another party for similar 'crimes' but were not banned.

Those are the double standards I meant.

X post again.

I need a cup of tea.

I think GNs it depends on which posts are reported.
Perhaps no-one reported the comments about the male politician.

Maremia

I think GNs it depends on which posts are reported.
Perhaps no-one reported the comments about the male politician.

No, probably not, just argued on the thread!
Much better.

The banned and unbanned poster was Very Silly
Don't remember them.

I’m totally confused about what counts as a “personal” comment. 🤔

I’m learning to write things in a more sidelong sort of way but it doesn’t come naturally to me.

The direct and indirect speech model that was said to differentiate the working class from the middle class.

I may be in danger of becoming snide.😬

Lathyrus3

I’m totally confused about what counts as a “personal” comment. 🤔

I’m learning to write things in a more sidelong sort of way but it doesn’t come naturally to me.

The direct and indirect speech model that was said to differentiate the working class from the middle class.

I may be in danger of becoming snide.😬

I agree, Lathyryus. We had a spate of posts a while ago where 'Some People' were referenced in such a way that it was obviously a dig at another poster on the thread. The thinking was, presumably, that a comment is only personal if a poster is named, which is patently untrue, or at least that this could be used in defence if the post were reported.

It could have been a case of passive aggression versus assertiveness, or possibly the elaborated versus restricted speech codes you describe. But I think it was just a deliberate misunderstanding of the 'rules' that allowed people to be extremely personal whilst pretending not to be.

I have just read the thread on which it seems that growstuff was banned, and her posts erased. I didn't always agree with growstuff (particularly when it came to means-testing and pensions) but she said what she thought, which is, to me, the whole point of a discussion board. There is no point in everyone agreeing or 'just saying nothing at all', like Thumper in Bambi, is there? I would much rather disagree with someone up front than mess about with snide comments and digs. As can be seen from my posts a few above this one, I'm not always sure whether I'm being got at or not anyway . It's easier all round if I know for sure and can respond accordingly.

As you know from Pensions threads, Doodledog, I have disagreed with you and said so!!

I’m staying away from the “personal problems” threads because I don’t know how to respond other than directly to the person that’s posted.

Usually I prefer a more abstract argument anyway.

Allira

Maremia

I think GNs it depends on which posts are reported.
Perhaps no-one reported the comments about the male politician.

No, probably not, just argued on the thread!
Much better.

I don’t think the banning of GSM was as a result of the Green Trouser suit thread anyway though, as she was still on Gransnet for a while after that, I was looking up a Michael Portillo thread today in light of the Mandelson release, and she was on that thread, at the end of July 2024.

I think it was a thread about Downton Abbey and/or realism in TV dramas.

Downton Abbey? 🤔

Of all threads?
Did the Dowager Countess take offence at something she said?

Probably VioletSky as I'm sure she was banned but I can't remember why.

Allira

Downton Abbey? 🤔

Of all threads?
Did the Dowager Countess take offence at something she said?

Downton Abbey?? Does anyone have a link, please?

Allira

As you know from Pensions threads, Doodledog, I have disagreed with you and said so!!

I know, and that is as it should be.

I think we may be at cross purposes on this thread for some reason. I was confused as to why you were quoting my posts and talking about double standards, but I don't see you as someone who makes snide comments, and nor do I, so wasn't making them about you either .