[Imc-uk-features] Re: [imc-sheffield] Hidden - What!!??

[chip]

hi

atw said:

> I don't get what all the fuss is about this article. It doesn't seem
> to be opinion but very factual made up of figures rather than rant.

so just because somebody quotes some statistics that makes an article
'very factual' - 97.5% of people i've questioned think that's sh*te, mate.

> Now there seems to be some question over the accuracy of these
> figures. Do we know for sure they are wrong? If so then we could hide
> the post as has been done, or, maybe better to make a correction to
> the figures as a comment.

seeing as we seem to like quoting famous people, "there are lies, damn
lies and statistics" (Winston Churchill) - sex offenders have been living
in society since time began.  to say that there are 90 in south yorkshire
is not news.  what does 'very high risk' mean - is there really such a
legal definition?  i'll try to get hold of someone from the Probation
Service and ask them to take this article apart.

> However another comment says they are unverfiable. Well unless we have
> a new guideline that I don't know about then that's not a reason to
> hide it. Loads of Indymedia stuff is unverifiable. Verification comes
> through leaving it up and seeing what others say about it.

what i find particularly offensive about this article is the prurient and
sensationalist tone that it takes: 'danger on our streets', 'sex offenders
living on our streets', 'very high risk', these offenders have 'broken
rules' (getting a parking ticket or something like that could be a breach
of their sentence conditions).

as for leaving it up, many people might not scroll all the way down and
see what comments have been made and the site would have the title 'Danger
On Our Streets' clearly visible on the front page for quite a while.

> Also peeps are saying it is promoting vigilatism? Where - which line?
> I don't see that at all?

i think it's implied by the tone of 'offenders on _our_ streets' and 'the
figures speak for themselves' - here a call to direct action is implied to
get 'them' off 'our streets'.

> However it is also true that lots of IMC article do the same. Is not
> direct action a form of vigilatism?

No - please read Chris' definition.

> Again we don't have anything agreed on this - its not part of the
> guidelines and so not a reason for hiding.

i quoted the parts of the guidelines which i felt and still feel were
relevant - interpreting those guidelines will never be an exact science.

> Finally we are supposed to wait 24 hours before hiding stuff so
> everyone gets a chance to see if they agree. Now, I know I hid that
> comment immediately the other day but I think that falls into the
> obvious/extreme case (a woman with dildo in her gob) where we agreed
> we can waive the 24 hr rule occasionally. This seems to me, and
> judging by the debate, far more borderline so for that reason I think
> the 24 hour should apply.

i felt and still believe that there are particularly strong grounds for
hiding this post immediately.

remember this is a country where the houses of *paediatricians* have been
firebombed because local people have heard that there is a 'menace lurking
on their streets'.

> Therefore I think the article should stay up, at least till 13.00
> tomorrow when we've had a chance to resolve the debate.

i wouldn't wait 24 hours to hide something that was racist and i would put
this kind of article in the same sort of category of distaste.  i would
not be suprised, in actual fact, if this had been posted by the BNP who
love to whip up this sort of hysteria.

> Finally I agree with nicks comments below... if we want Indymedia to
> break out of its activist ghetto then we are going to have to put up
> with some stuff we don't necessarily agree with or like.

well, as i have advised dan then you had best work on changing the Mir
platform, or the guidelines which we try to work to that are there not to
suppress free speech but to try to elicit a level of quality of news which
the Indymedia site carries.

> cheers
>
> steve

cheers

chip
-- 
http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk