Infracted for being uncivil.

Piliger

I posted today to the thread in "After hours" dealing with the verdict on Rolf Harris.

Many like me believe there is a witch hunt against a group of middle aged and older white celebs going on and that the police are following a political/feminist driven agenda. Especially with the arrival of a very aggressive feminist new prosecutor. Many are however afraid to speak up.

In recent trials it has been openly discussed in the british media that no evidence was offered. None. Again in this case I followed several legal bulletins that were issued throughout the trial and no evidence was offered again. Only people's claims, and when that is added to the appeals for anyone who had a claim to make should come forward, followed by 12 compensation claims today ... I believe my comments were justified and I also thought that 'after hours' applied a slightly lighter touch to it's modding.

I realise that my views are unpopular among a certain group of people, most of whom know nothing about the case or how it was conducted. But is being unpopular now unacceptable ? Being convicted has never been the be all and end all of justice. Many have been found innocent years later.

I made no reference to anyone on the thread and was not uncivil to anyone. I believe in equality of rights and not just the principle of every man accused must be guilty.

I feel the action against me was excessive and would appreciate if it would be reviewed.

Micky Dolenz

Hi Piliger,

I'll have a look at this for you. Time is not my friend right now so it may take a couple of days.

Have you contacted the mod who infracted your post?

Piliger

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Hi Piliger,

I'll have a look at this for you. Time is not my friend right now so it may take a couple of days.

Have you contacted the mod who infracted your post?

No hurry Micky. Yes, he said go ahead, by PM.

Piliger

It is deeply disappointing that I have been shut out of this discussion for over a month now by being ignored and not even given a fair hearing.

What is the point of a dispute resolution forum if we are just ignored ?

Micky Dolenz

Hi Piliger,

My sincere apologies. You weren't ignored, more of a slipping thorough the cracks. We are often over worked and always under staffed.

Lets get onto the matter at hand.

Piliger wrote: »

I posted today to the thread in "After hours" dealing with the verdict on Rolf Harris.

Many like me believe there is a witch hunt against a group of middle aged and older white celebs going on and that the police are following a political/feminist driven agenda. Especially with the arrival of a very aggressive feminist new prosecutor. Many are however afraid to speak up.

In recent trials it has been openly discussed in the british media that no evidence was offered. None. Again in this case I followed several legal bulletins that were issued throughout the trial and no evidence was offered again. Only people's claims, and when that is added to the appeals for anyone who had a claim to make should come forward, followed by 12 compensation claims today ... I believe my comments were justified and I also thought that 'after hours' applied a slightly lighter touch to it's modding.

I realise that my views are unpopular among a certain group of people, most of whom know nothing about the case or how it was conducted. But is being unpopular now unacceptable ? Being convicted has never been the be all and end all of justice. Many have been found innocent years later.

I made no reference to anyone on the thread and was not uncivil to anyone. I believe in equality of rights and not just the principle of every man accused must be guilty.

I feel the action against me was excessive and would appreciate if it would be reviewed.

Every thing you say above is pretty reasonable, and if you had said something similar on thread you would not have been infracted.

Here is the infracted post:

Piliger wrote: »

Another disgraceful and shameful case of a stictch up on an older white male by a misandrous criminal prosecution service.

Today 12 compensation claims were lodged and this is the real story that forms the motivations and heart of this campaign that has continued since the Savile claims.

No evidence is being brought to court. None whatsoever. Only the word of thesse accusers, mostly found as a result of the Police begging people to come forward and make accusations.

An amazing, talented and compassionate man is having his life destroyed and his family destroyed on the bonfire of modern hate filled feminism.

saying things like " Another disgraceful and shameful case of a stictch up on an older white male by a misandrous criminal prosecution service" is adding fire to an already contentious topic, although it isn't overly bad.

This comment is what pushes it over the line " destroyed on the bonfire of modern hate filled feminism." This is just inflammatory, whether or not you intended it to be, it certainly comes across like that.

The following 15 or so posts all reacted to your wording. So it's wasn't just the mods who thought it was inflammatory.

I see no reason to overturn the infraction on that basis. The thread ban is a different thing but since it's been a few weeks since the thread was posted on, it is probably best to leave it that way.

Again, I apologise for the tardiness in getting to this.

Piliger

Clearly the decision has been made.

My final response is simply to say that this is a wholly sexist and prejudiced decision that would not be made against a woman and I would like to appeal this decision.

Women are given free reign to label men as misogynist without limit. In other words they are given free reign to refer to men as woman hating, when the term applies. They are never ever accused of being inflammatory for that.

I have expressed the widely held view among many men fighting for equal rights that this was "Another disgraceful and shameful case of a stitch up on an older white male by a misandrous criminal prosecution service".

And now I am now told that that is inflammatory ?

I cannot understand how this is inflammatory ? These men are being completely rail-roaded without the court demanding any evidence. And the driver behind that is a misandrous criminal prosecutor. You may not agree with that opinion. But why on earth is it inflammatory ?

Why is it inflammatory to describe this when it is perfectly acceptable to have all kinds of authorities such as the police, judges and politicians accused of misogynist - or woman hating ?

I also said "destroyed on the bonfire of modern hate filled feminism." Modern feminism is now built on misandry as much as old society used to based on misogyny. That is clear and evident from all across the modern media and we men are fighting to stop this. Why are different rules applied to men than to women ?

Why is inflammatory to express our view in exactly the same language as women have, and are attacking men all across the world and media ? We are labelled as hate filled men, or misogynists on an hourly basis !

I cannot see any justification for the actions taken against me other than there being a completely and utterly different rule being applied to women posters. I, like many other men who are fighting for equal rights for men, are trying to raise the profile of these appalling court cases where a completely new legal standard is being introduced without any democratic approval. It is no longer necessary to produce any evidence against men accused of sexual crimes. All that is needed is some kind of 'plausible narrative'.

For years, decades even, women were fighting to get justice in the courts and in many other spheres. Yet now we men are being silenced because our language is not deemed appropriate, despite it being exactly the same language that women have been using, and are continuing to use.

Finally your statement that "The following 15 or so posts all reacted to your wording." smacks more of a mob mentality than anything else. There is a militant misandrous group baying for the blood of any man accused of any sex crime, and because they all pile in, this is now a justification of a man's voice to be banned.

BuffyBot

Oh please.

The verbosity doesn't disguise the issue here: the way you posted, and the content.

Upheld.