Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
urchaidh wrote: Pretentious, moi? Puerile, certainly. But let me assure you that my indignation is not feigned. You are a cancer on this newsgroup. You attached yourself to it and killed it. Steady on, no-one can kill a NG unless you let them! Allan has given me some useful advice on this NG over recent years for which I am grateful. I don't mind him airing his views, I may not always agree, but I would defend his right to free speech. And just think what the alternative would be to a Usenet NG: A moderated, web based forum for right thinking canoeists, with adverts on the top of the page and any real debate suppressed as it may hurt sales figures. By accusing Allan of having 'killed' the NG you sound like a right drama queen. Kam |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
K Offit wrote:
In article .com, urchaidh wrote: Pretentious, moi? Puerile, certainly. But let me assure you that my indignation is not feigned. You are a cancer on this newsgroup. You attached yourself to it and killed it. Steady on, no-one can kill a NG unless you let them! A lot of people pointed out that Allans repetive posting were annoying and ask him, with varying degrees of politeness, to stop. He didn't, they left. Use google groups and go look for yourself. There was a thriving paddling community on here before Allan started his incessant postings on the subject of BCU corruption. Within a year 80-90% of the regular posters had gone elsewhere, not because the didn't like what Alan had to say, but because of how often he repeated it. He would pollute every thread with his rantings. I guess if he stuck to a thread on BCU corruption, few folk would read it. Allan has given me some useful advice on this NG over recent years for which I am grateful. Indeed, sounds like he's quite a knowledgeable and experienced paddler. This group used to be full of them. I don't mind him airing his views, I may not always agree, but I would defend his right to free speech. No one ever objected to Allan airing his views. But he aired them incessantly, in every thread, until it the signal to noise ratio fell to almost nothing. There's a big difference between free speech and SPAM. It wasn't just few folks who left in the huff. It wasn't, as Allan whould have you beleive, just a few folks with a personal grudge. It was the majority of posters who left, most quoting Allan's nonsense as the reason. And just think what the alternative would be to a Usenet NG: A moderated, web based forum for right thinking canoeists, with adverts on the top of the page and any real debate suppressed as it may hurt sales figures. I don't have to think, as what you describe is pretty much what happened, though I don't think it's (ussuming you're referring to the UKRGB) particularly moderated. This newsgroup became so unusable that most everyone switched to the web forum. Why? Pretty much becasue of Allan. Even now, people asking questions in this NG will be directed elsewhere. By accusing Allan of having 'killed' the NG you sound like a right drama queen. Maybe, but I'm ****ed of. I have a nosey in here every now and again and it's as dead as ever - it used to be so much fun. I believe Allan (and his sidekick David Kemper :-)) killed it. The evidence is there for all to see. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com, urchaidh
wrote: More of the same. I think, if you research the matter, you will find that there were similar personal attacks to those just witnessed directed at David Kemper and myself which helped caused the demise of this group. Frankly, I think it is better without those that think they own it, but nobody was compelled to leave. You are not clever in being able to make abusive and personal remarks. It does nothing to advance any argument you might have, and as anyone that knows me will confirm, it will not cause me to deviate from the issues. However, to answer some of the naive points raised in the typically pejorative manner: The BCU Child Protection Policy (and poster!) contain the following: "If you have any concerns that a child may be experiencing any form of abuse, it must be reported either to your appointed club officer or to the BCU Child Protection and Harassment Officer. Alternatively, any concerns can be reported to Social Services, the Police or NSPCC Childline on 0800 800 500." The Police are only interested in matters of a criminal nature. Most of the issues that have been reported to me are of a coaching matter and should be addressed by the BCU. If they believe the matter to be of a criminal nature, it is /their/ duty to pass it on to the Police. Once reported to the BCU as the 'relevant authority', that should have been the end of my involvement, but BCU claims that the allegations have been 'fully investigated' are quite wrong and the matters are therefore not closed. The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse incident is unforgivable. As you claim you are satisfied with the BCU reply to your enquiry, how about sharing it with us? In my experience, their answers do not stand up to scrutiny. I am currently involved with a number of issues with the NSPCC - in particular how our so-called Child Protection Officer deals with reports of a child protection nature. Allan Bennett Not a fan of the gullible -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Allan Bennett wrote:
