Comments on: David Milliband, government censorship and being punched from both sides

By: David Terrar

David Terrar — Mon, 01 May 2006 09:40:17 +0000

I love the conspiracy theories suggested here, but I think the the key issue is the cherry picking and censorship of comments. It’s vital we all have comment moderation and something like akismet to weed out the spam, but those blogs that try to impose their own spin by editing the conversation are heading in a dangerous direction. Hopefully, it should become obvious to the audience over time that the responses are unbalanced, and it will devalue the blog’s voice and usefulness… but this kind of censorship can be subtle. In Millband’s case, I hope these types of post and comment put him in the spotlight.

On Mr. Prescott, Dennis highlights the peculiarity of the British media and our collective prurience – in France it wouldn’t rate a column inch – how do we all let it make front page news in most papers for several days?

Lastly, thanks to Stuart for highlighting that statement in the ts and cs. I’m in local politics myself, and I’m always confused by this stance when so many of the policies and decisions we make in government are rooted in party politics and the voting complexion of the particular body you are sitting on. Surely that’s what democracy is all about.

By: Denis Howlett

Denis Howlett — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:41:31 +0000

David: I’d forgotten that today’s Mirror becomes tomorrow’s chip wrap. At least today’s blog has a chance of becoming tomorrow’s memory

Jackie: OK – different point of view and yes I see the validity of the argument. Same goes for Channnel 9 then in your book? OK. But I’d rather have a bit of something than a lot of nothing. We’ll see what Milliband lets through and what he doesn’t 0ver time.

By: Jackie Danicki » On David Milliband and blog comments

Jackie Danicki » On David Milliband and blog comments — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:41:51 +0000

[...] Dennis Howlett thinks I (financing my blog with my own cash and time) am like David Milliband (financing his blog with our cash and our time) because I have comments on this blog disabled by default while David Milliband simply cherry picks the complimentary comments to publish and blocks the inconvenient ones. [...]

By: David Tebbutt

David Tebbutt — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:17:40 +0000

The BBC say Prescott’s bit of fluff was Tracy Temple. The Mail on Sunday says it’s Tracey Temple.

I took my lead from the BBC. Maybe that was silly of me.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:26:40 +0000

Dennis, I’m afraid you’re still missing the point.

David Milliband’s blog is not David Milliband’s private property. We pay for it. He chooses to publish comments which glorify him, but not those which question the source of glorification. This is dodgy.

Jackie Danicki’s blog is private property. I pay for it, with my money and my time. You don’t get a platform at my blog unless I give you one, and you have zero claim on one there. This is as it should be.

Your claim of pot/kettle/blackness has no substance at all.

Yes, Ts and Cs for comments (even a state one) are a fine and necessary thing. I’m not saying Milliband has to publish the spammers and the psycho stalkers (which, as it happens, are precisely the reason I don’t enable comments by default on my blog). I’m saying he should not pat himself on the back for his openness and communication with taxpayers when he is actively censoring taxpayers’ valid questions at the same time.

Spot the difference?

By: Stuart Jones

Stuart Jones — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:47:34 +0000

I was amused by the terms and conditions of Milliband’s site especially number five:

This is a Government website and comments used for party political purposes will be removed.

At the risk of being slightly flippant at a time when we should all be feeling sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister does number five mean the opposite of ” What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” ?

By: David Tebbutt

David Tebbutt — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:05:37 +0000

It’s why I said “this nation”. I had originally added “other countries, such as Norway and France couldn’t give a toss”. But it was diluting my point.

The other thing which your comment raises is that a major function of the UK press is to entertain. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. In our case a bucketful of sugar helps the spoonful of news go down. It’s probably why our daily press has such high circulations compared with other countries.

And, being less high-minded, this gives plenty of advertisers the chance to spend money.

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:02:15 +0000

For goodness sake David – in France 2 Jags dilletante behaviour is taken as
the norm. We take it as said that men of power get an extra shag as a benefit in kind. We don’t care. Is that the pinnacle of intelligent discussion back in Blighty? Gawd help us all.

By: Stuart Jones

Stuart Jones — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:36:41 +0000

Hell David, and I thought I was cynical! Good point though.

By: David Tebbutt

David Tebbutt — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:03:26 +0000

We could ask Mr Milliband (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) for more information about the impact on his department of the story that’s convulsing this nation, John Prescott’s sexual shenanigans with Tracy Temple.

[John Prescott is the Deputy Prime Minister and, by an amazing coincidence, this story totally eclipsed two rather more important stories about Home Office incompetence and two attacks by National Health Service staff on government minister Patricia Hewitt. Maybe Mr Milliband would like to talk to us about how this (allegedly old) story was leaked on the very day that the government was in desperate need of some covering fire. Will it be Lord Prescott next? A gesture of a grateful nation.]