Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Methinkshe

Need Help. Google Cache. Mods, Please Leave For A While.

Recommended Posts

I have been conducting a debate on Paul Flynn MP's blog about the next Speaker.

He has entitled a blog entry "MPs Know Best"

Unsurprisingly, this raised my hackles.

However, my hackles have been even further raised by his editing of one of my posts.

I said I had kept copies of all my posts, but this particular one has disappeared because I am having problems with my mouse freezing and thus am losing information.

Can anyone help re Google cache? I know my original, unadulterated post existed for a time on the blog. But next time I looked it had been edited.

The argument with Paul Flynn can be found via the following links - my initial posts and his attempts to take the mick.

Runners and Odds for Commons Speaker

MPs know best

Btw, I am posting as RPC on the blog.

I am really cross that my posts have been edited and then presented as my personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert on google cache but a search on "The election of Bercow" turns up a link on google

and looking at the cache version (dated "14 Jun 2009 06:34:00 GMT.") which looks like the one on his

site to a cursory look. The time is spookily close to the posting time .

I looked at the waybackmachine but that doesnt seem to do recent (dont know if it ever did).

sorry if that was too simplistic .

rockhopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely it's his site, he can do what he wants.

Sure, like change the comments of a poster to suit his ideology or whatever?

Where are you coming from?

Would you like your comments on HPC to be edited and changed by a moderator without any indication of same?

Get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you like your comments on HPC to be edited and changed by a moderator without any indication of same?

It's a private site, they can do what they want. You could start your own newspaper and distribute it, or start a

website and say whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a private site, they can do what they want. You could start your own newspaper and distribute it, or start a

website and say whatever you want.

By editing it he put methink's moniker against something he wrote

He should not write things and claim others are writing them, it's dishonest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a private site, they can do what they want. You could start your own newspaper and distribute it, or start a

website and say whatever you want.

So you include within that remit of a private site the right to edit a comment by a poster/contributor.

Thus, if I were to comment on the site in question that Paul Flynn is a total banker, you would find it acceptable if he were to edit the comment, and continue to attribute it to to me, to read: Paul Flynn is an amazing banker.

Duh??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a private site, they can do what they want. You could start your own newspaper and distribute it, or start a

website and say whatever you want.

Does he pay for it or is it paid for with expenses? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does he pay for it or is it paid for with expenses? :rolleyes:

Who knows?

All I know at the moment is that I'm pretty peed off that my comment has been edited and displayed as though it were mine. I did not say what Paul Flynn has posted as my comment. He has edited it and totally changed the meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
By editing it he put methink's moniker against something he wrote

He should not write things and claim others are writing them, it's dishonest

Our 'free press' are founded on this principle: selective quotations; a little editing here and there; ignore a few salient facts which don't fit the party-line, and voila! today's Daily Mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
It's a private site, they can do what they want. You could start your own newspaper and distribute it, or start a

website and say whatever you want.

If this site is putting itself out there as being a public forum, then by covertly editing someone's post, it is deliberately deceiving people

You may think such deception is of little consequence

I would wager you will be hard pushed to find anyone who would agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our 'free press' are founded on this principle: selective quotations; a little editing here and there; ignore a few salient facts which don't fit the party-line, and voila! today's Daily Mail.

Whilst I agree with what you say, this is not my complaint.

I am saying that Paul Flynn has actually CHANGED my post so that it is completely different from the comment I posted - yet this has been done without any acknowledgement of same, and with a continued attribution of the edited post to me, as though they were my words. They are not. They have been adulterated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I know at the moment is that I'm pretty peed off that my comment has been edited and displayed as though it were mine. I did not say what Paul Flynn has posted as my comment. He has edited it and totally changed the meaning.

I wouldn't worry about it too much from here on, you have already made the important point and drawn attention to the bad taste and contempt personified in the phrase 'MPs know best' given the revelations in expenses this year. I don't think his editing of your posts diminishes the point you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Man, you really shouldn't trust these crooks, don't say you weren't warned, it does say "MP" at the top. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't worry about it too much from here on, you have already made the important point and drawn attention to the bad taste and contempt personified in the phrase 'MPs know best' given the revelations in expenses this year. I don't think his editing of your posts diminishes the point you made.

Yes, thankyou, and I agree.

But that doesn't really address the point that one's comments to an MPs blog (an MP, don't forget is supposed to represent we, the electorate) may be edited and made to look....well....whichever way the editor finds most conducive......but altogether altering the thrust of the initial comment.

That stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this site is putting itself out there as being a public forum, then by covertly editing someone's post, it is deliberately deceiving people

You may think such deception is of little consequence

I would wager you will be hard pushed to find anyone who would agree with you

Thanks, Steve,

For once we find ourselves in total agreement!

Long may we continue to find areas of agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am no expert on google cache but a search on "The election of Bercow" turns up a link on google

and looking at the cache version (dated "14 Jun 2009 06:34:00 GMT.") which looks like the one on his

site to a cursory look. The time is spookily close to the posting time .

I looked at the waybackmachine but that doesnt seem to do recent (dont know if it ever did).

sorry if that was too simplistic .

rockhopper

Can you help any further by, say, posting the earliest version of my comment?