More of the same. I think, if you research the matter, you will find that there were similar personal attacks to those just witnessed directed at David Kemper and myself which helped caused the demise of this group. 'Personal attacks' didn't casue the demise of anything. They're ten-a-penny on usenet when discussions get heated, as they did on UKRBP. I'm not condoning this behaviour and am guilty of it myslef, but I don't see how it's particularly relevant here. The problem was you incessant posting of your views on the BCU et al. Even that would have been fine if you'd stuck to relevent threads, but you posted to and corrupted nearly every thread, you changed titles, you repeatdly posted the same Frankly, I think it is better without those that think they own it, but nobody was compelled to leave. In the first ten days of August there have been 10 posts: - 3 on the problems with the BCU - 6 on the problems with this group - 3 from the SCA access officer - 1 asking about campsites - 1 sad little content free troll in repsonse to the campsite question. Total number of posters, around seven. In what possible way is that better than the vibrant community that existed here before you started your spamming? I also take this opportunity to repeat my earlier question that you conveninetly ignored. If you issues with the BCU are so far reaching and important, why is the only place I've ever heard about them on a low traffic newsgroup like this? Nobody thought they owned it. It was the vast majority of posters who asked you (politley at first) to moderate (not stop!) your behaviour. In a fit of pig headed arrogance you ignored the majority view and look what happened. You're right in that no one was compelled to leave but somewhat niave in missing the fact that you made the group so intollerable and useless that they decided to leave and go elsewhere. Again, remember, not just a few folks but almost eveyone. You are not clever in being able to make abusive and personal remarks. I know that, I don't make abusive remarks in order to show that I'm clever, I do it becase I'm ****ed off at the demise of this newsgroup and blame you for it. As for complaining about personal abuse, as someone who has openly accused someone of child abuse on this group you have a bit of a cheek. There are, as you well know, correct procedures for handling suspicions or allegations of abuse. None of these suggests accusing someone by name on usenet! It does nothing to advance any argument you might have, and as anyone that knows me will confirm, it will not cause me to deviate from the issues. Allan, given that you utterly ignored the pleas, arguements and complaints of the vast majority of (now ex) contributers to this newsgroups, I have no expectations that you'll pay any attention to me. However, to answer some of the naive points raised in the typically pejorative manner: Hardly pejorative. I've been reading the same nonsense from you, on and off, for years so I The BCU Child Protection Policy (and poster!) contain the following: "If you have any concerns that a child may be experiencing any form of abuse, it must be reported either to your appointed club officer or to the BCU Child Protection and Harassment Officer. Alternatively, any concerns can be reported to Social Services, the Police or NSPCC Childline on 0800 800 500." So where does it mention public accusations on usenet? The Police are only interested in matters of a criminal nature. And "sexual abuse" (your words) is not a criminal nature? Most of the issues that have been reported to me are of a coaching matter and should be addressed by the BCU. If they believe the matter to be of a criminal nature, it is /their/ duty to pass it on to the Police. Rubbish! Amongst other things your own quote from the BCU poster contradicts this. You made allegations of sexual abuse and as a result were accused of wasting police time. So you take to posting the deatils to usenet. The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse incident is unforgivable. Allegedly - did you report the case or not, you should know. As you claim you are satisfied with the BCU reply to your enquiry, how about sharing it with us? In my experience, their answers do not stand up to scrutiny. It was three years ago Allan. I don't still have it. I was given details of a case number a police officer to contact if I had further questions. I left it at that. I am currently involved with a number of issues with the NSPCC Well I'd suggest that you put your efforts into that and leave usenet in peace. Think long term Allan - if you **** off and leave UKRBP in peace the numbers will build up again. That way, when you return in, say, five years time, they'll be lots of people to listen to your rantings rather than the dozen or so that there are now. Regards. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In message .com,
