HemmingGate: To ban or not to ban, that is the question MNHQ

[CarpeVinum]

Some of us would like to know if a certain politico will be banned, proper.

No rush.

We know you have a lot on your plate with ... stuff.

(I probably got two quotes mixed up in subject line. Don't panic! It's me not you. Am philistine. Italy is wasted on me. Not keen on art, prefer shopping.)

I have read it all. I just happen to think that banning people is not a good precedent. I don't even agree with him.

Aha!

synopsis

homeschoolinitaly.blogspot.it/2013/12/hemminggate.html

Please also see Expert legal blogger's take, and the guardian. So far.

Aaronovitch has been tweeted. Have you tweeted Janice Turner?

if you had read them or any other material, you would see he was banned for outing MNetters. Not for any disagreements.

If you plan to post on contentious issues have the manners to actually find out what they are.

I don't want him banned, I want him here, identifiable and called to account every time he pops up with something stupid, wrong and dangerous.

BUT if he continues to out people and scaremonger, there should be much more willingness from MNHQ to warn and/or suspend him. He does seem to have got different treatment to other 'ordinary' posters who have been suspended.

I want him to debate. I very much want that. And if he genuinely believes even 1% of his conspiracy theories, he will want that too

duly noted scales

Anyone think this might be his next years' Christmas Card?
memegenerator.net/instance/44483312

its lovely! Any chance of amending the spelling of sensitive???

And remember, he got told off for putting his unwanted post in the bins of St James Park...

What spero said.

Yes, I am with Spero on the whole "Isn't he a wheeze?" angle - which is/was a great hook, but does not get to the heart of the matter, namely that what he and his ilk are spreading is incorrect and morally wrong.

Spero, I'd be happy to help with a debate but am quite far away form the Big Smoke or even Birmingham, but count me in in principle.

Trying to make an elected Member of Parliament ie somebody who is there to represent those who voted for him which in principle could be ANY of us accountable for what he says and does is a democratic right.
There is no denying that current Child Protection/Family Courts/Social Services have flaws and proceedings in them can be very difficult for all concerned. That does not justify somebody who has public office warning vulnerable people who are in dire need of help and support against contacting SS/GP/police when they are in crisis.

memegenerator.net/instance/44484095
[Grin] Too much mullered wine last night perhaps.

eek! its lost the bottom text!

Oh well done, all. I would retweet myself but new users with no followers like me just end up tweeting back to you! That's not helpful, is it?

Think the press are going quite easy on it, though, as yet.

FFS! Sorry. memegenerator.net/instance/44484189

You MUST restore the bottom text, that is one quality meme.

Thank you! Think the latest one works?

fab! I have posted to FB

testing testing

Well that was wierd.

what was?

I posted posted three times, site did usual "you just hit post stuff" but.... now I have refreshed, none of my posts are there.

Three seperste posts.

Lost if you get a minute to get back to the David Aaronovitch retweet, I've added a meme to the conversation. Retweet for me ? To him too.

I have followed everybody who retweeted his retweet.

I can't believe ai typed that.

My hatred for twitter may be easing slightly. But only by a nano cm.

I think I followed that, well at least half of it anyway . I have retweeted it anyway, a girl could really get used to having her name appended to that of a journalist she has always admired. That last sentence is probably a good indicator of why I have never been a great one for tweeting.

Found this article, which could be good basis for debate.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-flanagan/baby-peter-connelly-uk-safe-children_b_1727255.html

^Since the death of baby Peter around 100 babies under the age of one alone have been killed, the vast majority by their own parents or carers. To this day, the grim tally continues at around one baby a fortnight.

But there is hope. I firmly believe that the public awareness that baby Peter's death evoked has seen an increase in people willing to report child abuse and a higher sense of urgency from the authorities when it is reported. The number of care applications hit 10,000 for the first time last year. This awareness and response, of course, is very welcome and there are children alive today because of swift and firm action that has been taken, often because of a tip off from a member of the public.

However, this has presented its own challenges. A recent survey carried out by Community Care showed that 58 per cent of social workers have had increased workloads over the last 12 months and half have seen a colleague leave during the past year because of their work load. It's worth remembering that one of the reasons highlighted by some for the failures to protect baby Peter was that social workers were overworked.

Sharp funding cuts in children's services will only exacerbate this issue and will simply be a false economy storing up extra costs for later down the line. And whilst we wholeheartedly support efforts by the Department for Education to cut bureaucracy, and the mountains of guidance social workers have to work with, we must invest in the social workers themselves and retain our best and most experienced staff if this is to work. Otherwise we will leave a void where guidance and best practice once lived.

And baby deaths are still far too common. Babies in this country are eight times more likely to be killed than any other age group in childhood.^

with what part of this can JH disagree? Where does his conspiracy theory fit into this?
Why aren't these babies being snatched as opposed to killed?