Would be very grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant see anything on the page that says what the posting policy is - tho I didnt look very hard.

clearly he should not edit your post - unless he specifically says he may do that ?

are the posts queued for moderation or instantly displayed ?

I'm a human and make mistakes , and it could easily be that you had finger or mouse troubles

and what you thought you sent was not what you actually sent . ... dons asbestos cloak and hides :P

rockhopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this site is putting itself out there as being a public forum, then by covertly editing someone's post, it is deliberately deceiving people

"putting itself out there as being a public forum" how on earth is a private web site equal to a public forum?. Your mistake would soon

become clear when defamation occours.

Somebody creates a paper, or website or television station, they don't put themselves outthere as a public forum. The BBC will edit

or alter comments as they see fit, as will any media.

The exact complaint of comments being edited just proves the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you help any further by, say, posting the earliest version of my comment?

Would be very grateful.

crossed in the post :lol:

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:p6fkSH...lient=firefox-a

header of the cached version :

---------------------------------------------------

This is Google's cache of http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2...115710b7c87970b. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 14 Jun 2009 06:34:00 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only version

These search terms are highlighted: the election of bercow

snip

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be a foolhardy House of Commons that, having aroused public anger with the expenses scandal, continued to rub their collective nose in the dirt by engaging in party one-upmanship through electing the next Speaker purely on the basis of annoying the party opposite: i.e. the public would not take kindly to the election of John Bercow as Speaker. Especially since they have made clear (YouGov poll) that their preference is for Anne Widdecombe - an MP known to, and trusted by, the public.

MPs could do a lot worse than mollifying the public by electing Widders; and, who knows, such a choice could even be the beginning of restoring public confidence in democracy; after all, MPs would, for once, be representing their contituents' wishes instead of indulging their own bloated egos.

Moreover, Ann Widdecombe would make a very fine Speaker. She'd do a "Mary Poppins" and have the House of Commons licked into shape spit-spot, would stand no nonsense, would be a firm hand on the tiller of the wayward boat that is parliamentary procedure, and would generally be an uplifting presence in the Speaker's chair.

The election of Bercow would simply cause the public even more disillusionment (if that were possible) with politics in general and MPs in particular - they wouldn't easily forgive the blatant display of inter-party bickering that would be evidenced by dragging him to the Chair.

MPs have been presented with a golden opportunity to begin the process of redemption in the public's eyes. It would be nice to think that they had enough common sense and consideration for their country to outweigh any personal and party interest. They should take the proffered olive branch in the form of electing Anne Widdecombe to the Speakership, and in so doing begin to make amends for their grotesque display of nest-lining, vis a vis the expenses scandal, and the democratic deficit that has developed since party interest, aided and abetted by the Whips, has superceded individual conscience and constituents' wishes.

Posted by: RPC | June 14, 2009 at 06:35 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

let me know if there owt else

rockhopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see anything on the page that says what the posting policy is - tho I didnt look very hard.

clearly he should not edit your post - unless he specifically says he may do that ?

are the posts queued for moderation or instantly displayed ?

I'm a human and make mistakes , and it could easily be that you had finger or mouse troubles

and what you thought you sent was not what you actually sent . ... dons asbestos cloak and hides :P

rockhopper

My problem is that I posted a comment that has since been changed. I thought I had retained a copy but I have actually lost it.

I know that the original version of my comment existed for a time on the blog. I just wondered whether it was recapturable.

Believe me, it was very different - a whole sentence has been deleted and replaced with a sentence beginning with a capitaised "YOU".

As a writer by persuasion, if not profession, I am constantly aware of the use of capitals and italicisation to make a point. I try to use them sparingly and properly - to add an emphasis that would be present in an oral transmission and not to express anger. It is one of the reasons why I eschew the use of emoticons - I have this hope that I can (for the most part) express myself in words and without the need for added emotional symbols.

But even if that is just a fond belief, I know for a certainty that I would never begin a sentence with a capitalised: "YOU....." I further know that there is a whole sentence that has been deleted.

I'd be grateful if anyone could help me to recover my initial post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
"putting itself out there as being a public forum" how on earth is a private web site equal to a public forum?. Your mistake would soon

become clear when defamation occours.

Somebody creates a paper, or website or television station, they don't put themselves outthere as a public forum. The BBC will edit

or alter comments as they see fit, as will any media.

Quite, the following :-

"I f****g hate the way the government runs the trains, schools and hospitals and favour the latest Tory proposals, that said you have to love the government for always shooting itself in the foot, not matter how hard they try"

Soon becomes :-

"I f****g hate the Tories, and you have to love the government for always trying hard"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched with a few of the keywords, and googles cached version of the blog is currently the snapshot at 15 Jun 2009 13:51:11 GMT - I have no idea if this is before or after the time you reckon it was edited -

I searched "mps know best paul flynn blog", and looked at the second entry in the organic search results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
Quite, the following :-

"I f****g hate the way the government runs the trains, schools and hospitals and favour the latest Tory proposals, that said you have to love the government for always shooting itself in the foot, not matter how hard they try"

Soon becomes :-

"I f****g hate the Tories, and you have to love the government for always trying hard"

Whereas the Daily Mail simply removes your 'rights' to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.