urchaidh writes Think long term Allan - if you **** off and leave UKRBP in peace the numbers will build up again. That way, when you return in, say, five years time, they'll be lots of people to listen to your rantings rather than the dozen or so that there are now. Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. So frankly, I suspect that for many people, pukka websites are what they expect to find or frequent (and Google's newsgroup access is no real substitute). I rather suspect that, even without Messrs Bennett and Kemper, this group would anyway now be a shadow of its original self. -- David Pearson |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
David Pearson wrote:
Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. So frankly, I suspect that for many people, pukka websites are what they expect to find or frequent (and Google's newsgroup access is no real substitute). I rather suspect that, even without Messrs Bennett and Kemper, this group would anyway now be a shadow of its original self. uk.rec.climbing is a shadow of its former self for (AFAICT) those reasons. No particular cancer on the group, folk just drifted off to web forums (with Work Of Stan user interfaces that aren't a shadow of a good newsreader). Others have fared better: uk.rec.cycling continues to thrive and grow, uk.rec.walking seems to be sustaining very well too. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. Interestingly, of the few other groups I have time to subscribe to, one lists 79 unread posts and the others 100+ - I began to subscribe to all at the same time - only UKRBP has died (effectively) - and Allan and David don't post to the others... Keith (not a fan of obsessive compulsives) ;-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Meredith" wrote in message ... Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. Interestingly, of the few other groups I have time to subscribe to, one lists 79 unread posts and the others 100+ - I began to subscribe to all at the same time - only UKRBP has died (effectively) - and Allan and David don't post to the others... Keith (not a fan of obsessive compulsives) ;-) It seems we still have a few lurkers reading even if they pretend to have gone away. Most other groups don't hold much interest for me, Keith. Paddling does. My kids paddle. I paddle. I'm involved with flat water competition paddling. I know most of the people in charge of competition paddling in the UK. I see what they get up to. I don't like what I see. I don't like the way money from outside has corrupted our sport. The money has become the focus rather than the participants. I don't like child abuse, especially in sports my kids are involved with, being covered up and effectively condoned. I lurk at several other groups, mainly transport related, but rarely post anything as I don't have the involvement or the inclination. To address your actual complaint; I'm very busy with work ATM, but if you let me know which groups you hang out at, I may see what I can do for you. :~) David, Not a fan of slow readers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"urchaidh" wrote in message oups.com... The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse incident is unforgivable. Allegedly - did you report the case or not, you should know. Allan did not report the incident to the police. I did. Police said to me they felt there was grounds for concern but as the victim declined to make a complaint and give a statement, they could not take action. They also stated that they were sure further incidents would occur and they would hope to be able to use the information I had given to them in a future prosecution. At no point did the police say I had wasted their time or that the accused was innocent. The BCU whitewashed the affair citing the lack of police action as the reason for not taking action themselves. So young people continue to be at risk because the BCU cover up for their employees.. Allan was falsely accused of "maliciously" reporting the matter to the police by another BCU employee, one whose job should be to investigate child abuse issues. That BCU employee knew it was I that reported the matter to the police because I reported it to him first. He tried to cover up his failure to take preventive action by saying Allan Bennett had reported the matter, knowing that Allan was already in the BCU's bad books, and less likely to be believed than myself. He also damaged the police investigation by warning potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions. David Not a fan of cover ups |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , David Kemper
wrote: [snip] He [MIKE DEVLIN] also damaged the police investigation by warning potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions. .... and did the police accuse /him/ of 'Wasting Police Time'? - the accusation that was falsely laid against me by Alan Laws (erstwhile BCU Chairman and proven liar) at a BCU AGM. Allan Bennett Not a fan of liars -- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Canoe & Dog Train among Cree & Salteux 1892 FA | General | |||
Just a few names... | General | |||
Toss your Spanish Olives overboard! | ASA |