Page 1 of 1

Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 11:39 am
by Cider Boys
Dear Valmarg

Who is this ‘fatso Prescott’ is it the same individual as 2 Jags Prescott or should that be 2 Sh*gs Prescott. If it is then he is the one hell bent on destroying our countryside.

I take it from your posting that you are not a ‘New Labour’ supporter then. The trouble is, is ‘Blue Labour’ going to be any different.

There is only one way to reduce the carbon emissions and that is to go Nuclear Power but have we left it too late?


Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 9:55 pm
by Anonymous
Hi Cider Boys,

Youv'e got it in one who I meant by fatso Prescott.

With regard to your comment on New Labour and Blue Labour, as Mr Shakespeare said many, many years ago "there's small choice in rotten apples."


Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 10:08 pm
by Tigger
Can we go back to the subject of rain please folks. Please feel free to start an entire thread on Mr Prescott if you wish............

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:41 pm
by nog

John Prescott

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 8:36 pm
by Anonymous
Why you have named this thread valmarg's opinion of John Prescott, I cannot imagine. I can't think of many people who think that he is much of a hero. I agree with the Matt cartoon on the front of last Thursday's Telegraph with regard to being his mistress, on balance, I would prefer to be thumped.

If you really want a rant, you can have one!!!

This site has gone downhill since it appointed it's 'moderators'. They have been given their peaked cap, and bit of authority, and its gone to their heads because there's nowt else in there to stop it.

I used to enjoy the banter on here, but it has become so unpleasant. My 'rant' was just objecting to the censorship.

There are a lot of oldtimers from this site that never visit nowadays, basically because they are bored with the don't do this, don't do that attitude.

Personally I find allotments4all a far superior site.

I don't think you will find that I am alone out here!


Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:57 pm
by pigletwillie
I am visiting less (no doubt to everybodies relief)as its becoming sterile and soulless. Debating is part of the fun and topics will naturally wander hither and thither AS DISCUSSION NATURALLY DOES.

The Sherrifs do what they need to do and do it well but have been put in a position of "teacher with a stick" if anybody dares breath out of topic. If people are scared off by healthy debate then they should do as PH says and dont read it, or rise above it.

The more you legislate the less people like it.

Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 11:02 pm
by sandersj89

May I remove my peaked cap for a moment, if not it wont make any difference to what I am about to say as I value the resource and the posters that we have here on this forum.

You ask why this thread has been notated with your name, I think it is simply the case you made certain comments about our esteemed Deputy PM, comments that added little to the original thread.

There have been a number of posts about staying on topic so it was thought your post would be better off as a stand alone one, hence it being moved. The reason behind “staying on topic” is a simple one. By doing so it makes it far easier for people to follow threads of interest to them without having to dig through loads of stuff nothing to do with the subject.

You also say that this site has gone downhill size moderators have been appointed., I really feel it is a shame you think that. As far as I am concerned the mods here take a very light touch approach. So far 99.9% of my “moderator” activity has been to remove offensive, pornographic posts. Most of which I am sure you have never seen. The three of us make every effort to remove such items as soon as we see them or they are brought to our attention.

Yes, recently there have been a number of minor spats but I really do believe these have been dealt with very well and to be honest a bit of lively debate has not hurt anyone.

You mention your objection to censorship……I could not agree more. But certain comments are unfounded and offensive. This board can be viewed by anyone, there is no age limit or a requirement to register, it is free to us the general public, therefore as a responsible and commercial operation I do not have a problem with “a light touch towards content management”.

All forums go through evolution, things change, contributors change, site management changes. Allotments 4 All has gone though a few rough patches in it’s time, I know as I have witnessed them there and I have posted there for far longer than here. But change is no bad thing.

I will stand by what I said a few weeks ago, this forum has a great deal to offer and can become a great resource, don’t let minor differences get in the way. Open discussion will make this a great resource to all fellow gardeners.

Subjects may not be black and white but keep your ears open and feel free to say what you think and we may all learn something! We all have something to offer, we may not all agree but lets keep it civil and open.

Finally can I say I hope you continue to post here....the more the merrier.

Best regards


Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 4:10 am
by Allan
I don't usually read this section at all but in an idle moment I have wandered down and my personal opinion is summed up in the phrases like
Too many chiefs, not enough indians
too many cooks spoil the broth.
The present holders of the posts have been appointed for reasons that have not been made public to me.As this Forum is motivated by a commercial concern they have the right to do so. However it may have come to the time where the mere contributors who are the lifeblood of the forum took a more active part in appointing the moderators.In particular I think the function of moderator is being compromised by too much active participation on the very subjects that they have to moderate. I believe that the two roles should be kept totally apart and that the moderator's role should be anonymous.In politics the speaker of the House of Commons is appointed by general approval but once elected is expected to become totally above the politics.


Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 8:33 am
by peter
Allan wrote:The present holders of the posts have been appointed for reasons that have not been made public to me.As this Forum is motivated by a commercial concern they have the right to do so. However it may have come to the time where the mere contributors who are the lifeblood of the forum took a more active part in appointing the moderators.Allan

Allan, you might not remember, but Mr Potato Head canvassed the site (by posting) asking for volunteers or nominations for moderators.

So your input was requested.

As for "not made public to me", might that statement have been better without the last two words?

Piglet, your contributions are missed, by me at any rate. This site does at least appear to have contributers who tend to read the whole thread before posting unlike the GYO forum.

Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:07 am
by Cider Boys
The complication is that it now appears I raised the post ‘Valmarg's view on John Prescott’. It was in fact a supportive response to Valerie’s posting to the ‘more on rain’ debate.

What ever way one cares to look at it, building thousands of homes for an ever increasing population will affect the environment and therefore the water situation.

Surely Valmarg's and my responses were more ‘on thread’ than the debate now, which is about the moderators’ role.

Just a thought.


Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 2:16 pm
by KGAdmin
For the sake of every's sanity and good manners - this topic is being closed.