We’ve always encouraged people to leave comments on onlineFOCUS, but have hoped that those comments would be about local issues.
However in the last week or two there’s been a big increase in the number of comments that criticised individuals. We”ve had to do some drastic editing and in one case block a comment completely. That’s not merely because of the libel laws, but because of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.
Remember that this site gets thousands of visitors every month.
As a result we are changing the way the site operates – ALL comments will now be checked before they appear here.
If you wish to, you can disagree with what someone says, what they have written, how they have acted or how they have voted. But please DON’T make personal attacks on individuals – they will be blocked.
Chris, I can understand how some comments would be deemed offensive to certain individuals, however I have to say that most comments are positive even when critical!
By making all comments on this website subject to moderation will take away the very spontaneous nature of the subject. It will be another nail in the coffin of debate and open and transparent discussion. The ‘big brother’ syndrome will have won and we will not be able to put our point of view on this website unless it is positive in nature.
I can understand your position but it does not make it right!
Mike, it’s not exactly about being ‘offensive’. It’s not like a website run by a newspaper wehere people can more or less say anything and the paper only has to worry about a libel action.
The code of conduct for councillors states that ‘You must treat others with respect.’, it’s not clear what that means regarding comments here. But if a councillor breaches the code there is a possibility of being suspended for a few months. In fact there was a recent case at out district council standards board. It’s on pasge 7.8 below:
http://cmis.rochford.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=16686
The decision reached was :
The information available concerning a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was considered and it was agreed that:
(a) no action should be taken on the allegation
(b) the Monitoring Officer should make arrangements for appropriate training, in the next training cycle, to raise the awareness of all councillors of the ethical issues arising out of the use of websites for council matters.
Now, we may decide to leave our new policy in place, or get someone extra ‘on the team’ to logi n during the day and check for new comments, or we may wait for the advice from the training session.
I didn’t like having to change the policy, it’s affected the ambience of the site, but for the protection of us three councillors, we need it , at least for now
Chris, it is difficult when you talk about respect, where do you draw the line? Can you not be critical of a body or person if you feel it is required? These people are put here to represent us, not their party. I differentiate between national parties and local authorities. I vote on national policies for the party that best represents my view, however at a local level I will vote for the party that represents what I believe in, the two do not have to be the same party.
If I do not believe that my local party, in power, does not represent the views of the majority of the people in this district, does this mean we cannot speak out on our views?
Do we have to resort to Facebook or Twitter to put our views into the public domain?
The Ethics Committee must realise that not all Councillors are ‘precious’ and should not have critical comments levied against them where justified.
This is blatant censorship and prevents us, the electorate, from making comments about those that WE voted in, and quiet frankly some the Councillors are worthy of mention in their irresponsible way they work for the people of Rochford District.
You may come under the Code of Conduct for Councillors, but we do not, and therefore are not subject to the same policies as you are. 99% of the time people are respectful of each other – Greenbelt and myself have had run ins on this website in the past, but still respect their opinion and will back them when I agree with a comment they have posted (will this be censored because I have mentioned someone’s name?)
What is the point of having a website that encourages debate, which will naturally not be views welcomed by everyone, I have to say that personally, if my views and opinions are going to be subject to censorship, I won’t be posting my views or opinions.
One last thought – libel is defined as “the publication of something false which damages a person’s reputation” A comment is posted about someone that is based on fact – then neither this website nor the author of the post are subject to claims of committing libel.
I am sorry to hear this has happened.This was(and hopefully still is)a great site for open local debate.
I have looked at the report and see that the complaint dates back to July so this probably confirms what I have heard.If so this does not relate to other councillors or individuals recently but to the comments made about the proposed Sure Start Centre at Downhall School which did become personal.
I do hope this gets published as I just wanted to let Mike and Cjav know where this has probably come from and did not want them “barking up the wrong tree” as it were.
Thank you Pixie, you ae quite accurate in your surmise… the complaint involved comments made by people who I don’t think were onlinefocus regulars, made about someone who was neither a district councillor or district council employee.
Guys, there is a training session for councillors arranged for October 28th entitled “Introduction to Social Media’ that will hopefuly explain to us what guidelines we can follow.
But in the meantime When we let people leave comments here we are effectively acting as a publisher, and bear some responsibility.
As far as I can see , under the code of conduct, we can:
– criticise organisations – e.g. political parties or councils as a whole. (e.g. ‘The xxxx Party have a complete;ly wrong set of priorities’ or ‘the council needs to take street clensing more seriously)
– criticise the voting decisions or speeches or attendance recaords or actions of an individual councillor. (e.g. something like ‘Cllr Bloggs was wrong in voting against an ice rink for Canewdon because….. ‘ or “I see that Cllr Bloggs was absent from an important meeting that affected his ward, I hope there is a reason for that’ or “wben Cllr Bloggs said he didn’t want an ice rink he showed his priorities were all wrong’ ) But not attack a Councillors character.
-criticise a recommendation made by an officer (the officers were wrong recommend approving these flats because…)But NOT attack their character OR their conduct.
So basically it’s about not attacking people personally. It’s not much different from the workplace, where I can disagree with a colleague’s decision but NOT attack them personally.
Does this make any more sense?
Surely on an open somewhat political forum you have to instigate some form of comment review before things are posted, or at least have a very quick way of others reporting problem comments.
I’m happy with the so called ‘censorship’ it seems a sensible thing to do ALL the time anyway. I think those who fulfil the admin function on here have done a super job and I’m happy with the wide variety of comments that these guidelines will allow them to pass.
Thanks for the efforts, it’s a good forum.
Admin, Thank you for explaining this in greater detail. One of the reasons I like this site is that there are very few unpleasent comments on here. Elsewhere I have put off of commenting on blogs because they descend into personal attacks on personalities, the host or often fellow commenters. This ends of overshadowing any constructive debate.
Having consulted Rochford District Council myself, because I was unaware that a complaint had been made against a Member of Rochford District Council until I received the Agenda and papers for the Standards Commttee, what this seems to mean is as follows. These are my own words and interpretation.
“A councillor who owns a web site is not only responsible and accountable in Law as a publisher himself/herself but that councillor is also responsible and accountable for the publication of comments other than by her/himself to a higher standard than that of an ordinary person by virtue of being the web site owner and councillor because he or she has to also apply the Code of Conduct to the publication as it would if the comments by another had been made/published by himself/herself.”
This means that I have no choice but to put my own site rochfordessex.com under moderation as well.
Pixie, my comments were not meant for Chris or anyone else who looks after the website. The comments were meant for those who have put unwarranted pressure on Chris. Apologies if my comments were mistaken as such. As for those others, they should be ashamed of themselves!
Mike, I’m delighted that some people think this website is worth caring about 🙂
Debate is essential for the site, please keep the comments coming!
Chris, it is a credit to you and the other custodians of this website that so many people value this facility to make their honest beliefs heard. I still believe that if you have to moderate all comments it will take the spontaneous element of this debate away. This is not your fault but I also believe that because we have been able to voice our concerns through this medium it has unsettled some people who have an aversion to criticism. Maybe this is the only way they can protect themselves from criticism, even if the comments are valid? It is unsettling though, that a website as popular as this can be cut down to the point of mandatory moderation!
Mike, none of the people you might be thinking of are putting pressure on me in any way!. The code of conduct is a national thing….
Many blogs have reactive moderation – that is, people can complain about a post they think break the rules, and the post is then suspended temporarily until an admin can assess it. Does WordPress allow this? Would that cover your responsibility as a councillor?